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

[Hilston]

Exclusively provided by Christianity ...

Exclusively provided by Christianity ...

Hi Flipper,

Flipper writes:

When did this become the exclusive provision of christianity?

It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation.

Flipper writes:

It seems to me that the principles of logic, math, and some proto-science were worked out by the decidedly pagan greeks, without recourse to gods in most cases.

Not at all. Christian theism and all the attending functions of the rational mind began with the first human in the Garden of Eden. The various pagan cultures later perverted and modified the truth in order to suit their God-hating and God-eschewing worldviews, in which they aggressively sought to remove God from their reasoning. Skepticism and epistemological futility are the necessary results of such an approach. Will Durant, in his book The Story of Philosophy, deliberately left out the epistemologists from his narrative, believing that they basically hijacked and undermined the entire field of philosophy. But that's because, when you remove God and His authority from your reasoning process, you can no longer deal with the tough questions without getting caught in a vicious circle of irrational question-begging.

Flipper writes:

You must, I presume, have a good reason for believing that only a Christian god gets to take credit for the rules as derived by man?

Man did not derive them. Man discovered them, formalized them. But they preceded man in existence.

Thanks for your questions,
Jim

 

[Flipper]

Man did not derive them. Man discovered them, formalized them. But they preceded man in existence.

Bit too platonic for my tastes, that. There are some exceptions but generally you may as well say that man discovered the rules of chess.

It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation.

Let me rephrase the question; is there some specific claim you would point to (biblical or otherwise) that would lead one to favor the Christian god over any other explanation, theistic or otherwise, as the source for science, logic, etc?

 

[Clete]

Re: Unbiblical = antibiblical

Re: Unbiblical = antibiblical

Originally posted by Hilston

There is a biblical way to answer the gainsayer, whatever the subject. The manner taught in scripture is logical and consistent with its teaching throughout. The method that evidentialists employ not only violates the manner instructed in scripture, but is inconsistent with its teaching throughout. If one studies the Bible's teaching on manner of debate, and the Bible's examples of debate, one finds wonderfully effective, logical and consistent method that applies in all situations.

With this much I agree....I think.(I might still have a problem with that third sentence.)

Over the last day or so I've spent some time thinking this through and reading this thread more completely. I've not been able to nail down what, exactly, is so bad about Bob's arguments that enable you to say that he lost the debate right out of the shoot! After all, even if Bob is wrong, Zakath is more wrong. If nothing else is true, Bob is at least on God's side and Zakath is not. Come judgment day, Bob wins the debate!
With that said, however, I will concede that I am in over my head when it come to dabating you!
UNCLE!
If you don't mind I'll just sit back and watch from here on out, keeping my mouth shut. :shut: unless I have a question that seems appropriate!

Resting (quietly, with mouth shut and ears open) in Christ!
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Oops!

Oops!

Oops! This was a mistake. I'll put something here later.

 

[Relativismsuks]

IMO Bob is winning so far. I have read through most of the posts and am less than surprised to see this occur. Zakath dodges and weaves around questions almost as well as Clinton. Perhaps a lip bitting icon can be added for effect it might help his chances of winning the debate.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Relativismsuks
Zakath dodges and weaves around questions almost as well as Clinton. Perhaps a lip bitting icon can be added for effect it might help his chances of winning the debate.

LOL :chuckle:

 

[1Way]

Hilston – (1) Atheism and atheists, (2) idols and idolaters.

1 –

The bible assumes that some people believe that there is no God, which is exactly what it means to be an atheist.

Ps 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "[There is] no God." ...

That is a foolish “person”, not just a foolish “belief”, this teaching is for real people, it’s a practical lesson, it is not teaching about something that could never happen. It would be really foolish to teach against the atheist, if as you suggest, atheists could not even exist.

Everyone knows of God in significant ways, even though the vast majority suppresses the truth in unrighteousness to their own condemnation.

Both of these teachings are true. Do Christians who minister to atheists believe that atheists are deluded for exchanging the truth for a lie? Sure, but we Christians can keep ourselves from delusion by realizing that atheists can and do exist just as the bible teaches. If we assume that there is no such thing as an atheist, then no one could ever minister nor even believe the truth from God’s word about atheists since it is teaching against something that could never happen.

2 -

The bible also teaches that there is only one true God, and it teaches that many Gods (idols) have been created even though there is only one true God. Some passages make it clear that God refers to other Gods, and on other occasions, the very idea that there is more than one God is strictly condemnable. So, when the bible offers what seems like a contradiction, we do well to handle both sides of the issue with proper care without violating the contextual considerations.

The truth is, God exists, and atheists exist too, to deny either or any bible teaching is wrong.

1Way

 

[attention]

Originally posted by Relativismsuks
IMO Bob is winning so far. I have read through most of the posts and am less than surprised to see this occur. Zakath dodges and weaves around questions almost as well as Clinton. Perhaps a lip bitting icon can be added for effect it might help his chances of winning the debate.

I don't know what the criteria are for winning the debate (if it is the length of posts and posting in time, then for sure Bon Enyart wins it in glance) but let us state that Bob E can only present his case at the basis of illusive arguments, which - after analyzing them - don't hold any water.

In fact all his solid arguments melt away, if not vapourize.

This does not mean that Zakath has presented his case the best possible way, but he didn't do bad either.

 

[coffeeman]

Hillston...
I've been following your pages and pages of argument, hoping to see some true sense of humility or even a smidgen of real concern over the Truth being presented to a lost and dying world.
...and by cracky! I think you almost had some readers hooked...maybe because they aren't fishermen, who knows...anyway, your cover was blown in your response to FLIPPER.

Here you are wasting your pietous speeches by pointing out how Bob Enyart doesn't argue "the Biblical way" but uses science and physics instead of scripture.

Why is it when you addressed Flipper's statements you never mentioned one verse of scripture? Not one part of a verse or even a hint of one? I wonder, are we told to point others to the writings of some author about philosophy to lead someone to Christ? All according to you ...yes...and ...no.

Could it be you are much like all of us mere sinners who have been saved by Grace? You are puffed up and have the hackles of your neck grizzled a bit because Bob has a radio show and is somewhat of a celebrity in his' own right? (right..get it?) And it is evident you think you are so much better of a debater and yes, even a better Christian. Hey, if I can see it...anyone can see it!

So easy to criticise..so tough to walk the talk eh?

Oh yeah...one more thing: The next verse after the one you soooo love to quote about the fools....well, here it is....guess you just forgot it was in there...strange how we see what we want to see.

Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(Whole Chapter: Proverbs 26 In context: Proverbs 26:3-5)


Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
(Whole Chapter: Proverbs 26 In context: Proverbs 26:4-6)

HMMMM>>>LOOKS LIKE WE ARE TOLD TO ANSWER A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY! Totally opposite of what HISTER says...

Your answer to FLIPPER in case in case you forgot what you said. (Man, you need a shot of JAVA real baaad!)

_________________________________________________________
Hi Flipper,

Flipper writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did this become the exclusive provision of christianity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation.

Flipper writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the principles of logic, math, and some proto-science were worked out by the decidedly pagan greeks, without recourse to gods in most cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. Christian theism and all the attending functions of the rational mind began with the first human in the Garden of Eden. The various pagan cultures later perverted and modified the truth in order to suit their God-hating and God-eschewing worldviews, in which they aggressively sought to remove God from their reasoning. Skepticism and epistemological futility are the necessary results of such an approach. Will Durant, in his book The Story of Philosophy, deliberately left out the epistemologists from his narrative, believing that they basically hijacked and undermined the entire field of philosophy. But that's because, when you remove God and His authority from your reasoning process, you can no longer deal with the tough questions without getting caught in a vicious circle of irrational question-begging.

Flipper writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must, I presume, have a good reason for believing that only a Christian god gets to take credit for the rules as derived by man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man did not derive them. Man discovered them, formalized them. But they preceded man in existence.

Thanks for your questions,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Specific biblical claim ...

Specific biblical claim ...

Hi Flipper,

I apologize for the absence. I've been a bit busy lately.

You quoted me: Man did not derive them. Man discovered them, formalized them. But they preceded man in existence.

And replied:

Bit too platonic for my tastes, that. There are some exceptions but generally you may as well say that man discovered the rules of chess.

Are the rules of chess applied in order to make our mundane experiences intelligible? They're hardly comparable flipper. But note that the laws of logic apply to the rules of chess, and are necessary to ascertain when someone breaks the rules.

Jim wrote: It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation.

Flipper writes:

Let me rephrase the question; is there some specific claim you would point to (biblical or otherwise) that would lead one to favor the Christian god over any other explanation, theistic or otherwise, as the source for science, logic, etc?

Yes. I would point to Col 1:16,17:

"For by him [Jesus Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

I will happily elaborate on the passage if you wish.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Idolatry and atheism -- both delusions ...

Idolatry and atheism -- both delusions ...

Hi 1way,

You write:

The bible assumes that some people believe that there is no God, ...

I've dealt with this very thing at length in previous posts. The Bible makes a distinction between knowing God in the sense of Romans 1 and Romans 10 (all men know Him) and not knowing God in the sense of John 8 (the pharisees who did not know Him or His Father). In either case, the men in question do know God, but they suppress the truth about Him. By suppressing that truth, they deny Him, and push Him far from themselves and becoming idolators. At this point they are described as not knowing Him, although they do know He exists and that they are accountable to Him. That is explicitly stated in Romans 1:32.

1way writes:

...which is exactly what it means to be an atheist.

There's no such thing. Those who tell you they don't believe in God actually do know He exists and that they are accountable to Him.


1way writes:

Ps 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "[There is] no God." ...

That is a foolish “person”, not just a foolish “belief”, this teaching is for real people, it’s a practical lesson, it is not teaching about something that could never happen. It would be really foolish to teach against the atheist, if as you suggest, atheists could not even exist.

That's not what I suggest to so-called atheists, unless it becomes strategic to do so. I'm stating a fact to Christians, not to atheists, because it affects how Christians argue and debate, and leads to unbiblical argumentation.

1way writes:

Everyone knows of God in significant ways, even though the vast majority suppresses the truth in unrighteousness to their own condemnation.

Do atheists know of God in significant ways, too?


1way writes:

Both of these teachings are true. Do Christians who minister to atheists believe that atheists are deluded for exchanging the truth for a lie? Sure, but we Christians can keep ourselves from delusion by realizing that atheists can and do exist just as the bible teaches.

Why did you just contradict yourself?

1way writes:

... If we assume that there is no such thing as an atheist, then no one could ever minister nor even believe the truth from God’s word about atheists since it is teaching against something that could never happen.

Your logic is convoluted.

1way writes:

The bible also teaches that there is only one true God, and it teaches that many Gods (idols) have been created even though there is only one true God. Some passages make it clear that God refers to other Gods, and on other occasions, the very idea that there is more than one God is strictly condemnable.

Right. False gods don't really exist, neither do true atheists. And people delude themselves into believing in false gods, just as anti-theists delude themselves into believing they are actually atheists. Both are delusions that we ought not to affirm in our debates with them.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Not even a "hint" of biblical reference?

Not even a "hint" of biblical reference?

Hi Coffeeman,

You write:

Hillston...

Please call me Jim.

Coffeeman writes:

I've been following your pages and pages of argument, hoping to see some true sense of humility or even a smidgen of real concern over the Truth being presented to a lost and dying world.

You're looking in the wrong place. This is a discussion about debate methods, not about how we all feel about a lost and dying world. Why are you wasting your time here making such arrogant allegations? Rather than waste time here in this forum, why don't you go out and show your real concern over the truth being presented to a lost and dying world?

Coffeeman writes:

...and by cracky! I think you almost had some readers hooked...maybe because they aren't fishermen, who knows...anyway, your cover was blown in your response to FLIPPER.

What cover is that?


Coffeeman writes:

Here you are wasting your pietous speeches by pointing out how Bob Enyart doesn't argue "the Biblical way" but uses science and physics instead of scripture.

They're not wasted, believe me. Private messages and e-mail say otherwise. They might be wasted on you, but that's all up to you.

Coffeeman writes:

Why is it when you addressed Flipper's statements you never mentioned one verse of scripture?

I did, all through my response. I wrote about the Triune God, His creation, the Garden of Eden, the perversions of idolatrous people, God's authority over creation, and the primacy of God's nature and character as the source of logic and reason. If you do not recognize the verses (and hints of verses) to which I allude, then you're not reading the same Bible that I read.

Coffeeman writes:

Not one part of a verse or even a hint of one?

Nice try. Really. It shows that you're thinking, albeit not too carefully.

Coffeeman writes:

... I wonder, are we told to point others to the writings of some author about philosophy to lead someone to Christ? All according to you ...yes...and ...no.

Paul quoted other philosopher-poets in Acts 17:28; why can't I?

Coffeeman writes:

Could it be you are much like all of us mere sinners who have been saved by Grace?

Could it be? It be. Absolutely. In fact, I am such an awful sinner that I deserve the very same wrath of which all the so-called atheists are already aware, according to Ro. 1:32. But would you stand with an atheist to affirm that he does not already know this by trying to prove to him God's existence? How does it make sense to try to prove God's existence to a man who already knows God's judgment against him?

Coffeeman writes:

You are puffed up and have the hackles of your neck grizzled a bit because Bob has a radio show and is somewhat of a celebrity in his' own right? (right..get it?)

Yeah. I want to be a celebrity. I want my own radio show. Sheesh. My friends are going to bust a gut with this. Are you psychic, coffeeman? If not, do you know what the Bible says about people who presumptuously judge the hearts of others? Judging rightly is one thing; judging presumptuously is damnable.

Coffeeman writes:

And it is evident you think you are so much better of a debater and yes, even a better Christian. Hey, if I can see it...anyone can see it!

As pitiful a Christian as I am, I still find lazy thinking repugnant. I find my own lazy thinking repugnant. Every criticism I proffer to other Christians is also intended for myself, and all the more intensely. I urge you, Coffeeman, if you believe in eternity and God's judgment, think carefully before you speak.

Coffeeman writes:

Oh yeah...one more thing: The next verse after the one you soooo love to quote about the fools....well, here it is....guess you just forgot it was in there...strange how we see what we want to see.

Coffeeman, are you on medication? You say you read these pages. Did you read the very first post, or did you "just forget what was in there? ...strange how we see what we want to see." Here's an excerpt of what you should have seen in my very first post:

Prov. 26:4,5 may appear to comprise two contradictory statements, but they actually describe a two-fold tack for answering the fool. Answering the fool "not according to his folly" is the positive presentation of the truth. We ought to properly presuppose the biblical worldview (after all, the so-called atheist is actually a defiant believer -- not in the "saved" sense of the word -- but in the rational sense of it) and demonstrate to the gainsayer its internal coherence. Answering the fool "according to his folly" is the negative critique of the gainsayer's position. That is, we ought to apply the gainsayer's presuppositions to his own arguments in order to demonstrate that the fool's worldview leads to incoherence and ultimately, on his worldview, the destruction of all knowledge.

Coffeeman, it seems fitting that you would come here and, with your first post, commit the very crimes that you accuse me of, and then demonstrate the very kind of careless thinking that I loathe so much in myself and others. Thanks for quoting my reply to Flipper. It shows that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

To Flipper I wrote: "It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation." [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint."]

To Flipper I wrote: "Christian theism and all the attending functions of the rational mind began with the first human in the Garden of Eden. The various pagan cultures later perverted and modified the truth in order to suit their God-hating and God-eschewing worldviews, in which they aggressively sought to remove God from their reasoning. Skepticism and epistemological futility are the necessary results of such an approach. Will Durant, in his book The Story of Philosophy, deliberately left out the epistemologists from his narrative, believing that they basically hijacked and undermined the entire field of philosophy. But that's because, when you remove God and His authority from your reasoning process, you can no longer deal with the tough questions without getting caught in a vicious circle of irrational question-begging.[/b]" [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint." I can provide full references from scripture that support each of these points.]

Coffeeman, read. Ask questions. Don't speak presumptuously. Once you understand my position, feel free to offer critiques. In the meantime, stop wasting everyone's time with fatuous allegations.

Jim

 

[coffeeman]

Jim

Your reply was hillarious! Thanks for the laughs...uhmmmm.you are a standup comedian ...right?
_______________________________________________________
quote
You're looking in the wrong place. This is a discussion about debate methods, not about how we all feel about a lost and dying world. Why are you wasting your time here making such arrogant allegations?
_____________________________________________________
Yeah, I probably am looking in the wrong place...your post are sure void of any sign of it....but Jim, I thought since you seem to judge Bob's debate style un-Christian that you would appreciate another's appraisal of your lack of a Christian attitude in at least this seemingly to you small area of spirituality. I say that because you see no place for feelings about a lost and dying world here.

Brings me to the point of Bob's whole debate style. If you would have ears to hear and eyes to see you may get the drift that many Christians debate not so much to win a formal argument but so the Gospel is spread to those who watch the debate. This would venture into the area of....oh, I don't know...hmmmmm DEBATE STYLE?
______________________________________________________
quote
They're not wasted, believe me. Private messages and e-mail say otherwise. They might be wasted on you, but that's all up to you.
______________________________________________________
Oh and we love those private messages and email don't we? But, we can't print them or tell who sent them becasue it would be a betrayal of trust....so, Jim...what good is mentioning all those anyway? I could say, I have a gig of private messages and email that all say I'm the prince of Siam but who gives a rip?

You said you mentioned scripture in response to Flipper?
Look at this Jim
____________________________________________________
quote
To Flipper I wrote: "It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation." [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint."]
_______________________________________________________

This is getting interesting.....here's a few clips from Bob's debate during the Battle Royal. I don't think you can deny he is following the same course of reasoning you just layed out....
______________________________________________________
quote from Bob
A1: I define God as the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just.
___________________________________________________
Quote from Bob
In future posts, I expect to use more evidence from physics and biology, add evidence from astronomy, and then, as evidence for God being personal, loving, and just, I will present observations from psychology and history.
___________________________________________
Did you get that? PERSONAL, LOVING AND JUST...funny Jim, did you not say Bob spoke of God as a thing that created the universe..or am I off my meds???????
_____________________________________________________
quote from Bob (check this debate style)
* If God created the universe and life and instilled humans with a conscience which reflects His own righteous standard, then the atheistic cost becomes increasingly significant in scientific, moral and psychological terms. And,

* If the true God also is as the Bible presents, and put eternity into our hearts, and will judge us based upon our humble trusting in Him, then you calculate the atheistic cost in terms of eternal loss of the utmost consequence.
______________________________________________________
quote from Hilston
Paul quoted other philosopher-poets in Acts 17:28; why can't I?
_____________________________________________________
You most asuredly can....as Genneses spoke of the universe and creation and biology and physics. David considered the heavens...
Psalm 8:3
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Don't you think this one is especially interesting ...wow...it says that lost atheists are ignorant of certain geologic events. hmmmmm...wonder who should tell them about those events?
2 Peter 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
__________________________________________________
Jim...Since it's okay for you to justify your statements to Flipper as being "SCRIPTURAL" then I think we can safely use the same critique of Bob's recourse in the debate....or do you use the same rules for others DEBATE STYLE as you do you own?

______________________________________________________
quote from Hilston
Judging rightly is one thing; judging presumptuously is damnable
_____________________________________________________
another jewel
As pitiful a Christian as I am, I still find lazy thinking repugnant. I find my own lazy thinking repugnant. Every criticism I proffer to other Christians is also intended for myself, and all the more intensely. I urge you, Coffeeman, if you believe in eternity and God's judgment, think carefully before you speak.
______________________________________________________
Oh poor poor humble me...if only you knew how spiritual I really am coffeeman then you would see how I readily admit my faults and pitifulness...while dangling your feet over the fires of damnation and judgement.
Have you ever noticed how quickly a legalist will pull the judgement card? Not saying you are ...just have you ever noticed that?
I say, my soul is safe in the arms of Jesus Christ and His' Blood atonement so, if you would have me entangled in any other way of salvation then you would be wasting your time Jim....
__________________________________________________
quote from Bishop Hilston
Coffeeman, read. Ask questions. Don't speak presumptuously. Once you understand my position, feel free to offer critiques. In the meantime, stop wasting everyone's time with fatuous allegations.
_______________________________________________________

I feel like Grasshopper in the TV series KUNG FU....... ah so ....now, I must walk and not be heard....move and not be seen.....thank you oh Bishop
I mean, dang it Jim...don't try and manipulate everyone's life...you are not the one ...no matter if you look a heck of a lot like Neo!
..and the Personal messages and email says I'm right! Whoo Hoo!

see ya!
with love
coffeeman

 

[Hilston]

Elusive humility, annoying hypocrisy ...

Elusive humility, annoying hypocrisy ...

Hi Coffeeman,

You write:

but Jim, I thought since you seem to judge Bob's debate style un-Christian ...

It's not his debate style. You need to understand the issues, and I'm not convinced you've got a clue. The fact that you think this is a question of "debate style" shows that you don't understand the issues yet.

Coffeeman writes:

... that you would appreciate another's appraisal of your lack of a Christian attitude in at least this seemingly to you small area of spirituality.

What, in your opinion, would I have to do or say that would show a Christian attitude? Would it be OK if I publically mocked you and blatantly made fun of your earnest expressed convictions as you do below? Should I follow your example, Coffeeman?

Coffeeman writes:

If you would have ears to hear and eyes to see you may get the drift that many Christians debate not so much to win a formal argument but so the Gospel is spread to those who watch the debate.

Biblically speaking, the end does not justify the means. Using an unbiblical method of argument does not justify whatever goal someone may have, be it winning a formal argument or spreading the gospel to those who watch the debate.

Jim wrote: They're not wasted, believe me. Private messages and e-mail say otherwise. They might be wasted on you, but that's all up to you.

Coffeeman writes:

Oh and we love those private messages and email don't we? But, we can't print them or tell who sent them becasue it would be a betrayal of trust....so, Jim...what good is mentioning all those anyway?

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who mentions PMs or private e-mails. Do you not get many? Is that why you're so mocking? I mention them because they indicate, contrary to your failed psychic musings, that this discussion has been beneficial, and not a waste, to a sufficient number of people who indicate so to me privately. Did I really need to explain that to you?

Coffeeman writes:

I could say, I have a gig of private messages and email that all say I'm the prince of Siam but who gives a rip?

I would give a rip if it were relevant to a line of reasoning you were presenting.

Coffeeman writes:

You said you mentioned scripture in response to Flipper?
Look at this Jim

Jim wrote: To Flipper I wrote: "It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation." [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint."]

This is getting interesting.....

What is interesting is that it would appear that you are too proud to admit your error. Will you admit that you misrepresented the case by claiming that I did not offer even a hint of reference to scripture? Your integrity is on the line here, Coffeeman. And this is only your second post (!).

Coffeeman writes:

... here's a few clips from Bob's debate during the Battle Royal. I don't think you can deny he is following the same course of reasoning you just layed out....

You further prove that you don't know what you're talking about, Coffeeman. Your quotes from Bob's post have nothing to do with my complaint. It is his methodology, his line of reasoning in the debate and the neutral footing that he grants his opponent that are unbiblical.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bob
A1: I define God as the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just. ... In future posts, I expect to use more evidence from physics and biology, add evidence from astronomy, and then, as evidence for God being personal, loving, and just, I will present observations from psychology and history.

Did you get that? PERSONAL, LOVING AND JUST...funny Jim, did you not say Bob spoke of God as a thing that created the universe..or am I off my meds???????

You're not getting it, Coffeeman. The more you spew, the more I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it is just so obvious that you're not seeing the point here. You just need to read a bit more and let this soak in. Or maybe ask some questions, glasshoppa.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bob (check this debate style)...

Again, it's not the debate "style" I'm talking about. Rather, it is regarding the assumption that two men, one a Christian and one a so-called atheist, can come to the table and evaluate evidence on neutral terms. That is the form of argumentation Bob offers, and it is unbiblical.

Jim wrote:Paul quoted other philosopher-poets in Acts 17:28; why can't I?

Coffeeman writes:

You most asuredly can ...

Then what are you complaining about?

Coffeeman writes:

... as Genneses spoke of the universe and creation and biology and physics. David considered the heavens... Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Have I ever said that it's wrong to use the universe, creation, biology, and physics to confront the atheist?

Coffeeman writes:

Don't you think this one is especially interesting ...wow...it says that lost atheists are ignorant of certain geologic events. hmmmmm...wonder who should tell them about those events?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Did you miss the word "willingly"? The Greek word for ignorant does not mean to be simply "unaware" or "uninformed," Coffeeman. It means to deliberately and willfully push the truth away. Once again, r-e-a-d.

Coffeeman writes:

Jim...Since it's okay for you to justify your statements to Flipper as being "SCRIPTURAL" then I think we can safely use the same critique of Bob's recourse in the debate....or do you use the same rules for others DEBATE STYLE as you do you own?

Try to get this, coffeeman. You charged me with not using scripture. I proved you wrong. Now do you think, by showing that Bob similarly alludes to scripture, that we are merely employing different debate styles? You're wrong. It's not the issue of whether or not scriptures are alluded to, but rather whether or not the anti-theist is dealt with biblically, honestly, coherently, and consistently. This is my plaint.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Hilston

Please call me Jim.

Coffeeman writes:

Oh poor poor humble me...if only you knew how spiritual I really am coffeeman then you would see how I readily admit my faults and pitifulness...while dangling your feet over the fires of damnation and judgement.

What is with you, Coffeeman? I give you an honest answer and you trample it. I share my own shortcomings and you mock me. Are you so insecure that you have to trash other people to feel better about yourself? Maybe you should lay off the java for a while, dude.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bishop Hilston

Please, call me Reverend Jim. Coffeeman, you really need to lighten up. I think your apparent knee-jerk reactions might be clouding your thinking. If this were page 2 or 3 of the discussion, I could understand a need to elaborate my position further, but with so much that has gone before in this exchange, there really is no excuse for you not to be getting it at this stage of the game.

Let me know if I can clarify anything for you. I'll try not to pontificate or lecture you too pedantically.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Elusive humility, annoying hypocrisy ...

Elusive humility, annoying hypocrisy ...

Hi Coffeeman,

You write:

but Jim, I thought since you seem to judge Bob's debate style un-Christian ...

It's not his debate style. You need to understand the issues, and I'm not convinced you've got a clue. The fact that you think this is a question of "debate style" shows that you don't understand the issues yet.

Coffeeman writes:

... that you would appreciate another's appraisal of your lack of a Christian attitude in at least this seemingly to you small area of spirituality.

What, in your opinion, would I have to do or say that would show a Christian attitude? Would it be OK if I publically mocked you and blatantly made fun of your earnest expressed convictions as you do below? Should I follow your example, Coffeeman?

Coffeeman writes:

If you would have ears to hear and eyes to see you may get the drift that many Christians debate not so much to win a formal argument but so the Gospel is spread to those who watch the debate.

Biblically speaking, the end does not justify the means. Using an unbiblical method of argument does not justify whatever goal someone may have, be it winning a formal argument or spreading the gospel to those who watch the debate.

Jim wrote: They're not wasted, believe me. Private messages and e-mail say otherwise. They might be wasted on you, but that's all up to you.

Coffeeman writes:

Oh and we love those private messages and email don't we? But, we can't print them or tell who sent them becasue it would be a betrayal of trust....so, Jim...what good is mentioning all those anyway?

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who mentions PMs or private e-mails. Do you not get many? Is that why you're so mocking? I mention them because they indicate, contrary to your failed psychic musings, they have not been wasted. Did I really need to explain that to you?

Coffeeman writes:

I could say, I have a gig of private messages and email that all say I'm the prince of Siam but who gives a rip?

I would give a rip if it were relevant to a line of reasoning you were presenting.

Coffeeman writes:

You said you mentioned scripture in response to Flipper?
Look at this Jim

Jim wrote: To Flipper I wrote: "It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation." [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint."]

Coffeeman writes:

This is getting interesting.....

What is interesting is that it would appear that you are too proud to admit your error. Will you admit that you misrepresented the case by claiming that I did not offer even a hint of reference to scripture? Your integrity is on the line here, Coffeeman. And this is only your second post (!).

Coffeeman writes:

... here's a few clips from Bob's debate during the Battle Royal. I don't think you can deny he is following the same course of reasoning you just layed out....

You further prove that you don't know what you're talking about, Coffeeman. Your quotes from Bob's post have nothing to do with my complaint. It is his methodology, his line of reasoning in the debate and the neutral footing that he grants his opponent that are unbiblical.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bob
A1: I define God as the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just. ... In future posts, I expect to use more evidence from physics and biology, add evidence from astronomy, and then, as evidence for God being personal, loving, and just, I will present observations from psychology and history.

Did you get that? PERSONAL, LOVING AND JUST...funny Jim, did you not say Bob spoke of God as a thing that created the universe..or am I off my meds???????

You're not getting it, Coffeeman. The more you spew, the more I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it is just so obvious that you're not seeing the point here. You just need to read a bit more and let this soak in. Or maybe ask some questions, glasshoppa.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bob (check this debate style)...

Again, it's not the debate "style" I'm talking about. Rather, it is regarding the assumption that two men, one a Christian and one a so-called atheist, can come to the table and evaluate evidence on neutral terms. That is the form of argumentation Bob offers, and it is unbiblical.

Jim wrote:Paul quoted other philosopher-poets in Acts 17:28; why can't I?

Coffeeman writes:

You most asuredly can ...

Then what are you complaining about?

Coffeeman writes:

... as Genneses spoke of the universe and creation and biology and physics. David considered the heavens... Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Have I ever said that it's wrong to use the universe, creation, biology, and physics to confront the atheist?

Coffeeman writes:

Don't you think this one is especially interesting ...wow...it says that lost atheists are ignorant of certain geologic events. hmmmmm...wonder who should tell them about those events?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Did you miss the word "willingly"? The Greek word for ignorant does not mean to be simply "unaware" or "uninformed," Coffeeman. It means to deliberately and willfully push the truth away. Once again, r-e-a-d.

Coffeeman writes:

Jim...Since it's okay for you to justify your statements to Flipper as being "SCRIPTURAL" then I think we can safely use the same critique of Bob's recourse in the debate....or do you use the same rules for others DEBATE STYLE as you do you own?

Try to get this, coffeeman. You charged me with not using scripture. I proved you wrong. Now do you think, by showing that Bob similarly alludes to scripture, that we are merely employing different debate styles? You're wrong. It's not the issue of whether or not scriptures are alluded to, but rather whether or not the anti-theist is dealt with biblically, honestly, coherently, and consistently. This is my plaint.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Hilston

Please call me Jim.

Coffeeman writes:

Oh poor poor humble me...if only you knew how spiritual I really am coffeeman then you would see how I readily admit my faults and pitifulness...while dangling your feet over the fires of damnation and judgement.

What is with you, Coffeeman? I give you an honest answer and you trample it. I share my own shortcomings and you mock me. Are you so insecure that you have to trash other people to feel better about yourself? Maybe you should lay off the java for a while, dude.

Coffeeman writes:

quote from Bishop Hilston

Please, call me Reverend Jim. Coffeeman, you really need to lighten up. I think your apparent knee-jerk reactions might be clouding your thinking. If this were page 2 or 3 of the discussion, I could understand a need to elaborate my position further, but with so much that has gone before in this exchange, there really is no excuse for you not to be getting it at this stage of the game.

Let me know if I can clarify anything for you. I'll try not to pontificate or lecture you too pedantically.

Jim

 

[Freak]

The Holy Scriptures reveal Jesus Christ as the embodiement of truth. For Christ exclaims, "I am the way, the truth, and the life...." (Jn. 14:6). Truth is found in Christ and Christ needs to be proclaimed.

Knight stated: I was used to the typical Christian approach... "your a sinner, you need Jesus etc."

That was Jesus' approach and it works.

In Luke 13:3 Jesus called people to Himself by declaring that we should repent.

 

[1Way]

Hilston – I feel like I’m saying one thing, and your not exactly responding to what I am saying, especially in terms of the overall point. I’ll try to be more concise and hope you will take the following as a whole message.

You quoted me saying (note I editorially enhanced the quote for clarity within the italics portion)

The bible also teaches that there is only one true God, and it teaches that many gods (idols) have been created even though there is only one true God. I think sometimes even God refers to these other (nonexistent) gods, and on occasion even calls these non-existent gods by name, conversely, the very idea that there is more than one God is strictly condemnable.

And then you said

Right. False gods don't really exist, neither do true atheists. And people delude themselves into believing in false gods, just as anti-theists delude themselves into believing they are actually atheists. Both are delusions that we ought not to affirm in our debates with them.

Your mixing up the object and subjects. Atheists and idolaters exist, it’s the object of their faith that is false. The correspondence goes as follows.



fig A
[size=4.5]____________POSITIONS ON THEISM_______________
Person of faith ________ object of their faith
They are called __________ “they believe ... ”


Theist ____________________________ God exists

Idolater____________________other god(s) exist

Atheist________________________no god(s) exist[/size]



fig B
[size=4.5]_________ ADD THE TRUTH IN REALITY ___________
existence of ________________________ truth of
the believer ______________________ the belief


Theist ____________________________ God exists
Exists __________________________________ True

Idolater __________________ other god(s) exist
Exists _________________________________ False

Atheist ______________________ no god(s) exist
Exists _________________________________ False[/size]


The truth is:

• There are no other gods
• yet God refers to other gods (even by their name) and to idolaters

The truth is:

• Everyone knows about God
• yet God refers to atheists and atheistic belief

Both idol worship and atheism are false beliefs, the reality of these beliefs DO NOT EXIST, but the beliefs DO EXIST, and of course so do those who believe them.

But, unlike your presentation, the bible demonstrates that it’s ok to refer to someone in their unrealistic and false belief, sometimes God’s word even refers to these false idles by their given names! God’s word is reasonable and consistent, it teaches us what to think about atheists.

And btw, that you even have a position of understanding on atheists denies your claim that atheists do not exist. You claim your position is based on God’s word, but at the same time you claim that atheists actually do not even exist, so your position on atheists, which has taken up pages and pages to describe and promote and defend, is according to your claim, all about something that does not even exist in the first place.(!) That is the senselessness of the anti-logic you are presenting. If something really and truly does not exist, then you can say nothing about it. Nothing comes from nothing, not something comes from nothing.

I believe that you are adding your own personal rules of Christian conduct that are not taught in the scriptures. You may think they are there, but something is keeping you from objectively seeing the rest of the bible that grossly contradicts your view. However, I give you an A for Attention getting, creating a controversy with a popular figure is a pretty effective way to direct Attention to yourself.

Bottom line, God refers to idols and atheists both! For you to say that atheists don’t exist or that it is wrong to refer to an atheist as an atheist is to directly contradict the bible, it is practically saying that God was wrong for doing so, and your knowledge about a thing that does not even exist all make your position out to be as bad as it appears.

God by His word refers to idolaters and atheists alike and you are wrong for claiming that it is wrong to do so.

If you will continue to ignore the bible’s testimony to this effect, then I will start to ignore you for doing so, the truth of the reality of your belief does not exist. (So then maybe your "atheists doen't exist" view, does not exist either!)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1Way, GREAT post! Thank you!

 

[1Way]

:ahso: sir :knight:
The thanks is all mine, ,,, yours, , to yours,, mine to, (chuckles)

The Truth is worthy :bow:



Pr 10:17 He who keeps instruction [is in] the way of life, But he who refuses correction goes astray.

Ps 53:1 <<To the Chief Musician. Set to "Mahalath." A Contemplation of David.>> The fool has said in his heart, "[There is] no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; [There is] none who does good.

Hilston must think this verse is not talking about atheists, but instead God’s word is talking about ,,, :radar: hmmmm, ,,, about ,,, :sigh: ,,, some imaginary,,, nonexistent :doh: ,,, impossible :kookoo: :sheep: fictional, :idea: "but somehow important" :thumb: teaching. :readthis: :thumb:

:crackup: arty:

(Man I tell ya, having most of the formatting routines stored into my word processor (MS Word) really makes spiffing up a post alot easier and less time consuming, that via the record macros function where you can even end up automatically placing the curse back to the entry point which is in the middle of a formatting expression.
Peace and grace.)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1way, you brought up some points that I really didn't think about..... yet now they seem so obvious to me!

As always, your posts are AWESOME!