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

[Lion]

Freak said-I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos.

Amen!

 

[Hilston]

Combined replies ...

Combined replies ...

Combined reply to Philosophizer, Scrimshaw and OneEye Jack:

To Philosophizer

Originally posted by Hilston : The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.

Philosophizer writes:

Dude, beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it.

I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?

Philosophizer writes:

You need to cross a step over into his world and entertain his fallacious logic to really get the point across.

I have nothing against that as long as it is done biblically.

To Scrimshaw

Scrimshaw writes:

If you are reading the same thread I am, Zakath and Bob are currently discussing numerous philosophical issues, such as: what is truth, the absoluteness of right and wrong, evidence regarding the origin of the universe, etc. Those are questions that philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian) have been debating for centuries.

So what. It doesn't justify a Christian using unbiblical and godless reasoning to try to persuade an anti-theist of what he already knows to be true.

Scrimshaw writes:

Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.

See my discussion above on Proverbs 26:4,5. If you want further elaboration, let me know. Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation. Furthermore, the corollary truth of Romans 1, describing the anti-theist as already knowing, having sufficient evidence, yet suppressing the truth emphatically underscores this principle. Let me hasten to say that I'm not claiming we must use the exact words as the Bible, as it has been alleged, but that we employ the biblical methodology when presenting the truth.

Scrimshaw writes:

Eh, you just cast aspersions on Bob for referring to God in those terms

It's not a question of terms, but of method.

Scrimshaw writes:

.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.

I would never refer to the Creator as an intelligent designer". He is THE Creator, Jesus Christ. It really sounds as if you're ashamed to say Who He is, which is particularly noteworthy given the passage I cited and its context, in which Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 1).

Jim previously asked: The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

Scrimshaw writes:

Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, ...

General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture? There is nothing "general" about the Lord or Truth. He is specifically the true God among countless false ones. To refer a god or gods, who is/are intelligent, eternal, and wise is anti-biblical.

Scrimshaw writes:

... and once that case is built, you can then go further and begin sharing the reasons for why you believe the Christian God is the true God.

Paul says we are to be casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of a general deity. No wait ... every thought captive to a creative, intelligent designer thing or things. No wait ... every thought captive to whom? Christ, specifically. (2Co 10:5).

Scrimshaw writes:

It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".

Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

Scrimshaw writes:

That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.

Yeah, educated people know better than to rely on the Bible. You'd have to be an idiot, or a someone with the mind of a 6-year-old to be persuaded by the words of scripture. Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

Scrimshaw writes:

In Romans chapter 1, Paul says " [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". So the Bible teaches that our belief in God is based on the evidence we see in "what has been made" - which is the universe and it's laws.

This is talking about anti-theists, Scrimshaw. Are you including yourself among them? It says that the knowledge of God's existence and attributes are understood -- that is, already sufficiently proven -- by the anti-theist via the creation. God doesn't need your or Bob's help in this.

Scrimshaw writes:

So when Enyart says that his belief in God is based on the laws of the universe, he is basing his belief in God on "what has been made". Thus, Bob's answer is in total agreement with Romans 1:20.

No, if his answer were in agreement with Romans 1:20, he would have said to Zakath, "You already know this, but you suppress it in unrighteousness."

To OneEye

OneEye writes:

I wasn't aware that it was freely available for download. Do you have a link? I'd like to listen to it myself. Thanks.

It was way back in October of 2000. I don't think the current archives at KGOV.com go back that far.

Jim

 

[philosophizer]

Re: Combined replies ...

Re: Combined replies ...

Originally posted by Hilston
I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?

Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors. That is biblical. Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.

 

[Hilston]

Ends justify means?

Ends justify means?

Lion writes:

Hilston;

Please call me Jim.

Lion writes:

Brother, you could not be more wrong about Bob’s approach. I am living proof of this. I was an adamant atheist and only started watching Bob’s old TV show because of his conservative bent. I remember saying, to my then also atheist wife, that I liked the show, but I sure wish he would leave all that stupid biblical stuff out of it.

The ends do not justify the means. I know someone who was actually influenced by Madonna's music to pursue Christ and became a zealous witness for the Lord. That doesn't justify Madonna's music. I myself came to Christ through studying Mormonism. That doesn't justify the false doctrine of the LDS.

Lion writes:

You of course are absolutely right that atheist are suppressing the truth and rejecting God rather than having the excuse of ignorance, however, the truth was the same for those following Christ and His apostles but still they debated and reproved and taught.

There's nothing wrong with debating and reproving and teaching, but it must be done biblically. It's also good to distribute Bibles, but not if you stole them from the local bookstore.

Lion writes:

Remember that God says Himself, “Come, let us reason together… though your sins were as scarlet they will be as white as snow.”

Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

Lion writes:

Freak said - "I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos." Amen.

Here is how Apollos preached: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It doesn't say, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by anti-theistic reasoning that a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Apollos reasoned from the scriptures. Mr. Enyart is not doing that. Anyway, Scrimshaw thinks the Jews would have to have had the minds of 6-year-olds to be persuaded Apollos's method.

Jim

 

[Lion]

Hilston asks;

General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture?

Acts 17:22-23Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an alter with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.

To the atheist who places science as his god, Bob shows them that the true Creator of science is the one they are worshiping without knowing it. It is Him that Bob is declaring to them.

Scrimshaw said-It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".

Hilston answered-Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

No, what he is saying is that you would just say “The bible says so!” Where as he shows them where and how the bible tells them. Because if someone will not guid them, (Acts 8:27-35 how will they learn?

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

Man dude...I just visited your site, read some of the stuff i.e., the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.

Anyway...

Ok...let me get this straight...

proverbs 26:4 says:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly..."

and proverbs 26:5 says:

"Answer a fool according to his folly..."

You then claim how although they may appear to be apparent contradictions they are actually a method to debate. First we don't answer a fool according to his folly...and then we do. And that's good.

You then say...

"Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly,..."

And you claim that is bad! Bob answers a fool according to his folly and you say he has done wrong...you then claim how, according to scripture, one must answer a fool according to his folly. You just don't like the way Bob has done it. He has done that which you claim should be done...but since it isn't like you would have done it...Bob is a fool. How foolish.

I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.

 

[Lion]

Jim,
It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord. I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent. Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaaaKath that is unbiblical.

 

[Hilston]

Shooting at the leaves ...

Shooting at the leaves ...

Philosophizer writes:

Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors.

That's the wrong method. You said yourself that "beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it." So instead of using what he already trusts, Mr. Enyart should be dismantling Zakath's anti-theistic trust in those very things. That would be answering the fool according to his folly. Mr. Enyart would then show that Zakath trusts logic and science irrationally. That is the Biblical critique of Zakath that Mr. Enyart should be using. Instead of "Do you believe in truth?", the question should be "How, on your worldview, do you even claim to engage in a debate?" Make Zakath justify his use of logic and science (exclusively theistic principles). The atheist can't do it. But rather than excavating the very root upon which Zakath's anti-theistic worldview rests, Mr. Enyart chooses instead to shoot at the leaves. "That's OK," the anti-theist says, "I can grow more."

Philosophizer writes:

Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.

Sure, but he didn't use unbiblical methods or compromise the Word the way Mr. Enyart is doing.

Jim

 

[Lion]

BigCheese!

I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.

ROTFL!!!!

GREAT!

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

Hokey smokes...I just read Hilston's interest and they tell a lot. For example I have come to the conlcusion that you are a rock-n-roll, alcoholic with lung cancer. You talk about foolish.

How is one that destroys his God given body able to tell everyone else how things should be done?

 

[Lion]

White cat, not black.

White cat, not black.

Hilston- The ends do not justify the means.

True, but just because the means are not Jim’s means, in no way shows they are not God’s means.
Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.
Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God.

There's nothing wrong with debating and reproving and teaching, but it must be done biblically. It's also good to distribute Bibles, but not if you stole them from the local bookstore.

What a stupid comparison.

Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning…

Here is how Apollos preached: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It doesn't say, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by anti-theistic reasoning that a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Apollos reasoned from the scriptures. Mr. Enyart is not doing that. Anyway, Scrimshaw thinks the Jews would have to have had the minds of 6-year-olds to be persuaded Apollos's method.

Just because you don’t understand science (as evidenced by your replacant theory) doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science. Bob uses the scriptures when appropriate, and at other times the princibles behind scripture that, show that God is God, at others.

Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?

 

[Hilston]

To Lion and cheeezywheeezy

To Lion and cheeezywheeezy

Combined reply to Lion and cheeeezywheeeezy.

To Lion

Lion writes:

It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord.

Vindictive? For what could I possibly want to take revenge against Bob Enyart?

Lion writes:

I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent.

I would be remiss if I didn't point it out. I am obligated to defend the scriptures and to condemn the misuse of them.

Lion writes:

Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaKath that is unbiblical.

See above and previous page.

To cheeezywheeezy

cheeezywheeezy writes:

... the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.

You're wrong, cheeezywheeezy. I like him a lot. I was debating someone who kindly sent me a complimentary copy of The Plot. He wanted to know what I thought, so I felt obliged to critique it. Your kneejerk assumptions make me curious. I could be wrong about you, cheeezywheeezy, but this kind of false assumption (i.e. that a critique implies disdain) is a pattern I find among sycophants. It's gross.

As to your tortured efforts to understand Prov. 26:4,5, you seem to be missing a major grammatical point of the verses. The verses no doubt appear to be contradictory. One says "answer a fool according to his folly." The other says "answer NOT a fool according to his folly." So it must be that either (a) the Bible is a bunch of hooey, or (b) this verse is talking about ways, manners, methods of answering the fool. It should be obvious to the reader that the verse is describing a manner of answering the fool correctly and a manner of not answering the fool correctly, and warns against doing either incorrectly. I really should not have to explain this to you. But with this in mind, please go back and read what I wrote and it will all make sense to you.

Jim

 

[Lion]

Jim,
You forgot to answer this part of my post?

Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?

 

[Hilston]

I must have my revenge !!!

I must have my revenge !!!

Lion -- I just read that post. It showed up after I posted my previous.

Here is my answer to that post now:

Lion writes:

Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.

It's not backbiting. Bob Enyart is well aware of my position on this.

Lion writes:

Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God.

Mr. Enyart doesn't have to blaspheme God or speak an untruth about God to lose this debate and to be wrong in his apologetic method.

Jim previously wrote: Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

Lion writes:

He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning…

In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?

Lion writes:

... doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science.

Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.

Lion writes:

Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means?

Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.

Lion writes:

Are you now playing the hypocrite?

Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

 

[LightSon]

Dear James,

Good thread! You have brought up an issue that I have often wondered about in my attempts at using apologetics.

Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.

I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.

Please note that I haven't bought into your position necessarily. There are some hazy areas (perhaps in my brain only) for me to think through first. It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth.

Thanks for stirring up an interesting hornets nest.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: I must have my revenge !!!

Re: I must have my revenge !!!

Originally posted by Hilston
Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

Then why did you post it in the Attributes of God forum?

 

[Lion]

In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?

Hmmmm… are you saying you think God is not the intellgeant, eternal Creator? “In the beginning, God created”. And that is what Bob is proving to Zaaaakath in this debate. And he is doing it using the science that God created and has shown us through His creation. There is nothing wrong about that in any way shape or form.

Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.

What are you talking about? He is very carefully taking Zaaaakath through the princibles of science (IE the scientific method) and proving there is a God, using the facts of the creation as a guid. Does this mean Zaaaakath will believe? No, of course not, (although I believe it is far more likely that he might turn using Bob’s approach than yours, just as I did) but there are countless others that can read these posts and learn about God’s wonders. It will also give others valuable tools for combating atheistic beliefs.

Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.

Oh, so then you don’t believe that we are hard wired human beings with free will? You don’t believe that this is a biblical concept? Is that what you are saying?

About playing the hypocrite you said;

Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

What you are trying to do with that thread is to show how God could create a hard wired being that still has free will, and you think this is a biblical concept. Therefore you are playing the hypocrite because you are using a non biblical argument to support what you consider to be a biblical concept. Just as Bob is doing.

 

[Hilston]

The Unknown God ...

The Unknown God ...

Hi LightSon,

LightSon writes:

Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.

You should do both, but biblically. This is what Prov. 26:4,5 is saying.

LightSon writes:

I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.

I've encountered this sentiment before. I think the reason is that we don't immediately see the harm in trying to prove things that anti-theists deny. But the attempt to make these proofs neglects a vital, but often hidden fact, which is that the anti-theist is a liar and self-deluded. When we do not immediately confront this fact, the anti-theist is allowed to continue his lie and self-delusion.

LightSon writes:

It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth.

At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).

Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Note further that Paul specifically identifies the Unknown God: He is Jesus Christ, the very God whom the disputants worshiped in deliberate ignorance (v. 23); that is to say, the Athenians suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness, just as Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans.

Paul then goes on to further declare the God they already know and His prerogative over their lives, and even quotes one of their own poets to affirm they already know this God (v. 28).

Thanks for bringing this up, LightSon. It's an excellent example of what I've been talking abut.

Jim

 

[Lion]

Bark! Bark! Woof! Woof!

Bark! Bark! Woof! Woof!

Jim, by your own standard Bob’s arguments are perfectly in standing with what Paul did on Mars Hill. You said;

At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).
Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Bob constantly preaches on Christ being God, and Zaaaakath already knows his position on this issue, just as you say the Greeks did on the hill. So what’s the difference?

Oh, and as to the Proverbs 26 passage, aren’t you violating one of its concepts by putting in your two cents in a topic that you aren’t involved in?

Prov 26:17 He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Re: Combined replies ...

Re: Combined replies ...

Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See my discussion above on Proverbs 26:4,5. If you want further elaboration, let me know.

What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5?? Gee, what would God do without Mr. Hilston elaborations!! (See how your ridiculous logic backfires on your own arguments??)

Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation.

Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. You forget what Paul said here:

1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Furthermore, the corollary truth of Romans 1, describing the anti-theist as already knowing, having sufficient evidence, yet suppressing the truth emphatically underscores this principle. Let me hasten to say that I'm not claiming we must use the exact words as the Bible, as it has been alleged, but that we employ the biblical methodology when presenting the truth.

LOL!! The Apostle Paul just gave you the Biblical methodology for presenting the truth! In case you didn't catch it the first time, here it is again:

"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

You have been soundly refuted. Suck it up, take your correction, and let's move on.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would never refer to the Creator as an intelligent designer". He is THE Creator, Jesus Christ. It really sounds as if you're ashamed to say Who He is, which is particularly noteworthy given the passage I cited and its context, in which Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 1).

So your entire quibble is over calling God "an" intelligent designer instead of "the" intelligent designer? Wow, what a powerful argument!! <-----Note extreme sarcasm.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture? There is nothing "general" about the Lord or Truth. He is specifically the true God among countless false ones. To refer a god or gods, who is/are intelligent, eternal, and wise is anti-biblical.

No duh. That's why I went on to explain that the second step is to explain why the Creator is Jesus. The first step is to establish the necessity for the existence of "the" Creator, and the second step is to establish the IDENTITY of the Creator. So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, 2nd step = *identity* of the Creator. It's that simple. Why you would want to quibble about this is beyond me.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing.

That's not what I said. I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers. You are mangling my words and slandering me in the process. Are you aware of what the Bible says about slanderers??

Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

Again, if you would kindly remove your words from my mouth I'd much appreciate it. We do rely on the Bible for our HOPE, however, when you are talking to somone who does not believe in the Bible, it is a useless argument to say - "God is real because my Bible says so". That is a useless and ineffective argument because the person you are speaking to does not believe the Bible is true. It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.

Now do you see how idiotic your argument is or need I go on??


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, educated people know better than to rely on the Bible. You'd have to be an idiot, or a someone with the mind of a 6-year-old to be persuaded by the words of scripture.

I never made that claim. You are twisting and misapplying my words. You are slandering me. Since you are so keen on Proverbs, do you want me to start quoting all the passages that condemn slanderers??

Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!! Yes, it appears that God's Word wasn't good enough, so God needs Mr. Hilton to straighten everybody out!

Your own idiotic arguments backfire on you and you don't even realize it. :nono: