Carl's Jr. makes me sick...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shimei
Did you believe in instant healing?

I witnessed what appeared to be several spontaneous healings, yes. At the time I misattributed them to divine effort. Later follow-up on each case showed other extenuating circumstances.

Could you please explain the whole scam to "Freak" then?

I've tried explaining things to Jay for years. He will only believe what he wishes. We usually end up talking past each other. Remember, he has a lot of ego invested in this whole healing/deliverance issue. It's wrapped up in how he defines himself. Were he to be shaken lose from that belief, he would have to re-define his entire persona, a daunting task for most people. It's something most people avoid like the plague.

 

[Servo]

Originally posted by Zakath

I've tried explaining things to Jay for years. He will only believe what he wishes. We usually end up talking past each other. Remember, he has a lot of ego invested in this whole healing/deliverance issue. It's wrapped up in how he defines himself. Were he to be shaken lose from that belief, he would have to re-define his entire persona, a daunting task for most people. It's something most people avoid like the plague.

I think you are correct on that one.

 

[Zakath]

So now I just spend our time together jerking his chain... :devil:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Zakath
Debating with a media personality is generally a waste of everyone's time.

Is that why you agreed to the debate in the first place?

 

[Servo]

Originally posted by Turbo


If so, in what way do you find dispensationalism to be in error?

Zakath,
Yea, what do think of dispensationalism with regard to miracles occurring today?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
Is that why you agreed to the debate in the first place?

No, I agreed because you asked me nicely and I was hoping to help you boost TOL's readership.

If I had known beforehand that it would line Enyart's pocket, I would have turned you down flat. :doh:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
You mentioned that you could have "waved the dispensational wand to banish such difficulties." Have you studied/investigated dispensationalism?

If so, in what way do you find dispensationalism to be in error?

Generally I think it is a contrivance by certain Christian theologians to deal with the YHWH's apparent periodic changes of direction, detailed in the Christian Bible. I find it fascinating that Jews don't seem to give dispensationalist theory much credit, even though 5 of the 7 traditional dispensations allegedly occur in their texts... :think:

Of course, Jews don't believe in the concept of "Original Sin" either. :chuckle:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
If I had known beforehand that it would line Enyart's pocket, I would have turned you down flat. :doh:

Originally posted by Knight well before BR-VII began
RULE ADDITION #8
By agreeing to participate in a Battle Royale you also agree to allow your Battle to be reprinted or reused in full or in part by TheologyOnLine and it's various entities. In short... Battle Royales belong to TheologyOnLine and can be reprinted only with prior approval from TheologyOnLine.

Did you not read and understand the rules before the debate began?

Why not line your own pockets while taking business away from Enyart? You were specifically invited to publish or publicize the debate yourself after the fourth round. Have you publicized the debate in any way?

(I have.)

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
Generally I think it is a contrivance by certain Christian theologians to deal with the YHWH's apparent periodic changes of direction, detailed in the Christian Bible.

You have not answered my question, "in what way(s) do you find dispensationalism to be in error?" You just briefly defined it, and call it "a contrivance." How about some specifics?

I find it fascinating that Jews don't seem to give dispensationalist theory much credit, even though 5 of the 7 traditional dispensations allegedly occur in their texts... :think:

Of course, Jews don't believe in the concept of "Original Sin" either. :chuckle:

Was that an argument from authority? Oh well, most Jews also reject their Messiah.

 

[Jefferson]

Zakath: As a noncharimatic myself, I'm curious to know what you attribute charismatic tongues to.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
Did you not read and understand the rules before the debate began?

The rule read this way

"...you also agree to allow your Battle to be reprinted or reused in full or in part by TheologyOnLine and it's various entities. "

After reading for years that TOL and Enyart are not related, I found it disingenuous, at best that BEL (Enyart's organization) now has copyrights to somehting reserved to "TheologyOnLine and it's various entities."

So when did BEL become one of TOL's "entities"?

Why not line your own pockets while taking business away from Enyart? You were specifically invited to publish or publicize the debate yourself after the fourth round. Have you publicized the debate in any way?

First of all, Enyart's post does not deal with publishing the debate (i.e. on the Internet or in book form), merely publicizing it by using links on web sites or comments on his radio show. Secondly, Enyart was merely one of the debators, as such he had no legal authority to grant me any kind of rights over the material THAT WE HAD BOTH BEEN REQUIRED TO AGREE BELONGED SOLELY TO TOL.

As I understand things, perhaps incorrectly, Knight owns TOL, not Bob Enyart. To my understanding, Enyart is not on staff at TOL, nor has he been presented to me as TOL's legal counsel. Knight asserts vigorously that TOL is independent from BEL and Enyart himself.

You apparently see things differently...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
You have not answered my question, "in what way(s) do you find dispensationalism to be in error?" You just briefly defined it, and call it "a contrivance." How about some specifics?

I presented a particularly powerful argument in that most Jews, to whom the Messiah was to be sent, did not and do not believe that the Messiah has come yet. The Christian faith was founded by a small splinter sect of Judaism. History has favored Christianity because of the foresight of its early leaders to link it to governments of the Roman and Byzantine empires where it was spread by governmental decree and the power of the empires' armies. Judaism, with no such links, has languished relative to Christianity.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Zakath: As a noncharimatic myself, I'm curious to know what you attribute charismatic tongues to.

It's possibly a learned behavior. I'll refer you to N.P. Spanos' article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology Vol. 95 pg 26 in 1986

Here's a summary...

N.P. Spanos et al begin their article with a neat encapsulation of the status of psychological research into glossolalia:


"Glossolalia (i.e., speaking in tongues) is vocalization that sounds languagelike but is devoid of semantic meaning or syntax. In the Christian tradition this vocalization pattern is associated with the ideas of possession by the Holy Spirit and communication with God through prayer or prophecy. Some scientific investigators conceptualize glossolalia as the product of an altered or dissociated state of consciousness, whereas others view it as symptomatic of psychopathology.

"The available empirical data fail to support either of these hypotheses. For example, both ethnographic observations and experimental findings indicate that glossolalia can occur in the absence of kinetic activity, disorientation, and other purported indexes of trance, and that experienced glossolalics do not differ from nonglossolalic controls on measures of absorption in subjective experience and hypnotic susceptibility. Relatedly, the available empirical data fail to support the hypothesis that glossolalics suffer higher levels of psychopathology than nonglossolalics."

Spanos et al then go on to detail their own research, in which they tried to teach glossolalia as a learnable skill. First, 60 subjects listened to a 60-second sample of genuine glossolalia. All subjects then tried to speak in tongues for 30 seconds. Some 20% spoke in tongues immediately without further training. The subjects were then divided into a control group and a group that received various kinds of training. Tests then showed that 70% of the trained subjects were now fluent (?) in glossolalia. Glossolalia, therefore, seems likely to be a type of learned behavior rather than a special altered state of mind.

(Spanos, Nicholas P., et al; "Glossolalia as Learned Behavior: An Experimental Demonstration," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95:21, 1986.)

In another example,

"Werner Cohn, at the University of British Columbia, took naïve students to Pentecostal churches to hear glossolalia and then asked the students to speak in glossolalia in the laboratory. They were able to successfully do so. Their recordings were then played to glossolalists who described the glossolalia as beautiful examples."

Link to entire article The fact that experienced Christian tongues speakers identified Cohn's students (some of whom were atheists) as "speaking in tongues" is highly suspicious to me.

If glossolalia were a supernatural gift from the Christian deity, then it would be highly unlikely that it would show up in decidedly non-Christian religious worship. Glossolalia has also been observed in non-Christian religions including:

• 
  - the Peyote cult among the North American Indians,
  - the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest,
  - Shamans in the Sudan,
  - the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa,
  - the Shago cult in Trinidad, the Voodoo cult in Haiti,
  - the Aborigines of South American and Australia,
  - the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia,
  - the Shamans in Greenland,
  - the Dyaks of Borneo,
  - the Zor cult of Ethiopia,
  - the Siberian shamans,
  - the Chaco Indians of South America,
  - the Curanderos of the Andes,
  - the Kinka in the African Sudan,
  - the Thonga shamans of Africa,
  - Tibetan monks.

Source: Jennings, George J. "An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. March 1968.

 

[Flipper]

As far as glossolalia goes, I've heard quite a lot of people speaking in tongues courtesy of Comedy Central.. I mean TBN.

There are a few variants, but every glossolalic I have seen has one thing in common; their `speech' patterns are fast and jabbering, a sort of "a-y'bup-shallalamalallayeebup" fast but repetitive pattern.

There's no sense of sentence structure or of a consistent vocabulary. If there was one, it would be very simple. Glossolalia lacks the complexity of an intelligible language, although it sounds sort of like someone speaking in a foreign language if you were unfamiliar with the forms that other languages take.

Jabbering is probably the best way I can describe it. It doesn't seem a powerfully spiritual experience to the casual observer. More kind of ridiculous.

 

[Jefferson]

Zakath:

I can't believe this actually happened but your last post made my POTD!!!

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
The rule read this way

"...you also agree to allow your Battle to be reprinted or reused in full or in part by TheologyOnLine and it's various entities. "

After reading for years that TOL and Enyart are not related, I found it disingenuous, at best that BEL (Enyart's organization) now has copyrights to somehting reserved to "TheologyOnLine and it's various entities."

So when did BEL become one of TOL's "entities"?

It hasn't. Knight owns the rights. He has the right to give anyone he chooses the rights. He chose to give both you and Enyart the rights to publish the debate. So why are you complaining and acting like you were exploited?

First of all, Enyart's post does not deal with publishing the debate (i.e. on the Internet or in book form), merely publicizing it by using links on web sites or comments on his radio show. Secondly, Enyart was merely one of the debators, as such he had no legal authority to grant me any kind of rights over the material THAT WE HAD BOTH BEEN REQUIRED TO AGREE BELONGED SOLELY TO TOL.

But Zakath, I didn't link to Enyart's post. I linked to Knight's:

Originally posted by Knight
Or Zakath could give an outside source... say some atheist website or atheist author the right to use Zakaths argument in Battle Royale VII the right to reprint or use for profit or publicity etc. We shall see if Zakath would want to do that or if the outside source would be interested.

He not only gave you the right to publish the debate (even for your own profit), but he gave you the right to give others the right to publish the debate (even for profit).

Originally posted by Zakath
As I understand things, perhaps incorrectly, Knight owns TOL, not Bob Enyart. To my understanding, Enyart is not on staff at TOL, nor has he been presented to me as TOL's legal counsel. Knight asserts vigorously that TOL is independent from BEL and Enyart himself.

You are correct.

Knight giving Enyart the rights to publish the debate does not make Enyart the owner of TOL (or anything like that) any more than Knight giving you the same rights makes you the owner of TOL.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
I presented a particularly powerful argument in that most Jews, to whom the Messiah was to be sent, did not and do not believe that the Messiah has come yet. The Christian faith was founded by a small splinter sect of Judaism. History has favored Christianity because of the foresight of its early leaders to link it to governments of the Roman and Byzantine empires where it was spread by governmental decree and the power of the empires' armies. Judaism, with no such links, has languished relative to Christianity.

The Jews generally rejected the prophets of the Old Testament, too, according to their own scriptures.

But what does this have to do with dispensationalism, specifically?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
...Knight owns the rights. He has the right to give anyone he chooses the rights. He chose to give both you and Enyart the rights to publish the debate. So why are you complaining and acting like you were exploited?

That's odd. I don't recall Knight never notifying me of that change. But there's been so many posts I might have missed something...

But Zakath, I didn't link to Enyart's post. I linked to Knight's: He not only gave you the right to publish the debate (even for your own profit), but he gave you the right to give others the right to publish the debate (even for profit).
You are correct.

As I read it, the post in question is merely Knight's hypothecating on whether or not I would be interested in giving someone else rights to publish my words, not the entire debate. He did not indicate that I could do so.

Knight giving Enyart the rights to publish the debate does not make Enyart the owner of TOL (or anything like that) any more than Knight giving you the same rights makes you the owner of TOL.

If Knight wants to give me rights to publish the debate and to sell the resuts, as Enyart has done, then he should do so clearly and unambiguously. Your assertions mean nothing, legally. You do not have any rights to the material one way or another (unless you are Knight).

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
The Jews generally rejected the profits of the Old Testament, too, according to their own scriptures.

"profits"??? A proverbial Freudian slip of the keyboard. :chuckle:

Some Jews rejected the OT prophets, many did not. That's why the material is included in their scriptures.

But what does this have to do with dispensationalism, specifically?

By claiming that YHWH dealt differently with the human race in (at least) seven different arbitrary time periods throughout biblical history, Dispensationalism becomes an attempt to explain the apparent changes in an allegedly unchangable (immutable) entitity. It's merely a literary contrivance to attempt to deal with apparent scriptural inconsistencies.

 

[taoist]

Speaking as one who has had the pleasure of "whooping" Bob Enyart, I'd have to disagree with some of the lesser informed opinions posted here on this thread. The problem is not one of getting an atheist to debate Pastor Enyart, but of getting Pastor Enyart to debate an atheist.

Given the opportunity to unilaterally debate a hospitalized Zakath, Bob jumped on the chance and declared victory not only over his unresponsive opponent but over atheism in general. In contrast, after publicly challenging this atheist to respond in detail to his voluminous rebuttal of an unfairly constrained response occasioned by Zakath's absence, Pastor Enyart turned tail and cowardly hid from the opportunity to speak the final word.

Anyone interested in seeing how easily Enyart's position can be shown both morally suspect and intellectually dishonest is welcome to visit the final act of Battle Royale VII.

The taoist and Pastor Enyart

A published version of this thread has been made available to both Knight and Pastor Enyart. The document is available in PDF format to anyone who wishes to PM me their email address.