ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Not open for further replies.


Merely Christian
I dunno how you arrived at your conclusions, you don't care to share, so your accusations about Mr. Enyart are just going to hang there.


It's your belief.


New member
I dunno how you arrived at your conclusions, you don't care to share, so your accusations about Mr. Enyart are just going to hang there.


It's your belief.
It's mine as well, Ninevah. Bmyers cited the two main motifs apparent in Enyart's writing. Here's evidence.

Woeful ignorance (of the nature of absolutes)

Deliberate deception (on the complex nature of his God)

And the debate's not over. I've replied to his challenge. We'll see if he takes the bait. But honestly, it's like dealing with an unruly student in the back of the class. What do you do with a college dropout who thinks he knows more about physics than Hawkings?

Congratulations on your sound thrashing of Bob.

His sniping against you was predictable .. remember he is in this to make a $.. you on the other hand are merely trying to provide honest (well researched I might add) opinion..

I wonder who Jesus would be more impressed with if he was still around ?


New member
I'd love to have had the chance to know the real Jesus, Aussiethinker, he sounds like he was my kind of guy. It's not his fault if most of what we could have known about him was burned at the Council of Nicea. Have you ever checked out any of the non-canonical gospels?

Even as an atheist I cannot deny my fascination with Jesus. I have the feeling he was a “Ghandi” of his time.. preaching non-violent resistance to the Romans.

For whatever reason you care to put it down to you cannot deny he was the most famous human ever.

I worry about a lot of the spin doctoring by Paul to make Christianity acceptable to the Roman and Greek world but it seems irrefutable that Jesus was a remarkable man.

By the same token I would have like to have met Buddha, Confucius and several hundred other characters from history.


New member
Ya know, Aussie,

I really wonder how non-violent he was. There's that thing with Peter slicing off an ear with a sword. Where'd the sword come from? The entire holy land was in a state of constant rebellion at the time.

Read everything you can find about the Council of Nicea, it was a bloodbath. I'll go look for some links. In any case, I've no confidence at all in the texts eventually accepted. The dissidents were dead. The ones left to vote had to have known what the likely outcome would be if they dissented as well. The canonical gospels in particular are suspect if for no other reason than because they had to pass the censors of pagan Rome.

Constantine didn't become a christian himself until the end of his life. Before that, he was just holding on to Jesus as his personal war god. And look what he did to christianity because of his native religion. He moved the Jewish sabbath to the pagan Sun-day! Doh!

I find it remarkable that the vast majority of the epistles accepted into the canon at the roman council were written by Paul, the roman. I'm not a fan of Paul.


New member
Oh, and by the way, Aussie,

You do realize that Gandhi took his non-violent philosophy from the Jainists, don't you? The Jainists sprang up as a popular alternative to a Buddhism that had become more and more entrenched as an elite discipline of the monasteries. Buddha was known, much like Jesus, for the topical nature of his talks. He related to the common folk. As his religion became more and more an academic discipline after his death, it was eventually marginalized in India by the more emotionally charged practices of Hinduism. The Jainists took the lesson and are still a popular and political force in India. Buddhism left for greener pastures in the far east.

Machine's telling me I've got to install a Java update, back in a bit.


It’s hard to read between the lines and Pauls spin but I get the impression Jesus was personally a non-violent type.

He and His movement were however particularly anti-Roman.. not uncommon in Judea.. they were always a pain in the rear end to the Romans.

He was executed in a way that the Romans particularly reserved for Dissidents, Rebels and Terrorists.. designed to send a message to the rest of the population.

Does this implies that Jesus was violent.. I don’t think so. It implies that his group could resort to violence and as a growing sect that was anti-Roman it was not to be tolerated.

The Jesus Church survived in Jerusalem but was part of the Judean rebellions eventually crushed by Vespasian. The original church was anti-Roman and admonished Paul several times for softening their message and making it less of a Jewish religion. When the Romans destroyed the Jesus Church in Jerusalem it gave Paul carte blanche to mould the religion to his liking.

I didn’t like Paul much either but you cannot dispute his talent and effectiveness !


New member
That kinda goes without saying, Aussie, if he was untalented and ineffective, I wouldn't have any reason to dislike him. But that was back in the days before broadcast media, when you had to talk to people mostly one on one.
Just like to take a look at Bob’s neat little end conclusions:

BE: We Know God Exists: because:
1. the universe could not always have been here, nor could it have made itself from nothing

We don’t know that at all. Further more the same can be said for God.. he could not have always existed or could not have made himself.

2. even the basic functions of biological life are irreducibly and wildly complex and could not originate by the laws of physics

The basic functions of life follow the laws of physics ALWAYS. Pleas name me ONE that doesn’t. Why does complexity imply a God anyway ?

3. consciousness, that is, self-awareness is non-physical and could not arise from atoms and molecules[/quote}

So says Bob !.. self awareness is a result of having a large enough brain. Even Cats and Dogs are self aware.. they know it themselves in the mirror. Our consciousness is just a result of an evolutionary process that provided us with high intelligence. Why is God implied by it ?

4. only a moral God can account for absolute right and wrong and the human conscience

Absolute right and wrong are human invented concepts .. just like God. I always find it just a little hilarious when morals are attributed to a God instead of man.. when man made up the God in the first place.

5. the laws of physics cannot account for broad and extraordinary features of the solar system

Yes they can.. we just need to learn them all. The ridiculous “coincidences” in the Solar system don’t even line up exactly like Bob declares they do.. his “extraordinary” features are full of ALMOST ½ and NEARLY 40 % etc etc. As we find out more about other Solar systems it seems there are perfectly natural explanations for solar system shape and formation and features.

6. even if evolution were possible, apart from supervision, even the simplest proteins would each require trillions of years to form

Bob thinks this because of his failed attempt at mathematics. No wonder he dropped out of his course. Time and time again I have told him he fails to take into account no of iterations and the locking in place of beneficial results.

7. human behavior indicates the existence of the soul and spirit and the real existence of ideas indicate the existence of a non-physical reality

Human behvious indicates and intelligent being who has empathy for fellow humans and strives to understand or provide reasons for natural happenings. When reason aren’t forthcoming humans have generally opted for Gap Gods.

8. higher biological functions like sight, flight, and echo-location are so wildly and irreducibly complex they could not evolve in stages

I fully explained how all these functions not only occurred naturally but how we still have intermediate forms in existence today of all the necessary steps.

9. apart from the existence of God, logic and reason have no foundation, and thus leading atheists deny the objective nature of the laws of logic

Logic and reason are human concepts formed by our large intelligence as tools to explain our universe. Again it is ironic that a human could claim that a human invention implies a God (which is another human invention) exists !

10. God has revealed Himself uniquely in the Bible and confirmed its claims through scientific statements, prophecies, and many other wonderful proofs that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that those who trust in Him will have everlasting life.

God is written about in the Bible and a hundred other religious mythologies. He is written about by MAN who is making up stories. Most of us stopped believing fairy tales after kindergarten. The need for “everlasting” life is what drives man to fall prey to the fantasy of a God !


+OL remote satellite affiliate


+OL remote satellite affiliate
Wow, I just did a search for my handle to see what I might have been missing on the boards, and look at what I found Jim saying to Knight about me. Jim (Hilston) does not have a chip on his shoulder, it’s more like mount Rushmore.

Knight then writes: "Is it within you to be responsive to others?"

Anyone who reads my posts knows (and many have complained) that my problem is NOT a lack of response, but rather that I respond TOO much, to nearly each and every point, dissecting line-by-line. Knight knows this is true, but he intimates otherwise by his question. Is there any excuse for his behavior? Why would Knight imply such a lie by this question?

Knight then builds himself up, against all evidence to the contrary, and says, "I patiently answer your questions."

He doesn't. I can prove it. Anyone who reads our debates can see for themselves. Knight is evasive. Knight is a hypocrite. Not only does he NOT patiently answer questions, he is NOT patient when it comes to waiting for a reply. His most recent post to me is a perfect example.

Knight then calls me rude for answering a question with a question. It is noteworthy that Jesus did the same thing (Mk 11:27-30).

Don’t get too close, you might get some on you. – 1Way

So, Knight, after all we've been through together, I come to this conclusion: You make me sick. :vomit: I now know that I should no longer get my hopes up whenever you jump into a discussion. It might start out interesting, but you never fail to disappoint me. I've gotten to the point that getting an e-mail notice of response from Knight just makes me groan before I even read your response. You make me sick. :vomit: It doesn't even seem to concern you that you don't understand the view you so vehemently oppose, misrepresenting well-established theological thought on the subject. There is so much out there to read that you could actually have an accurate view of what you oppose. But instead, you seem content to simply misrepresent those views; there really is no excuse for you. "Closed theist"? Do you often just invent terms willy nilly to call your imaginary opponents? You create straw men, you misrepresent the views of members of your forum, you deliberately sow discord, you spew hypocritical admonitions, and you blatantly lie. You make me sick. :vomit: Poly chimes in and makes this month's prize-winning inane comment, and you agree with her. Why? I suspect it was because it was said against me. She could have said, "Hilston looks like a goober because of his silly blonde hairdo," and I wouldn't have been surprised if you responded, "Yeah! Right on, Poly. What a blonde-headed goober!" You've done this several times before. The pinnacle example was when 1Way posted one of his most fatuously illogical responses to me, and it was deemed Post of the Day by you! I had to re-read it to see what I had missed, and the fact is, he was failing to understand the points he was arguing against, contradicting himself several times in the process. Post of the Day?!?! You make me sick. :vomit: It wasn't post of the day because of lucid argument and compelling logic. I suspect it was post of the day because it was anti-Hilston. And before you accuse me of thinking "it's all about me", or that I'm just being paranoid or self-important, look at your signature, hypocrite. The worst part of all is I think you actually know this. You actually know that your charges and accusations against me are false. You liar. You hypocrite. You make me sick. :vomit:

As to that response I was going to send tonight, this replaces it. And I won't ask you any more questions, Knight. And did I mention that you make me sick? You really do. You make. me. sick.

Especially noteworthy is my observation that Hilston does indeed respond too indepth, only not quite as he put it, he rips apart the meaning conveyed by cutting up your precept upon precept into oblivion. I think it is rather convenient for him to suddenly disappear, and also rude to drop out of his own thread with ongoing discussions without even saying why. I guess if you are not well suited up with truth and understanding, critical confrontation can be unpleasant. I hope Hilston will get better soon.


New member
Originally posted by Dread Helm

Taoist, Aussie Thinker, and Hilston. You all make me Sick. :vomit:

I find it interesting that you lump in Histon with those unbelievers and God-haters. That makes me sick.


Star-Spangled Kid
Hilston's a Calvinist, Clete. That's what makes DH sick. And it makes me sick, as well. Christine appears to be one, as well. She's definitely not an Open Theist.


Active member
Don't forget that I also drink the blood of Open Theists and their babies.

The Most Holy Father Vicar of Christ Monsignor High Priest Rabbi Guru Pope Hilston, Ph.D., Th.D., LMNOP

And don't stare at my avatar if you know what's good for you.


New member
I think DH should have posted that in the "Calvy's make me mad" thread.

HILSTON! Why didn't you warn me about not stairing at your avatar earlier? Now I have a headache on the left side of my head.
Not open for further replies.