Who is Bob Enyart?

Status
Not open for further replies.

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Support TOL, it stands or falls on "user supported donations."

It is not a subsidiary of any ministry, rather, it's just primarily a family or two (with plenty of children each!) winging it all these years!

Wait, is that "supported" or "backed" donations. (hmmm)

:eek:

Turbo - Good thanks for the clarification.
:thumb:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Jefferson

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 . . .
Yea I suppose there is some truth to that.

There is more of a bond between TOL and KGOV than just "like mindedness".

For instance...

TOL and KGOV does collaborate on certain things like Bob Enyart Forum where we post KGOV broadcasts etc.
 

frugalmom

Night Elf
Originally posted by Zakath

The way the legal system works in most states, one goes to jail because one is convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail time, not because one doesn't accept a plea bargain. Perhaps things are different in Colorado...

:rolleyes: What I meant was, it was my understanding that he could have plea bargained and gotten lesser sentence, probation, had he done that and agreed not to spank again.

Originally posted by Zakath
It would seem that some Christians are doing exactly what they condemn believers in evolution for allegedly doing... reducing people to little better than animals.

Sadly, that is sometimes the case.
 

frugalmom

Night Elf
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Look, I know that this book is a bit over the edge (at least in my view) but you are reading things into this book that simply are not there.
The fact of the matter is that babies, even newborn babies react to both positive and negative stimuli. And very, very young babies can learn what the word 'no' means if given a pain response to reinforce it.
That doesn't mean you beat the child for crying out loud! It simply means you swat the child’s hand hard enough for it to be unpleasant when you say 'no'. If you do that for about a day or maybe two consistently then you pretty much don't have to do it any more.
When my first born was just beginning to crawl, we blanket trained her. And yes I mean trained her. We set her on a blanket and set up situations that would make her want to get off the blanket and the moment her hand left the blanket we calmly said 'no' and swatted her hand. It took maybe three days and from that point on we could take her anywhere and it didn't matter who was there or what distraction came along to tempt her away from her blanket. We knew that she would stay on that blanket pretty much no matter what. We didn't have to worry about her pulling the drapes down or knocking over the nick-knacks on her grandmother's table. We didn't have to worry about her getting into something that might harm her or wandering off to some unknown place where we didn't know where she was. It completely relieved a mountain of stress that many, if not most parents have to deal with every single day. I didn't have to be saying "No, Tara" five hundred times a day and she didn't have to be miserable because she was constantly in trouble all the time. She stayed on her blanket and played and had a grand ol' time, laughing and giggling like an infant should. She was and still is to this day, the joy of what ever house hold she happens to be in. All because I and her mother were not afraid to cause her a little bit of pain in order that she learn to obey Mommy and Daddy.
You seem to have some big problem with setting up training sessions with your child as if it is just some excuse that parents like myself use to get to beat on our children or something. It's not that at all. Life will train your child if you don't, which do you think will be the more loving and tender? If you will set up situations in the safety of your own home where the child innately knows that it is loved and protected then not only will the child learn more quickly and completely but then you will not have to be attempting to teach your child a lesson while in the middle of the grocery store, which is embarrassing for you and much less effective for the child because I don't care how young they are, if they detect that they get their way at the grocery store because your too embarrassed to really do anything about it then you are going to LOVE buying groceries from now on!
Now, I happen to agree that this book does go a little far in some of the things they recommend, especially with of few of the things they do with toddlers but what they have to say about training infants is, frankly, the most effective are loving way to train up a child. Anything less is stressful to the max for the parent and down right harmful to the child. You might find it distasteful but I would wager that it is because you have read one too many parenting magazines and graduated from public school where anything Godly is belittled and shunned to the utmost. Not that your stupid or anything like that. I graduated from public school myself. It’s just that it occurs to me that your reaction is most likely born out of our culture more than anything else. A hundred years ago, this book would not even have raised an eyebrow. Everyone who read it would have just said, "Well, no duh! Isn't this the way everyone raises their kids?" Used to be, when a kid got a spanking, he remembered it for more than half an hour. Used to be that if a kid got a spanking, he didn’t need to get another one for a good long while, if ever. I would venture to say that if you raised you kids the way that the Pearl's recommend, that you would spank you kids about 1/10 as much as anyone else on your block and you would yell at them 1/1000 as much. Sounds pretty darn good to me.

I really strongly urge you to just call him! Call 1-888-8ENYART. Most likely his Mom will answer the phone, who, by the way, is just simply a wonderful lady to talk to. Ask her about it, she’ll tell ya. Or just tell that this is really bugging you and you would very much like to talk to Bob about it. I promise you that he’ll happily talk with you about it, on or off the air. Bob is simply the most gracious man I know. If you call him you will not be sorry you did.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete - I answered this post here. :) It was becoming difficult to sift through this thread.
 

frugalmom

Night Elf
Originally posted by 1Way

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. 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. (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.

1WAY - I replied to this post here .
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by frugalmom

:rolleyes: What I meant was, it was my understanding that he could have plea bargained and gotten lesser sentence, probation, had he done that and agreed not to spank again.
Thank you for clarifying your point.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Agreeing to not spank is basically agreeing to spoil the child. Leaving behind red marks/welts or even blueness are demonstrations of a good spanking that is sanctioned by the bible.

I understand that Bob admitted that they could have just stopped fighting the courts in order to get a lessor sentance, (i.e. plea bargain) but they stood on godly principles and they ended up paying a heavier price because of it. It was not just to create more hype and attention for the show/ministry.

And putting blame on Enyart because the child was not of his own blood line is a sad argument, you should love and care for your children no matter if they are yours by blood or by law.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by 1Way

Agreeing to not spank is basically agreeing to spoil the child. Leaving behind red marks/welts or even blueness are demonstrations of a good spanking that is sanctioned by the bible.

I understand that Bob admitted that they could have just stopped fighting the courts in order to get a lessor sentance, (i.e. plea bargain) but they stood on godly principles and they ended up paying a heavier price because of it. It was not just to create more hype and attention for the show/ministry.

And putting blame on Enyart because the child was not of his own blood line is a sad argument, you should love and care for your children no matter if they are yours by blood or by law.
:thumb:
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by 1Way

Clete - Not that you must keep track of these things, but frugalmom's list quote has me wanting to add more people. Off the top of my head, I'd say the list needs GodIsTruth, Acts9_12Out, Yorzhik, Shimei, ApologeticJedi and "perhaps" (?) drbrumley (?).

Who is the list holder, lightson made a list, and there are several lists some with accumulated add ins and others that differ somewhat depending upon when it was quoted.

I find this list very interesting and I would really like to be able to have contact with fellow believers for various reasons. As it is right now, I have to manually scan dozens of pages in order to find this list. (Bummer)

Would you please adopt a searchable and reliable term for this list, like "BELsupporters" or "Enyart supporters" or something that is reliably searchable and then always includes that term as a heading with the list, that way the list can be readily searched and referenced wherever it is. I like BELsupports all one word because it is unique and more inclusive and shorter in spelling than Enyart supports which is not as unique.

Here is the list, which I found in my trusty Excel log.

1Way
AROTO
Becky
Brellix
Clete Pfeiffer
CRASH
Crow
ddevonb
deardelmar
Denver Survivor
drbrumley
drRansom
frugalmom
Jefferson
Knight
Lion
Mr Potato Head
NarrowWay
Neo01
Nineveh
Poly
RATitude
Shimei
Sibbie
Smackdab
Turbo
tuxpower
wholearmor (possibly)
Wrestlerdude16
Yorzhik
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lightson

Yet another non-updated list. :eek:

We have lists, but they keep changing and are not updated or consistent. Your list did not include some of the additions I recommended, nor the deletion of the disgrunteled frugalmom. Oh goodness, we need to include our long time friend Bob Ball!
:doh: How could I forget Bob, he is pro BEL bigtime.

Thanks for trying to help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top