Who is Bob Enyart?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Turbo,

Wouldn't that depend on how one defines "sister site"? :think:

I haven't been able to come up with a "formal" definition anywhere. Can you provide one?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
sister
4 : one that is closely similar to or associated with another <sister schools> <sister cities>
from http://www.m-w.com/

From TOL's homepage:
TheologyOnLine is not affiliated financially with ANY church, organization or ministry of any type. TheologyOnLine operates solely on the donations of it's participants.
Maybe STONE can clarify what he meant.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Turbo

Bob does say on his radio broadcasts that TOL is a sister site to KGOV and or Enyart.com. I just heard him say that on a recent show. But really, I think that KGOV and ENYART.com are sister sites to TOL. :eek: :thumb: :ha:
 

Lucky

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by 1Way

Bob does say on his radio broadcasts that TOL is a sister site to KGOV and or Enyart.com. I just heard him say that on a recent show.
I was going to say that too, but I put it off thinking I should find the exact show for reference. TOL can try to keep it a secret, but BEL reveales the truth! :D



Wait a minute... did I just promote BEL? :shocked:
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Frugalmom

I agree with Clete. Where do we get the idea that children must understand their "training" ,,, that their "parents" gives them? Understanding the reason for punishment is another thing altogether, but according to scripture, training up a child is nowhere taught that the child must have intellectual understanding of their parents "training" techniques. The parents are the governors over the child, it is not an equal rights, equal agreement, mutual understanding, situation.

I would like to point out one thing that you said, and what I read from the book web page to demonstrate that I believe your feelings of anger may have gotten the best of you. Human emotions can sometimes effectively short-circuit our reasoning and objectivity. Consider.
He would never convince me that it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive. A newborn or an infant are not capable of understanding these things. They know they are hungry or need a clean diaper, and it's the parent's job to be there to take care of them, not to abandon them.
You present the case saying "it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive." You even argue by appealing to the baby's natural need to communicate by crying about urgent matters that only the parent can take care of. Yet contrary to your portrayal of what they are teaching, this is what the book actually says with numbered callouts added.
("To Train Up A Child", first chapter, pp 8-9 said)
(1) As a mother attempts to lower her child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows. The battle for control has begun in earnest. (2) Someone is going to be conditioned. Either the tenderhearted mother will cave in to the child’s self-centered demands (training the child to get his way by crying) or he will be allowed to cry (thus learning that crying is counterproductive). (3) Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant’s only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded. Otherwise, you will reinforce the child’s growing self-centeredness, which will eventually become socially intolerable.
(1) This situation that they have in mind is NOT when the baby needs a diaper changed or any other genuine need. It's when the child simply wants to have it's way no matter what (selfishness). It may constantly want mommy's attention, it does not want to be left alone. So every day, probably every hour, mommy needs to pay attention to other things, go to the bathroom, cook, eat, clean house, etc., so who wins? The will of the baby or the will of the mother?

(2) Does a baby know that it does not need to be held and pandered to all the time? It is precisely because of this lack of understanding and appropriateness that parents should instill self discipline in their babies so that the parents can attend to the things that they must in order to effectively function. Think of the double frustration of twins or the quadruple frustration of quadruplets if every child was the winner in this exact battle! If the children win at the earliest ages that their will dictates what happens simply by screaming loud enough, then the mother and the children will be miserable because it is not possible to pander after the constant whims of each child all the time. Same issue is at stake if there are 1 or 6 babies, love them all the same, one or 6, train self restraint.

(3) And here is the clarification and is quite different from what you claimed they were promoting. They realize and promote that a baby's cry is the only voice to the outside world concerning authentic needs. That is NOT what this example of "counterproductive" crying is about. Instead, the child is being trained over the futility of simply acting selfish.

A vivid example of a baby's
selfish attention getting game
I've seen a baby who could not yet walk or talk, he was in between crawling but not yet at steady-standing stage. Suddenly he would cry out in a loud and high pitched scream as though in great or painful distress! :shocked: And then immediately stop crying! The baby's face was not towards the people in the room (he was working from stealth as he had no one's direct attention), and then he paused and slowly looked around to see if he gained the attention from the entire room that he expected and desired. And of course he did, everyone was completely silent and looking at him wondering what terrible thing just happened.

And then he smiled and laughed in a way that only a little baby could. It was quite the site, I will never forget it. Next the entire room was in laughter.
:darwinsm:
He caught us all off guard and got us laughing upon the pure idea of spontaneous interpersonal interest and contagious joy. He became the complete comedian that evening. But did the baby know when to stop, or how disturbing these unwarranted cries can be? No, so thankfully the parents corrected the child. That was an advanced game that child played, younger babies play more basic attention getting games.

Bob Enyart is not a normal/frequent member of this forum, I very much doubt that a PM nor an email will reach him. You really should call him during, or right after, a show, as I hear it's the best way to reach him, unless you go to his church or are a family member. :) He's a very busy man.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Excellent post 1Way!

People read that book and forget that they are talking mostly about training a child not teaching especially when referring to infants. There is a subtle but important distinction between the two terms, which the authors make clear in the first chapter of the book. Mental acumen is not necessary in training. All that is required is a firm resolve from the parents and at least as much intelligence from the child as your average poodle has. Most children, even newborns have way more intelligence than is needed for training to be effective.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Enyart's a polarizing character. Few who know of him or about him walk away feeling indifferent about the man.

For my part I think he's a fanatic misrepresenting Christianity; on the other hand he hangs himself every time he opens his mouth or (worse) churns out a horribly written quasi-fascist "novel" like "The First Five Days." So really, he's his own worst enemy. At least the guy's consistent, though. I respect him for sticking to his guns. That said I detest the barbarism he advocates and have to shake my head every time a guy working on multiple marriages (whether it's him, Rush, whoever) decides to lecture we little people on traditional morality.

Crazy world.
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

Enyart's a polarizing character. Few who know of him or about him walk away feeling indifferent about the man.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? You could say the exact same thing about Jesus.

That said I detest the barbarism he advocates
Are you referring to that whole eye-for-an-eye thing?

Do you detest Moses for being barbaric?

and have to shake my head every time a guy working on multiple marriages ... decides to lecture we little people on traditional morality.
How about Paul? He was a murderer, yet he instructed several churches on morality.

David was an adulterer and a murderer, yet God called him a man after His own heart.


God forgives those who repent. Why don't you?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"Is that necessarily a bad thing? You could say the exact same thing about Jesus."

No and true.

"Are you referring to that whole eye-for-an-eye thing?"

If you mean cutting off a woman's hand for defending her husband, yeah. Come to think of it, that's Jefferson's bag. Not sure about Enyart though nothing would surprise me. The man advocates stoning and letting victims of crimes take executions into their own hands. Do the math.

"Do you detest Moses for being barbaric?"

Slow down, kneejerk. I thought we were talking about Enyart.

"How about Paul? He was a murderer, yet he instructed several churches on morality."

See above. Let's flip this around: take a left-wing pastor with a radio station bully pulpit. You hear he's been arrested for child abuse and married three times. Would everyone be leaping to his defense and demanding everybody give him a fair hearing? The stakes are high in Enyart's case because of who he is: a minister of the gospel. Christianity's full of pastors and leaders who gloss over some troubling character flaws and backstory. Hal Lindsey comes to mind (like the guy or not, another three-time-married minister).

"God forgives those who repent. Why don't you?"

I wasn't aware that I needed to forgive the guy. That said, I didn't bring forgiving him up; my point was that I'm amused by self-styled moralizers who seem to invariably have their own muck. And an amen corner excusing them with every breath.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Originally posted by granite1010

Enyart's a polarizing character. Few who know of him or about him walk away feeling indifferent about the man.

For my part I think he's a fanatic misrepresenting Christianity; on the other hand he hangs himself every time he opens his mouth or (worse) churns out a horribly written quasi-fascist "novel" like "The First Five Days." So really, he's his own worst enemy. At least the guy's consistent, though. I respect him for sticking to his guns. That said I detest the barbarism he advocates and have to shake my head every time a guy working on multiple marriages (whether it's him, Rush, whoever) decides to lecture we little people on traditional morality.

Crazy world.

Nice. Nice material for the garbage can.
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

No and true.
Good.

If you mean cutting off a woman's hand for defending her husband, yeah. Come to think of it, that's Jefferson's bag. Not sure about Enyart though nothing would surprise me.
It might be a good idea to find out instead of making assumptions.

The man advocates stoning and letting victims of crimes take executions into their own hands. Do the math.

"Do you detest Moses for being barbaric?"

Slow down, kneejerk. I thought we were talking about Enyart.
Moses advocates stoning and letting victims of crimes take executions into their own hands (once the criminal has been justly convicted, as does Enyart).

Let's flip this around: take a left-wing pastor with a radio station bully pulpit. You hear he's been arrested for child abuse and married three times. Would everyone be leaping to his defense and demanding everybody give him a fair hearing?
If the man takes responsibility for his sins and demonstrates genuine repentance, then they should not be held against him. (But if the person's acts are criminal, the government should punish him justly regardless.)

The stakes are high in Enyart's case because of who he is: a minister of the gospel.
Like Paul.

Christianity's full of pastors and leaders who gloss over some troubling character flaws and backstory.
But Enyart is certainly not one of them. He often ernestly discusses his failed marriages on his show and on his Bible study albums, and takes full responsibility for the harm he has done to his family.

"God forgives those who repent. Why don't you?"

I wasn't aware that I needed to forgive the guy.

That's true. You don't need to actually forgive him, since he didn't sin against you.

That said, I didn't bring forgiving him up; my point was that I'm amused by self-styled moralizers who seem to invariably have their own muck.
And my point is that you shouldn't be trying to use that to discredit him, and whether you like him or not you certainly shouldn't be giving people the impression that he hides his flaws or "glosses over them" when in fact he is extremely open about them and takes full responsibility for them.

And an amen corner excusing them with every breath.
Who here has ever excused him for destoying his previous marriages?
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
"It might be a good idea to find out instead of making assumptions."

True enough. But given Jefferson's role as Enyart Advocate on TOL, I have to imagine he got the idea from somewhere.

"Moses advocates stoning and letting victims of crimes take executions into their own hands (once the criminal has been justly convicted, as does Enyart)."

Well, so what? Scripture's been used to condone a lot of vicious abuses in the past. Public bludgeoning by a crowd won't be one of them, I hope. Even Rushdoony argues that the method of execution doesn't matter so much as the fact that an execution takes place. I don't expect this to matter to Jefferson or other theonomists who insist on taking the penalties of the law literally, rather than some laws themselves.

"Like Paul."

Sure. Whenever Enyart starts writing canonical scripture and is appointed an apostle, get back to me.

"And my point is that you shouldn't be trying to use that to discredit him..."

Believe me, I don't NEED to discredit Enyart. Every time he opens his mouth or writes another book, he provides himself more rope.
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by 1Way

Turbo

Bob does say on his radio broadcasts that TOL is a sister site to KGOV and or Enyart.com. I just heard him say that on a recent show. But really, I think that KGOV and ENYART.com are sister sites to TOL. :eek: :thumb: :ha:
I thought STONE meant that Bob Enyart owns or contols TOL as he does KGOV. I stand corrected.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Bob does call TOL and KGOV "sister sites" and that's fine with me since the term "sister" is a figure of speech for "of like mind" or "similar in focus" "working towards the same goal" etc.

I am honored that Bob likes TOL enough to call us a "sister site".

But for clarification sake....
TOL is totally separate from KGOV or any other site, ministry etc. as far as administration is concerned. We pay our own bills, manage our own resources etc.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Knight

Bob does call TOL and KGOV "sister sites" and that's fine with me since the term "sister" is a figure of speech for "of like mind" or "similar in focus" "working towards the same goal" etc.

I am honored that Bob likes TOL enough to call us a "sister site".

But for clarification sake....
TOL is totally separate from KGOV or any other site, ministry etc. as far as administration is concerned. We pay our own bills, manage our own resources etc.
Not to get nit picky but I don't think "sister site" is accurate. Sister site implies much more than just like mindedness, it implies "affiliation." For example Bob Hill's site http://www.biblicalanswers.com is like minded with kgov.com also but Bob would never call it a sister site. It would be accurate, however, for Bob to call his church's site, http://www.denverbiblechurch.org a sister site.

Okay, I'm through splitting hairs. Back to topics that people actually find interesting . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top