BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, me too.Mr. 5020 said:
I think that might be only the second POTD I have ever given to Bob.
Bob mentions in the critique thread that he is going to post something after round 10. Does he have the right to change his mind and not do it if circumstances change or is he stuck by his statement? He made a "prophecy" about the future. If he it comes to pass is he a true prophet? If he doesn't do it does it mean he's a false prophet or just that circumstances changed. Do all prophecies that are conditional have to state the conditions?
Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.
Dr. Lamerson's opening paragraph is a crack up, as if Bob hasn't been keeping track of the word count himself. In fact, if I remember correctly it would seem that some 800+ words had to be used in one of Bob's posts doing nothing but quoting from the rules of the debate.
Further, the word limit rules read as follows...
The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.
That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.
Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Dr. Lamerson's opening paragraph is a crack up, as if Bob hasn't been keeping track of the word count himself. In fact, if I remember correctly it would seem that some 800+ words had to be used in one of Bob's posts doing nothing but quoting from the rules of the debate.
Further, the word limit rules read as follows...
The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.
That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.
Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete said:
I wish! -Bob
RobE
New member
We figured it out in Armenia...
We figured it out in Armenia...
Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.
We figured it out in Armenia...
Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.
Bob Enyart said:
Chileice
New member
Clete said:
I think lamerson's round 9 post was the best of the debate. I'm not sure what took him so long but I think it leaves Bob with several difficult questions to answer. The Jesus who saves me doesn't make mistakes. If He does, how will I know he didn't make a mistake and then change his mind some day. I think Isaiah 40-48 presents some very strong ammo for the SV side because it was God's unequivocable foreknowledge that was the key to the entire "debate" in those chapters against the false gods who could not and did not know the future. It will be interesting to see if Bob can answer with a limited word count.
.25 * 3b = ??
.25 * 3b = ??
Have a great day!
-Bob
ps. If you ever get around to actually reading the debate itself, it would be wonderful if you could comment on the Open View understanding of Isaiah 40-48 as presented about 2/3s of the way into Post 3B, because it seems that you'd have an exclusive, since apparently nobody else will
!
.25 * 3b = ??
Chileice, I know that there are many threads (thousands) in TOL (and millions) on the web. So perhaps you've stumbled in here accidentally and are unaware that there is a debate between two people going on, one presenting the Open View and the other the Settled View. And in Round Three, the Open View side addressed at length Isaiah 40-48.Chileice said:
Have a great day!
-Bob
ps. If you ever get around to actually reading the debate itself, it would be wonderful if you could comment on the Open View understanding of Isaiah 40-48 as presented about 2/3s of the way into Post 3B, because it seems that you'd have an exclusive, since apparently nobody else will
!
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Also, should we always take God's advice, if he can be mistaken? Some other choice might turn out better, even from God's perspective, thus we need not always do what he says. Only the Bible says differently, complete obedience is the way:
Luke 6:46 Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Because he can be wrong sometimes, even in his own estimation?
Isaiah 46:11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
Which must refer to Cyrus, and thus "declare the end from the beginning" is another claim of the distinctive of being able to really tell the future, unlike the idols, as in the prior verse:
Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.
Blessings,
Lee
Amen to the first part! And yes, if God can make mistakes, that puts every promise that depends in any way on free-will decisions in question, what are the limits? And what about heaven, if free-will is essential to a human being, can people sin there? Is eternity eternally uncertain?
Well, I think the claim Sam mentioned, of God saying "The idols fail at this," in general, is the most important point of the passage. How can this claim be distinctive, if God is only estimating like everyone else? And with Jonah, God's estimate seems to be worse than Jonah's! Jonah thought the Ninevites would repent, and God, apparently, did not, for he had to change his mind.
Also, should we always take God's advice, if he can be mistaken? Some other choice might turn out better, even from God's perspective, thus we need not always do what he says. Only the Bible says differently, complete obedience is the way:
Luke 6:46 Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Because he can be wrong sometimes, even in his own estimation?
But surely these "from the beginning" statements are known statements, and the next verse gives an example:
Isaiah 46:11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
Which must refer to Cyrus, and thus "declare the end from the beginning" is another claim of the distinctive of being able to really tell the future, unlike the idols, as in the prior verse:
Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.
But influence is not a guarantee! Couldn't God be wrong here, according to the Open View? As he could have been (we are told) with Peter? Well, we can't have it both ways, both a sure prediction, and a possible mistake...
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
M. K. Nawojski
New member
Clete said:
How true it is that an individual's or group's doctrine will define their walk!
From the first through the seventh round of Battle Royale X -- the OVers have announced that Bob will certainly triumph (that is, as soon as he gets going); Bob has already bested his opponent (and is presently just mopping up); Bob is winning hands down (as will soon be evident); and Bob will win by a landslide (although “the other side” might not acknowledge it to be so). . . .
Moreover, they have not hesitated to add that they’re champing at the bit for the end of the contest, so they can document Bob’s victory by publishing the “debate” manuscript far and wide!
But now, in the middle of the eighth round, the accolades have ground to a stop. And the group who just a short while ago were so confident (not to say egotistical or self-important) – those who were so confident, I say, of Bob’s overwhelming victory are now scrambling to post a slew of whiny, little notes (see one example, quoted above), grumbling about how few words poor Bob has left . . . how put upon Bob is . . . how Bob was forced to “waste” a lot of “his” word count . . . how unfair the word distribution rules are in general, and how they should specifically be reinterpreted or changed to give Bobby a better chance . . . how the big, bad Sam has beat up on little Bobby and his mommy wasn’t there to help him . . . .
Not surprising. This behavior is much like that of the OVers’ god, who -- they do not hesitate to proclaim -- can and often does make mistakes.
All I can say is: I hope when their god sees his mistakes, he tries to pull himself up by his bootstraps and at least put up a facade of fair sportsmanship and manliness.
M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com
The Battle Of Words????
The Battle Of Words????
Greeting All,
Theology On Line had rules in place for the Battle Royal X debate. One of which was the number of words that each participant was to use. The debate could not begin until Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson agreed to the rules and in particular the number of words to be used in the debate. Please read the definition below.
Agreement: a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract
From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.
This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.
The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A
The Battle Of Words????
Greeting All,
Theology On Line had rules in place for the Battle Royal X debate. One of which was the number of words that each participant was to use. The debate could not begin until Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson agreed to the rules and in particular the number of words to be used in the debate. Please read the definition below.
Agreement: a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract
From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.
This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.
The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A
M. K. Nawojski said:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Bob won this debate in round one as far as I am concerned and I am the only one I know of who said that it would be sweet if Bob actually took the Dr. up on his dare to end the debate. My point wasn't to actually suggest that Bob be given some 20,000+ more words to use (although I would read them all if he wrote them and enjoy every syllable). The point was to point out that the Dr. is being ridiculous with his silly warning about holding to the word count rule when he has barely participated in the debate since round three and has had to have the rules explained to him on more than one occasion by the very man who's feet he's now holding to the rule following fire. It's disingenuous at best (as have been most of his responses to Bob's posts) and outright hypocritical at worst.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The Battle Of Words????
The Battle Of Words????
Greetings All,
I had mistakenly posted my remarks on the "THE BATTLE OF WORDS???" on the Rounds 4 though 7 area. Clete, responded to that post. I replied to that post in that area. I have reproduced my reply to Clete in this area.
Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?
Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.
As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”
Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.
The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.
You did. Please review your words
Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A.
The Battle Of Words????
Greetings All,
I had mistakenly posted my remarks on the "THE BATTLE OF WORDS???" on the Rounds 4 though 7 area. Clete, responded to that post. I replied to that post in that area. I have reproduced my reply to Clete in this area.
Clete said:
Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?
Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.
Clete said:
As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”
Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.
The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.
Clete said:
You did. Please review your words
Clete said:
Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A.
deja vu
deja vu
Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"
Stop and Consider.
Bob E.
deja vu
Leonard A said:
Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"
Stop and Consider.
Bob E.
geoff
New member
I so wanted to reply and say something nasty..
but all i'll say is.. neither side has one. Enyart has only proven he'd made a great policitian/word spinner. And Lamerson has done nothing to further the cause of his view. It was always going to be that way. Over here, we call it a hiding to nothing.
I wonder at the sense of having the equivalent of rabid right wing fundy Christians debating muslim fanatics... because thats about how extreme the two views are. And about the same likelihood either side is going to listen/learn/be objective from or about the other.
but all i'll say is.. neither side has one. Enyart has only proven he'd made a great policitian/word spinner. And Lamerson has done nothing to further the cause of his view. It was always going to be that way. Over here, we call it a hiding to nothing.
I wonder at the sense of having the equivalent of rabid right wing fundy Christians debating muslim fanatics... because thats about how extreme the two views are. And about the same likelihood either side is going to listen/learn/be objective from or about the other.
Bob wrote:
When rules have been established and both sides have agreed to them with a clear understanding that these will govern the Battle Royal X debate and subsequently there is a request to reinterpret or change any of the rules that WOULD constitute a “putting aside” of the original agreement.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A.
Bob Enyart said:
When rules have been established and both sides have agreed to them with a clear understanding that these will govern the Battle Royal X debate and subsequently there is a request to reinterpret or change any of the rules that WOULD constitute a “putting aside” of the original agreement.
Stop and Consider.
Leonard A.
:nono:
M. K. Nawojski
New member
Clete said:
Oh really?
After Dr. Lamerson's eighth post had been published to the Web -- and before Mr. Enyart's eight, ninth, and tenth posts were due -- in the “Battle Talk Round 8” thread, in Post #44, you wrote: “ . . . That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded. Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not. . . .”
In Post #45, Bob responded: “I wish!”
In Post #46, you said: “So do I.”
On the same topic, in the "Battle Talk Rounds 4 – 7" thread, you said to Leonard A: “Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. PROBABLY THE ONLY QUESTION IN HIS MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LEGITIMATELY RECLAIM THE 800+ WORDS HE USED REQUOTING THE RULES TO DR. LAMERSON, WHICH I THINK IS A NO BRAINER but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone [emphasis mine]."
Based on those remarks on the topic, it appeared to me that you were scrambling to filch whatever extra words you could for Enyart to use in his final three posts.
MK
- Status