Battle Royale IX ideas....

[Knight]

So...... it's been over a year since Bob Enyart participated in BR VII and its been several months since BR VIII, I think its time for new battle!

I want to see if Bob Enyart will be so kind as to take on another Battle Royale.

Here are the ideas I am going to present to Bob as two possible battles:

A. Bob Enyart vs. Jim Hilston.
Is the future open for God?

B. Bob vs. Zakath.
Is the Bible the word of God?

Thoughts????

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Knight

A. Bob Enyart vs. Jim Hilston.
Is the future open for God?
That sounds good. :up:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Knight


B. Bob vs. Zakath.
Is the Bible the word of God?



I'm not sure that Zakath believes there is a God, of course we may never know for sure.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Sozo

I'm not sure that Zakath believes there is a God, of course we may never know for sure. Oh trust me.... we will know. :D

[PureX]

I personally have no interest in anything Bob Enyart has to say, and I would avoid any thread that gives vent to his vitriolic self-serving nonsense. Can't you find someone better than some fascist radio blowhard to represent the Christian perspective on TOL? Sheesh! Seems to me we have plenty of honest and intelligent Christians around here that could do a far better job of it then he ever will.

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Knight
A. Bob Enyart vs. Jim Hilston.
Is the future open for God?
I would love to read this one! :up:

[Clete]

I vote for option A.

Seems like option B would be a rerun.
How much more could Zakath say but "The Bible can't be the word of God because there is no God."

He would run out of material and quit in the middle of it! Again.

Jim Hilston has voiced a desire to debate Bob and he's never been one to be at a loss for words!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Christine]

Originally posted by Knight

So...... it's been over a year since Bob Enyart participated in BR VII and its been several months since BR VIII, I think its time for new battle!

I want to see if Bob Enyart will be so kind as to take on another Battle Royale.

Here are the ideas I am going to present to Bob as two possible battles:

A. Bob Enyart vs. Jim Hilston.
Is the future open for God?

B. Bob vs. Zakath.
Is the Bible the word of God?

Thoughts????
I like the idea of Enyart vs. Hilston best, especially since Mr. Enyart took on Zakath in his last Battle Royale. The topic of the future being open or not sounds more interesting as well.
:bannana:

[ShadowMaid]

I'd have to say A.

[Poly]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[Poly]

Did I mention that I'd like to see A? :D

[Gerlad]

I'll tune in to any debate that includes Jim Hilston.

I say, "A".

[BillyBob]

Does TOL happen have a stockpile of Nukes? We could launch a few at Iran, although that wouldn't be much of a Battle.

Hmmmm.........:idea:

Maybe we could have Sozo vs. Everybody Else!

:D

[BillyBob]

We could call it

Battle Royale IX
Sozo vs. Everybody Else
I'm right and your an idot! :sozo2:


:bannana:

[Poly]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Maybe we could have Sozo vs. Everybody Else!

:D
I thought that was pretty much an everyday debate. :chuckle:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by BillyBob
We could call it

Battle Royale IX
Sozo vs. Everybody Else
I'm right and your an idot! :sozo2:


:bannana:

:darwinsm:

[Greywolf]

I'll throw this out as another idea (if both participants were willing). aharvey vs. bob enyart on evolution vs. creationism.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by BillyBob

We could call it

Battle Royale IX
Sozo vs. Everybody Else
I'm right and your an idot!
Don't you mean you're an idiot?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BillyBob

We could call it

Battle Royale IX
Sozo vs. Everybody Else
I'm right and your an idot! :sozo2:


:bannana:

:sozo2:

:freak: :zakath: :liberals: :skeptic: :firechyld :beanboy: :flamer: Freakazoid :zman: :BillyBob: :troll: :aikido: :em: :Cyrus: :jeffrson: :chz4brnz: :Whipsnap: :emarie: :granite: :Slippery: :1Way: :cattyfan: :Elaine: :shadowmd: :Christine :Nineveh: :Grizzly: :lucky: :lucy: :jessilu: :crow2: :SOTK: :knight: :sibbie: :turbo: :troy: :deb: :nori: :Clete: :aimiel:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Lucky

Don't you mean you're an idiot?

Yes, of course.

I guess I must be an idiot. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Sozo

:sozo2:

:freak: :zakath: :liberals: :skeptic: :firechyld :beanboy: :flamer: Freakazoid :zman: :BillyBob: :troll: :aikido: :em: :Cyrus: :jeffrson: :chz4brnz: :Whipsnap: :emarie: :granite: :Slippery: :1Way: :cattyfan: :Elaine: :shadowmd: :Christine :Nineveh: :Grizzly: :lucky: :lucy: :jessilu: :crow2: :SOTK: :knight: :sibbie: :turbo: :troy: :deb: :nori: :Clete: :aimiel:

:darwinsm:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I must be an idiot.
:D

[BillyBob]

:cool:

[cur_deus_homo]

The topic of "A" doesn't interest me, but the topic of "B" does, though it is too broad. What does "the Bible is the word of God" mean? Every word in the Bible came directly from God? It is the word of God because it reveals the Word of God, that is Jesus the Christ? Because it has authority within the church? All of the above?

It would be pointless to involve Zakath in such a debate because he believes there is no God.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX

Can't you find someone better than some fascist radio blowhard to represent the Christian perspective on TOL? Sheesh! Hey pal.... that's my friend and my pastor you are talking about.

How would you like a one way ticket to TOL banishment?

You can disagree with I and Bob all you like but please at least show a little respect. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if you could at least label him correctly. "fascist" ROTFL. :chuckle: :doh:

[Poly]

:sozo: Gimme an A!!!!

A

[Knight]

No comment from Zakath?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Knight

No comment from Zakath?

I think you've scared him off.

I have noticed that when a tough question, on one of the threads, comes his way, he tends to disappear for a few days, only to return once the thread has faded from interest.

:granite:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Sozo

I think you've scared him off.

I have noticed that when a tough question, on one of the threads, comes his way, he tends to disappear for a few days, only to return once the thread has faded from interest.

:granite: It seems that is Zakath's M.O.

[Crow]

A

[Knight]

Originally posted by Crow

A It's as if :crow: is trying to tell me something.... :think:

[Crow]

Now if you had offered the choice, "Bob against all of the homosexual apologists....." :chuckle:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Knight

It's as if :crow: is trying to tell me something.... :think:
Not to mention Poly!! Poly's been :bang: , I guess. Nobody listens to me! :doh: :noid:

[BillyBob]

Why on Earth would Zakath want to join another one of these debates? All you guys have done is hammer away at him and deride him the entire time while constantly claiming that he lost the last one.

[I didn't read it so I have no view or bias]

What possible reason would he have to submit himself to more of the same?

If I was him, I'd tell you all to take a flying leap.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BillyBob


If I was him, I'd tell you all to take a flying leap.

Or "Why don't you just disappear altogether!"

[God_Is_Truth]

A

sounds good to me :up:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Sozo

Or "Why don't you just disappear altogether!"

I'm not sure what you mean, Sozo, but I am sure you've noticed the things I mentioned. Would you bother joining a debate knowing the derision that lies ahead?

It seems to me that if someone is willing to debate in a forum such as the Battle Royale, he should be treated politely. Wouldn't you agree?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BillyBob


It seems to me that if someone is willing to debate in a forum such as the Battle Royale, he should be treated politely. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely! Would you consider it impolite to walk away in the middle of a debate that you are losing?

[erinmarie]

poop, I've put off reading that thread for months and now I'll have to do it to form my opinion on this seemingly pointless argument....
But knowing Zakath, I can't see him walking away from a 'battle' without good reason....?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Sozo

Absolutely! Would you consider it impolite to walk away in the middle of a debate that you are losing?

Yes, I would. Especially if I agreed to certain rules.

It is my understanding that Zakath was stricken ill during the last BR and was in contact with Knight about it. Is that not the case?

[add yasaf]

Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf in any debate. I just don't like the guy

[Sozo]

Originally posted by add yasaf

Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf in any debate. I just don't like the guy

It's supposed to be a "Battle", not a knockout in the first round.

No offense Add, but you might do better against beanieboy!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes, I would. Especially if I agreed to certain rules.

It is my understanding that Zakath was stricken ill during the last BR and was in contact with Knight about it. Is that not the case?

I wonder why it was never concluded?

Whose turn is it? :think:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by add yasaf

Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf in any debate.


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Boxers or Briefs?


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Is Bob a better name than Add?


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Fishing or Golf?


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Walk or Golf cart?


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Carry your own or Caddy?


Battle Royale IX
Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf
Is John Kerry a commie? If so, can we shoot him?





I just don't like the guy

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Sozo

I wonder why it was never concluded?

I dunno.

Whose turn is it? :think:

See above.

:D

[00Me00]

A. :chuckle:

[add yasaf]

There is a good reason why I can say that I do not like Bob. I was on his site and we were discussing open theism, and I was asking him some questions, and he suddenly stopped the thread and deleted it.

Clete can verify this. I was trying to bring some of the discussion over here to this site to help things along, when he up and deleted the thread. He never did answer the questions.


I am not trying to get back at him, but I think he spreads a lot of misinformation based on little theological background and can be quite misleading.

[Crow]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I'm not sure what you mean, Sozo, but I am sure you've noticed the things I mentioned. Would you bother joining a debate knowing the derision that lies ahead?

It seems to me that if someone is willing to debate in a forum such as the Battle Royale, he should be treated politely. Wouldn't you agree?

BillyBob, if you read through the comments, neither side was particularly polite to the other. Such is the nature of arguing hot issues. Battle Royalles are not for the thin-skinned.

[Yorzhik]

A, of course. But creation/evolution would be nice. I think there are a number of high profile advocates of either side that are willing to debate. I think if they saw the format, they might be willing to guest a debate.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by add yasaf

There is a good reason why I can say that I do not like Bob. I was on his site and we were discussing open theism, and I was asking him some questions, and he suddenly stopped the thread and deleted it.

Clete can verify this. I was trying to bring some of the discussion over here to this site to help things along, when he up and deleted the thread. He never did answer the questions.


I am not trying to get back at him, but I think he spreads a lot of misinformation based on little theological background and can be quite misleading. Why not just call into his show then? That way you can correct him and his audience will get to hear it.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Crow

BillyBob, if you read through the comments, neither side was particularly polite to the other. Such is the nature of arguing hot issues. Battle Royalles are not for the thin-skinned.


OK

[add yasaf]

Turbo quote - Why not just call into his show then? That way you can correct him and his audience will get to hear it.


That would be cool. What's the number? Though that particular discussion might not be concise enough of a topic for a show.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by add yasaf

That would be cool. What's the number? Though that particular discussion might not be concise enough of a topic for a show. 1-800-8ENYART (1-800-836-9278)

or

1-888-836-9278

The show is on from 5:00 - 5:30 PM Eastern, Monday through Friday.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Turbo

1-800-8ENYART (1-800-836-9278)

or

1-888-836-9278

The show is on from 3:00 - 3:30 PM Eastern, Monday through Friday. Eastern?

[Turbo]

:doh: Stupid jet lag! :o

I fixed it. I meant 5:00 - 5:30 Eastern.

[BillyBob]

Here's a Jett Leg! :freak:

[Turbo]

In a strange coincidence, I just finished off a carton of rocky road ice-cream.

(:singer: I love rocky road.)

[00Me00]

Freak and Bob on the gift of miracles for the Body. :D

[SOTK]

I'm not interested in (A) at all. I think (B) would be an interesting topic, but I'm not at all interested in hearing anything Zakath has to say about it. I don't even understand why he even stays around here.

I'd personally be a lot more interested in a Young Earth Creation versus Old Earth Evolution debate. That's a pretty hot topic and would be informative as well as entertaining! :box:

:D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by SOTK

I'm not interested in (A) at all. I think (B) would be an interesting topic, but I'm not at all interested in hearing anything Zakath has to say about it. I don't even understand why he even stays around here.Probably all the love and support I get from my fellow posters.

:rolleyes:

[add yasaf]

Zakath's idol replacing God is that of dying with the most TOL stars

[Zakath]

Originally posted by add yasaf

Zakath's idol replacing God is that of dying with the most TOL stars :chuckle:

Humorous, however inaccurate it might be. ;)

[Clete]

Originally posted by add yasaf

There is a good reason why I can say that I do not like Bob. I was on his site and we were discussing open theism, and I was asking him some questions, and he suddenly stopped the thread and deleted it.

Clete can verify this. I was trying to bring some of the discussion over here to this site to help things along, when he up and deleted the thread. He never did answer the questions.


I am not trying to get back at him, but I think he spreads a lot of misinformation based on little theological background and can be quite misleading.

I think you are confusing Bob Enyart with Bob Hill.

The site you were on was www.biblicalanswers.com which is Bob Hill's web site not Bob Enyart's.

And while it is unknown why that thread got cut, I can assure you, it isn't because Pastor Hill or anyone associated with him was unable or even unwilling to answer your questions.
If I recall you and I went back and forth for about a month before I figured out what you question was in the first place. I'm sure that they would not have wanted to go through that same process with you, they are way too busy over there for that sort of protracted process of figuring out what the question is.
As I recall, your question (as they understood it) was answered in some depth and then when you began the second iteration of the communicating the question process, they just assumed that you had ignored their rather lengthy answer and repeated yourself.
It wasn't until you made a third attempt that they just shut it down and gave up on it.
Further, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to suggest that "he spreads a lot of misinformation based on little theological background". The arrogance of such a statement is almost beyond my comprehension! Both Bob Enyart and especially Bob Hill have been studying the Bible for, I'm sure, longer than you have been alive.
Pastor Hill is fluent in both the Hebrew and Greek languages and has translated the Bible from the original languages himself. Not to mention his years of pastoring and teaching under which Bob Enyart sat and learned for years.
If you wish to understand their basis for the Open Theism which they teach, then I strongly recommend you get a hold of a copy of
The Plot (http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/literature/theplot.html) and actually read it! And in addition to that, read any number of hundreds of articles and various other postings on www.biblicalanswers.com. If you do so with even a half way open mind, you might actually come to understand and agree with them. The theology is not that difficult or complex, in fact its simple eloquence is one of its most compelling attributes.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[add yasaf]

Oh my fault it was Bob Hill! OOPS!! BIG OOPS!!


Clete quote - If you do so with even a half way open mind, you might actually come to understand and agree with them. The theology is not that difficult or complex, in fact its simple eloquence is one of its most compelling attributes.




Wow, Clete! I am surprised to hear you say this! We have been talking for a long time and you clearly saw how an open mind was not my problem. Just to give you you a taste. I havewritten on Jesus being capable of sinning, and how if he did, what would have happened (many would consider just the thought of this heresy), and second I discussed how Biblical Inspiration and Mistakes in the bible are compatible. - Not something a closed mind would want to venture out into.

[Clete]

Originally posted by add yasaf

Oh my fault it was Bob Hill! OOPS!! BIG OOPS!!


Clete quote - If you do so with even a half way open mind, you might actually come to understand and agree with them. The theology is not that difficult or complex, in fact its simple eloquence is one of its most compelling attributes.




Wow, Clete! I am surprised to hear you say this! We have been talking for a long time and you clearly saw how an open mind was not my problem. Just to give you you a taste. I have written on Jesus being capable of sinning, and how if he did, what would have happened (many would consider just the thought of this heresy), and second I discussed how Biblical Inspiration and Mistakes in the bible are compatible. - Not something a closed mind would want to venture out into.

Yes, after rereading it, my wording does comunicate a tone which I didn't intend. I wasn't trying to suggest that closed mindedness is common with you at all. I was simply making the point that Enyart's and Hill's stuff is pretty easy to reject if one doesn't aproach it with an attitude that is conducive to learning.
Indeed, it was my intention to suggest that you are one who is likely to understand and appreciate the eloquence of the arguments and teachings in Bob's book and thereby come to agree with its conclusions. Which, I, for one, would consider to be very cool! :cool:

The only thing I wanted to give you a hard time about was the crack about Pastor Hill's lack of theological background, which was unfounded.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[add yasaf]

Clete Pfeiffer quote - Which, I, for one, would consider to be very cool!



I have always thought the OV to be possible, and never once thought it heretical, and I certainly appreciate its emphasis on God's imminence, but have yet to fully embrace it based on the Scripture verses we talked about a while ago, which I am, or should I say was, talking to 1Way about recently. My opinion has nothing to do with Greek philosophy and everything to do with Scripture. I hope you can appreciate that.




Clete quote - The only thing I wanted to give you a hard time about was the crack about Pastor Hill's lack of theological background, which was unfounded.




I will say that theology is easier than other subjects to become proficient at just by reading a lot of books. But through his posts Pastor Hill showed a lack of knowledge about the Ancient Near East cultural background behind the full meaning of first-born son, which was crucial to my argument, and he dismissed it, ultimately because he was deficient in his ANE culture.

Also, esp. with Greek and Hebrew, I have done both, the learn it on my own thing and take it in class, and I cannot express hw much more beneficial and how much I learned through the classes than simply from the books. The differenc ebetween Machen's Greek Grammar for first year students and Walace's Beyond the Basics is in many ways staggering. The axiom is true - A little knowledge can be worse than nothing at all.


Just an example - "In the Greek New Testament there is no indefinite second person as there is in colloquial English. (By indefinite I mea use of the second for either the first or third person). In English here is an example - suppose the son of a University of Texas alumnus asked him, "how do you become an Aggie?" the father might respond, "You must first train yourself in exercising bad judgement" In such an interchange, neither the father nor son would be referring to each other directly.

The Greeks, however, would use the appropriate person to express what we colloquially say with the second person. Older English and literary English are quite similar. So the point is, when you come across a second person in the Greek NT, you must think on a literary level.

i.e. - John 4:11 - Where then do you keep this living water? The woman is not asking, "Where does one get this living water?" Rather she is asking Jesus directly, "Where have YOU got this living water?"



This can be very significant for those like Sozo who insist that many verses in the NT are just showing a scenario that would never happen in a Christian's life.

So a verse like John 15:4 has more punch to it - "Neither can YOU bear fruit unless you remain in me" (Wallace - Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)




I don't know that Bob has that level of Greek knowledge is all I am saying. If he does more power to him.

[Chileice]

I think that A would wind up being a lot like a current thread which is discussing the same topic between Lee Merrill and Acts 9-12 out, among others. I just don't think the topic would be strong enough to generate lots of interest. I know the last one seemed to fizzle. It seems "in-your-face-evangelism" vs. "polite" evangelism would stir up interest, but it might be all smoke and no fire. Maybe a discussion about what happens to the soul immediately upon death. That would interest people from off the site as well, I expect. It is a topic everyone wants to know something about since we will all share that same experience one day. Whatever you choose, I hope it is spirited but "clean".

[Mustard Seed]

How about the answer I've been trying to get for a while.

"Was it dishonest for God to command Abraham to deceive?"

Don't know who you'd chose to participate but I think it's an interesting topic.

[Mustard Seed]

Has anyone ever thought of having a "tag team" Battle Royal? Don't know exactly how you'd get it to work but it might generate a bit more interest.

[jjjg]

I'll battle with anybody.

[Clete]

Originally posted by add yasaf
I don't know that Bob has that level of Greek knowledge is all I am saying. If he does more power to him.

I don't know how he learned the Greek language but I do know that the Greek classes that he teaches are taught IN Greek, except for maybe the first year classes, I'm not sure.

I don't know you personally so I can't say with certainty but I would bet my house that he knows Greek and Hebrew at least as well, if not better than you do.
At any rate, its not that big a deal. I just wanted to make sure that Pastor Hill was given the credit he deserves.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[add yasaf]

Hey Clete,

I am going to start a thread dedicated to showing why much of Bob Hill's teachings are faulty.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I think you are confusing Bob Enyart with Bob Hill.But Enyart is/was a student of Hill's and attended his church for quite a while, didn't he?

I think Enyart's theology is similar enough to Hill's to contribute to the confusion...

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Has anyone ever thought of having a "tag team" Battle Royal? Don't know exactly how you'd get it to work but it might generate a bit more interest.
That's a good idea.

[Zakath]

If you're going to do tag team, how about a steel cage match?

They "combatants" cannot log off TOL until the match is over...

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

"Was it dishonest for God to command Abraham to deceive?" That's worded rather awkwardly, since dishonest and deceptive (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=deceptive)are synonyms. It's also a pretty narrow scope.

How about,
"Is it always wrong to lie?"
or
"Is it ever right to lie?"

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath

If you're going to do tag team, how about a steel cage match?

They "combatants" cannot log off TOL until the match is over... :chuckle: LOL.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Turbo

That's worded rather awkwardly, since dishonest and deceptive (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=deceptive)are synonyms. It's also a pretty narrow scope.

How about,
"Is it always wrong to lie?"
or
"Is it ever right to lie?"

Perhaps we could expand the scope even further:

When is it (or is it ever) proper to disobey the letter of the law in order to affirm the spirit of the law?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Chileice

Perhaps we could expand the scope even further:

When is it (or is it ever) proper to disobey the letter of the law in order to affirm the spirit of the law? :down: There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." Or at least, it is not a Biblical concept.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo

:down: There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." Or at least, it is not a Biblical concept. Perhaps he was looking for a concept to contrast with the idea of "letter of the law". Something hinted at in Rom. 7:6, perhaps. :think:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps he was looking for a concept to contrast with the idea of "letter of the law". Something hinted at in Rom. 7:6, perhaps. :think: The letter is the Law, while the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Note that every translation that capitalizes words that stand for God capitalizes "Spirit" in that verse.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Turbo

The letter is the Law, while the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Note that every translation that capitalizes words that stand for God capitalizes "Spirit" in that verse.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

Technically, you are right. I was not making a "Biblical" statement but using a colloquialism that we have come to accept. I was thinking more in the terms of Matthew 12:

Lord of the Sabbath

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?�
11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
13Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

In other words, are there times where to live the "law" of Jesus' love we will have to set aside other "laws" in order to do it? Some people seem to think not as in the original suggestion, "Would God want you to lie?" Would it ever be right to steal even though one of the Ten Commandments id "Do not steal"? How bound to the letter of the law are we? Or can we pretty much make up our own set of laws if it seems the moral thing to do at the time. I think we would get some pretty good discussion going and there are probably good Christians who would be on either end and some in between.

Not just Christians but the whole idea of a moral/ethical value set. Can we violate our principles for the greater good?

[Mustard Seed]

Or the question. Is it wrong to disobey God when his current commands go against previous ones?

[Zakath]

May I suggest a foundational debate about one of the big "somethings" that divide Christianity. You're more likely to get a good readership with a more controversial topic...


Trinity vs. Unity

Nature of "The Lord's Supper" - remembrance or reenactment?

Infant baptism and covenant theology

Role of the clergy - priesthood or preachers?

Is "sola scriptura" scriptural?

Is there a "right" Christian Bible?


Fun stuff like those. :D

[add yasaf]

Zakath quote - Nature of "The Lord's Supper" - remembrance or reenactment?




There is another option held. That is one of the spiritual presence of Christ.





Zakath quote - Is "sola scriptura" scriptural?





The way "sola scriptura" was originally used was not the way fundamentalists use it today. You might want to be more specific and talk about ONE standard or MANY standards.

[Lighthouse]

I vote A. But, I would really love to debate someone on something. Of course, it would have to be somehting that I know enough about. I could debate Turbo on DC vs Marvel. :chuckle:

[titan]

Originally posted by Turbo

:down: There is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." Or at least, it is not a Biblical concept.


I do not know if you can call it the "spirit of the law" but Jesus did say that all the Law boiled down to "Love God." and "Love your neighbor."

When the Pharisees demanded he obey Sabbath law, he ignored them and healed the paraplegic man, thereby obeying the higher law embodied in the two greatest commandments.

The problem with "letter of the law" is that no one (even God) has ever written a law that was lawyer-proof.

Titan

[titan]

Originally posted by Turbo

The letter is the Law, while the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Note that every translation that capitalizes words that stand for God capitalizes "Spirit" in that verse.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6

Sorry, I missed this one. It seems that you are not arguing for the letter of the law, but for living by the Spirit without law at all.



In order to make this post on topic and atone for my previous one,

How about a theodicy Battle Royale?

Is there anything that would be wrong for God to do, or would God by doing it make it moral?

This is a question I have seen touched upon in other threads. It seems to fracture upon the usual Calvinist/Arminian/OV lines.

Titan

[Clete]

Well, what's the latest?

Are we any closer to a Battle Royale?

[Crow]

There's a few people around here I would like to see do a Battle Royale--

:Clete: :turbo: :1Way: ::sozo2:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Crow

There's a few people around here I would like to see do a Battle Royale--

:Clete: :turbo: :1Way: ::sozo2:

Battle Royale X

:Clete: :turbo: :1Way: ::sozo2:

vs

:Poly: :crow: :sibbie: :Nineveh:

[add yasaf]

I'll go against Clete talking about the Mid-Acts heresy, I mean teaching.

[Gerlad]

Hey Knight,

This has been going on quite a while.

Can you give us an idea where things stand?

[Clete]

Originally posted by add yasaf

I'll go against Clete talking about the Mid-Acts heresy, I mean teaching.

You don't mean teaching! You are disrespectful liar.

Putting you in a Battle Royale would lend way more credibility to you than is deserved and one against me would be especially difficult as you have just made my ignore list. Your cocky, disrespectful attitude is off the charts and I’ve had all I stand.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Crow

There's a few people around here I would like to see do a Battle Royale--

:Clete: :turbo: :1Way: ::sozo2:

Having Sozo in a BR would be a first, I don't think a BR participant has ever been banned in the middle of a Battle before.

:D

[add yasaf]

Clete Pfeiffer quote - You don't mean teaching! You are disrespectful liar.

Putting you in a Battle Royale would lend way more credibility to you than is deserved and one against me would be especially difficult as you have just made my ignore list. Your cocky, disrespectful attitude is off the charts and I’ve had all I stand.







I have already replied to your post about me supposedly being disrespectful, and you ignored it!!! How disrespectful of you!!!!


I told you before that I am not personally attacking Bob, but his theology. He is the one to make a public show of being a Bible answer man. And so it is only fair that his theology be critiqued publicly. If anyone disagrees with this line of thinking, speak now or forever hold your peace!

[Clete]

Originally posted by add yasaf
I have already replied to your post about me supposedly being disrespectful, and you ignored it!!! How disrespectful of you!!!!
I didn't respond because I do not believe you.

I told you before that I am not personally attacking Bob, but his theology. He is the one to make a public show of being a Bible answer man. And so it is only fair that his theology be critiqued publicly.
Yes this is the line of poo that you back peddled to after having nearly gotten booted off the site.

The following quotes convey your real position....

Bob Enyart vs. Add Yasaf in any debate. I just don't like the guy.
You were actually referring to Bob Hill here but didn't know enough about either man to know that they were two different people.

There is a good reason why I can say that I do not like Bob. I was on his site and we were discussing open theism, and I was asking him some questions, and he suddenly stopped the thread and deleted it.

Clete can verify this. I was trying to bring some of the discussion over here to this site to help things along, when he up and deleted the thread. He never did answer the questions.


I am not trying to get back at him, but I think he spreads a lot of misinformation based on little theological background and can be quite misleading.

Then you started a thread entitled, "bobhill's bad theology" which has a decidedly condescending and arrogant tone....

This thread is dedicated to stopping Bob Hill's bad theology. Actually it is not too hard to do this. But at least there will be one less bad teacher of Scripture around for people to follow.


I am about to bring a can of whoop@#^ on Bobby.
Now if this isn't personal disrespect what the heck is?!
Calling a man who is twice your age and who has been in the ministry for longer than you've existed both a "bad teacher of Scripture" and then referring to him as "Bobby".
I tell you now. If I could I would happily and proudly punch you in the mouth for having said this.
You go on to say in this post...
I randomly picked a topic on his site and surprise, surprise, Bob shows his lack of training in Biblical studies.
More blatant disrespect and what's worse is that you admit that your statements stem from a complete lack of familiarity with what he teaches! You randomly picked something from his site! Did you spend more than five minutes reading anything on his site to see how he establishes his positions? Are you aware that in most of his answers he assumes the person asking the question already understands that he is speaking from a dispensational position and that he makes no effort to reestablish the foundational issues that his answers are based upon? Obviously not! :rolleyes:

You did cool your disrespectful jets when Knight told you to pipe down or get lost. But then you post this..

I'll go against Clete talking about the Mid-Acts heresy, I mean teaching.
A statement indicating that you consider Bob Hill a heretic which is utterly unfounded.

Nobody says you have to like Pastor Hill. The point is you have decided to turn your dislike for his theology into dislike, and more importantly disrespect, for a very great man of God who simply does not deserve such disrespect. Such a loss of emotional control has basically made it impossible for you to get any traction on getting your view even heard because anyone here who is familiar with the Open View or Acts 9 Dispensationalism looks at Pastor Hill like a father and now won't touch a discussion on the issue involving you with a ten foot pole.

As I said before, if you would like to start another thread explaining how you jumped to conclusions that were unfounded about Pastor Hill and how you apologize for your disrespectfulness, then I might consider discussing the issue with you, depending upon whether you sell me on the sincerity of your apology.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Greywolf]

JoM vs. Sozo or Turbo
Was Jesus God?

(Assuming any of them would be interested in participating.)

[Clete]

Originally posted by Greywolf

JoM vs. Sozo or Turbo
Was Jesus God?

(Assuming any of them would be interested in participating.)

JosephofMessiah doesn't beleive that Jesus is God? Hmm! Maybe there was a good reason I had him on my ignore list after all!

Good topic idea by the way, but "Was" probably should be replaced with "Is".

"Is Jesus God?" rather than "Was Jesus God?", minor point I know, but it jumped out at me and I'm sort of bored at the moment, so I thought I'd say something.

[Nineveh]

How about Aimiel vs Sozo on whatever it is that might cool off the bickering? ... or would it make it worse?

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Greywolf

JoM vs. Sozo or Turbo
Was Jesus God?

(Assuming any of them would be interested in participating.)


Yikes! JoM's regular posts are as long as a Tolstoy novel. I'd hate to see the Battle Royale versions.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Greywolf

JoM vs. Sozo or Turbo
Was Jesus God?

(Assuming any of them would be interested in participating.)

Good idea.....but I would like to see a word limit on each post.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by On Fire

Good idea.....but I would like to see a word limit on each post. I can be a man of very few words! (None of which are allowed at TOL) :chuckle:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

I can be a man of very few words! (None of which are allowed at TOL) :chuckle: Another reason you wouldn't make a Battle Royale candidate (besides the obvious, that you don't have anything to say, other than to vent frustration).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Another reason you wouldn't make a Battle Royale candidate (besides the obvious, that you don't have anything to say, other than to vent frustration). :chicken:

[Aimiel]

:troll:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Nineveh

How about Aimiel vs Sozo on whatever it is that might cool off the bickering? ... or would it make it worse? Aimiel has already been thoroughly waxed in a Battle Royale. Battle Royale V. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3735)

Aimiel was FG7 at the time.

[Nineveh]

Ah, ok. My bad. Shoulda looked through the archive before I made the post. So solly...

So how about one with dave miller then :D

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Knight

Aimiel has already been thoroughly waxed in a Battle Royale. Battle Royale V. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3735) I didn't know that there had been a decision. You mean I didn't win? :cry:

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ah, ok. My bad. Shoulda looked through the archive before I made the post. So solly...

So how about one with dave miller then :D

Me against Sozo? Hmmm, battle of good against evil. Its
appealing, but 'fraid not, Sozo hasn't demonstrated an
ability to stick to a subject or use logic in any civilized
sense of the word. 'Sides, he insinuated that my first
girlfriend was a boy! *sniff* 'snot fair *sniff*

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Yikes! JoM's regular posts are as long as a Tolstoy novel. I'd hate to see the Battle Royale versions.

Originally posted by On Fire
Good idea.....but I would like to see a word limit on each post.

I don't think that either of them would be able to touch Bob's performance in Battle Royale VII as far as sheer length is concerned. :chuckle:

How long was the book that he made out of the debate? 40 or so pages? :chuckle:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Sozo
I can be a man of very few words! (None of which are allowed at TOL) :chuckle:

:ha:
:chuckle:

[SOTK]

Has OV versus Calvinism ever been done for a BR?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by SOTK
Has OV versus Calvinism ever been done for a BR?

I don't see one listed in the Battle Royale forum.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by SOTK

Has OV versus Calvinism ever been done for a BR?

:shocked: *runs off to build a fall-out shelter*

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Lovejoy
:shocked: *runs off to build a fall-out shelter*

Very true. :chuckle:

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

:shocked: *runs off to build a fall-out shelter*


:darwinsm:


Yeah, I paused before writing that.......it's just a subject I'm interested in right now, and I think if debated right, could be a very interesting debate.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Very true. :chuckle:

He said "blessed are the meek." I hoping that He meant "the too chicken to debate OV versus Calvinism at TOL." 'Cause then I am a shoo in!

[SOTK]

:chuckle:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by BillyBob


Maybe we could have Sozo vs. Everybody Else!

:D

Still waiting to do this one.

:yawn:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Sozo
Still waiting to do this one.

:yawn:

:idea:

Instead of a Battle Royale, we could just have Sozo go post in that atheist forum that Lovejoy's been posting at. A forum full of people who disagree with Sozo on very fundamental issues, little to no moderation... :devil:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Lovejoy
He said "blessed are the meek." I hoping that He meant "the too chicken to debate OV versus Calvinism at TOL." 'Cause then I am a shoo in!

:chuckle:

TOL can definitely be a "bring you thick skin" site at times.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Greywolf

:idea:

Instead of a Battle Royale, we could just have Sozo go post in that atheist forum that Lovejoy's been posting at. A forum full of people who disagree with Sozo on very fundamental issues, little to no moderation... :devil:


They said that only one person has ever been banned. I am willing to bet there would soon be two....

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Lovejoy
They said that only one person has ever been banned. I am willing to bet there would soon be two....

Yea, Sozo's got that talent (with his tolerant, forgive-and-forget nature and all). :chuckle:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

:idea:

Instead of a Battle Royale, we could just have Sozo go post in that atheist forum that Lovejoy's been posting at. A forum full of people who disagree with Sozo on very fundamental issues, little to no moderation... :devil: I'm not that interested in atheists (unless they are of the so-called "former Christian" variety). I prefer to beat up on stupid Christians, who say stupid things.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Yea, Sozo's got that talent (with his tolerant, forgive-and-forget nature and all). :chuckle:


What kills me is that these guys at the atheist site start threads planning raids on Christian sites (not everyone, just a millitant core group) with the intent of getting banned. Which means no one gets banned from the atheist site, but virtually everyone at the atheist site has been banned from somewhere else! Good times!

Still, it would be fun to see them take on someone like Sozo. Those guys curse up a storm, but Sozo has a way of using a limited amount of profanity in a truly devastating way. Economy in insult, if you will. I lack that ability completely. Kinda envious.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Lovejoy
What kills me is that these guys at the atheist site start threads planning raids on Christian sites (not everyone, just a millitant core group) with the intent of getting banned. Which means no one gets banned from the atheist site, but virtually everyone at the atheist site has been banned from somewhere else! Good times!

I think that TOL used to do something like that back in its earlier days. If I'm not mistaken, that was the original purpose of the mysterious "War Room". I don't know if they ever got banned though... Definitely sounds like a good time though.

Originally posted by Lovejoy
Still, it would be fun to see them take on someone like Sozo. Those guys curse up a storm, but Sozo has a way of using a limited amount of profanity in a truly devastating way. Economy in insult, if you will. I lack that ability completely. Kinda envious.

He is very good at that.

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Sozo

I'm not that interested in atheists (unless they are of the so-called "former Christian" variety). I prefer to beat up on stupid Christians, who say stupid things.

I feel quite the same. That is why I do not proselyte when I am at the site. These guys have made their decisions, and don't feel that I need to expend a great deal of breath changing their minds. However, there is much to learn there about how Christians end up in that state of affairs, as well as other things of value. Interesting people, too.

Also, the hostility level makes me appreciate TOL all the more.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

Still, it would be fun to see them take on someone like Sozo. Those guys curse up a storm, but Sozo has a way of using a limited amount of profanity in a truly devastating way. Economy in insult, if you will. I lack that ability completely. Kinda envious.
Originally posted by Greywolf

He is very good at that.

You guys are making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :o

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Sozo

You guys are making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :o

Its a sweets for the sweet kinda thing, only in reverse. :)


You know I luv ya, man!

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Sozo

I prefer to beat up on stupid Christians, who say stupid things.

Too bad dave already ran away lol :)

[nancy]

Since I'm a newbie, I will argue for the closed theism view with somebody

[Knight]

Since I'm a newbie, I will argue for the closed theism view with somebodyIn August we will be featuring a debate on that topic and the combatants are all set to go.

However, we certainly appreciate your offer. :up:

[Freak]

In August we will be featuring a debate on that topic and the combatants are all set to go.

However, we certainly appreciate your offer. :up: :liberals: Care to share more details?

[Knight]

:liberals: Care to share more details?Not yet. :)

[Freak]

Not yet. :) Any updates? :think:

[Aimiel]

What about negative stereotyping vs. honest portrayal of Christians in modern media? Maybe using a couple people (a Christian and a non-Christian) who have seen a lot of recent movies with opposing opinions. Just a suggested topic.

[Parel]

I think a "Does freewill exist" debate would be good.

[PureX]

What about negative stereotyping vs. honest portrayal of Christians in modern media? Maybe using a couple people (a Christian and a non-Christian) who have seen a lot of recent movies with opposing opinions. Just a suggested topic.No one would agree on what an "honest portrayal" of a Christian would be. Not even Christians.

[Granite]

Yeah, consensus on that topic would last for all of three or four posts...

[Aimiel]

Allright, maybe that's a better topic for Inquisitor and Ya'nar #1 or GeraldUK: "What defines a Christian? What do Christians agree on?"

[PureX]

Face it, Aimiel, your religion promotes the illusion of absolute righteousness. Every Christian thinks he knows what's absolutely right and that every other 'supposed' Christians is absolutely wrong if he dares to disagree. You'd be hard pressed to find two of you that wouldn't each be condemning the other to hell five minutes after the discussion opened. The only thing Christians really agree on is that they're more righteous than everyone else. But as soon as everyone else leaves the room, then they're at each other's throats.

[Aimiel]

Face it, Aimiel, your religion promotes the illusion of absolute righteousness. Every Christian thinks he knows what's absolutely right and that every other 'supposed' Christians is absolutely wrong if he dares to disagree. You'd be hard pressed to find two of you that wouldn't each be condemning the other to hell five minutes after the discussion opened. The only thing Christians really agree on is that they're more righteous than everyone else. But as soon as everyone else leaves the room, then they're at each other's throats.Oh, admittedly, the majority (or at least IMHO) of Christians don't study and learn the truth nearly as much as they ought to. There's more to learn than just that God loves every soul that lives and wants to see them saved by The Blood of His Dear Son. Too many Christians don't discern The Body and The Blood of Jesus. They don't realize that by backbiting their fellow Christians, they're biting The Back of The Lord. If they did, there'd be a whole lot less 'in-fighting' than there currently is.

[SOTK]

Face it, Aimiel, your religion promotes the illusion of absolute righteousness. Every Christian thinks he knows what's absolutely right and that every other 'supposed' Christians is absolutely wrong if he dares to disagree. You'd be hard pressed to find two of you that wouldn't each be condemning the other to hell five minutes after the discussion opened. The only thing Christians really agree on is that they're more righteous than everyone else. But as soon as everyone else leaves the room, then they're at each other's throats.

Come on, PureX, you know that's not the case. That may happen here from time to time, but it hardly occurs in reality. Your overgeneralizations sure get old.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Come on, PureX, you know that's not the case. That may happen here from time to time, but it hardly occurs in reality. Your overgeneralizations sure get old.

Eh ... it's an overgeneralization, and an exaggeration, to be sure ... but it's not without a core of truth. Look at the schismatic history of the Protestants.

[Rafael Almeida]

I have an idea:
What about Christian theism vs. pantheism

[Clete]

I have an idea:
What about Christian theism vs. pantheism
If someone could talk Jim Hilston into arguing the Christian theism side, I think that this would be a terrific topic.

[cattyfan]

with time running short between now and Battle X, perhaps we should take on something light and easy..."grass versus turf" or "heels vesus flats" or "wearing white after Labor Day" or something.

[cattyfan]

"frozen versus on-the-rocks"..."regular versus light" (BillyBob could actually represent both sides of this for maximum speed in getting Battle IX done.)

[Servo]

"heels vesus flats"

You could take on Bean-Boi!

[Servo]

"frozen versus on-the-rocks"..."regular versus light" (BillyBob could actually represent both sides of this for maximum speed in getting Battle IX done.)

He could drink a round between each round. Keep switching between regular and light and tell us why each one is better than the last.

:cheers:

[Crow]

Nope. How about BillyBob and Crow doing Coors Light vs Rolling Rock?

[Yorzhik]

Sigh. I've failed. I cannot find a degreed person that wants to argue the positive of the statement "radiometric dating is reliable".

Sorry.

[Crow]

drbrumley threw down the gauntlet with Freak about the law.......with predictable results.

[Knight]

Sigh. I've failed. I cannot find a degreed person that wants to argue the positive of the statement "radiometric dating is reliable".

Sorry.The Phy wanted no part of it anyway. :(

[Turbo]

Sigh. I've failed. I cannot find a degreed person that wants to argue the positive of the statement "radiometric dating is reliable".

Sorry.
Battle Royale IX recruiting aside... That's a good thing!

[Yorzhik]

I've asked the geological departs of some universities (Michigan, Nova Scotia, and California), I've asked some people that put their ideas on the internet, and I've asked ThePhy and aharvey. If they don't write back to refuse, they don't write back.

[Catatumba]

I've asked the geological departs of some universities (Michigan, Nova Scotia, and California), I've asked some people that put their ideas on the internet, and I've asked ThePhy and aharvey. If they don't write back to refuse, they don't write back.
I took a look at that battle royale about God existing...
Hans Kung wrote it first; oh, and The Hebrew God does not exist...
The Hebrew God Is.
A new something or another must be proposed, before somebody dies of boredom. :help:

[Yorzhik]

Johnny, have you ever considered a Battle Royal? Would you like to take on Do-While Jones on this topic?

I would love to do a battle royal, but it'd have to be planned around my schedule as it is very demanding while I am in school. (Not to sound selfish, but that's the only way I'd ever have time to take part).

[Servant101]

So...... it's been over a year since Bob Enyart participated in BR VII and its been several months since BR VIII, I think its time for new battle!

I want to see if Bob Enyart will be so kind as to take on another Battle Royale.

Here are the ideas I am going to present to Bob as two possible battles:

A. Bob Enyart vs. Jim Hilston.
Is the future open for God?

B. Bob vs. Zakath.
Is the Bible the word of God?

Thoughts????


I like choice B - Zakath and Bob, but I would have them debate what is a responsible exegesis of the Scripture - even words like Scripture - are Scriptures only in closed books - who closed the bible and how did they decide what was included or not included - who's idea was it to have a Book like every other religion and a Clergy just like every other religion?



mmmmmm