Bob Enyart a Hypocrite?

[Peacock]

That is the question!


That what I'm asking.

Show #90 http://kgov.com/bel/2006/20060505-BEL090-24k.mp3

I recently played one to the mp3 streams, linked in another thread. He opens his show with "America's most popular, self-proclaimed, right winged, religious fanatic, homophobic, anti-choice, talk host".

I have bolded homophobic for a reason.

He claims openly to be these things, I draw attention to the bolded "religious fanatic". This
indicates that he believes the bible in a literal sense. This is further confirmed by the fact that he is a self-proclaimed homophobic.

BUT a few minutes into his discussion with Dr John Henderson he discredits this by indicating that the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error.

Dr Henderson: "because a god who; for example, that would send two bears down to kill forty two children, because they teased someone with a bold head, in my morality could not exist."

Bob Enyart: "Ok, so you're taking an example out of the bible..."

Dr Henderson: "out of the bible..."

Bob Enyart: "and you're saying, I do not like the example, so therefore God doesn't exist, But the bible is not eternal and it was written on Earth, in the last thirty five hundred years. And so, Before the bible was written, there was either a god or not a god... "

The bible is not eternal... and written in the last 3,500 years.. is he changing his standards to win a debate? OR was he being sarcastic in the beginning? OR is he just a fast talker?

 

[Sozo]

The bible is not eternal. Where do you get the idea that it is?

 

[Granite]

:shocked:

(Hunkers down, waits for the shelling to begin.)

 

[Turbo]

BUT a few minutes into his discussion with Dr John Henderson he discredits this by indicating that the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error.

When did he say that? He certainly didn't say that in your quote. How is it that you think saying, The Bible has not always existed and God existed before He inspired men to write the Bible is the same as saying the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error?

I've seen a lot of lame attempts to discredit Bob over the years, but this one is quadriplegic.

OR was he being sarcastic in the beginning?

Not sarcastic; tongue in cheek. He is embracing the labels for his stances preferred by his enemies.

For instance, people who approve of abortion like to call themselves "pro-choice" and they like to call those who oppose abortion as "anti-choice." Those who oppose abortion tend to prefer to be called "pro-life" or "anti-abortion," and they call the other side "pro-abortion" or "pro-death." But Bob takes the wind out of his enemies' sails by accepting the "anti-choice" label. It's a tactic he borrowed from homosexuals who call themselves "queer."

 

[Turbo]

:shocked:

(Hunkers down, waits for the shelling to begin.)

What's your take, Granite? Does Peacock's criticism make sense?

 

[Servo]

Wow, Peacock really has got something there. Maybe it is time for Bob to hang it up.

 

[Granite]

What's your take, Granite? Does Peacock's criticism make sense?

Not really, no. And given the nature of Enyart's show--on the fly, off the cuff--I think it's unreasonable to nitpick like this. If someone held me accountable for everything I said off the top of my head... :shut:

 

[kmoney]

Clearly he is.

 

[Turbo]

Not really, no.

:up:

And given the nature of Enyart's show--on the fly, off the cuff--I think it's unreasonable to nitpick like this.

True. (Take note, "fool".) But in this case, Peacock is "nitpicking" Bob for something Bob never even said.

Don't you agree that Bob was not "indicating that the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error" in the quote that Peacock posted?

 

[Turbo]

Clearly he is.

Clearly who is what?

 

[koban]

Clearly who is what?

Doncha just love cryptic statements? :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

Clearly who is what?

Oh, you know what I'm talking about.

 

[koban]

Oh, you know what I'm talking about.

I do, and I disagree.

If you would take the Swanstrut factor into account, you would realize that your position is fallacious.

 

[kmoney]

I do, and I disagree.

If you would take the Swanstrut factor into account, you would realize that your position is fallacious.

:think: That Swanstrut gets me everytime. :doh:

 

[Turbo]

Oh, you know what I'm talking about.

:help:

 

[Granite]

:up: True. (Take note, "fool".) But in this case, Peacock is "nitpicking" Bob for something Bob never even said.

Don't you agree that Bob was not "indicating that the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error" in the quote that Peacock posted?

Well, fool and Enyart actually went a few rounds on the air so that's kind of not the same thing. But I don't think Enyart was implying the Bible is fallible because it was written by men--that's the last thing Enyart would ever say.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

BUT a few minutes into his discussion with Dr John Henderson he discredits this by indicating that the bible was written by man (humans) and is therefore in error.

Whoa... I see the connection perfectly! :up: Thanks for pointing that out to me, I had never noticed before. I think you saved my life! I am never gonna listen to Bob again!!! :madmad:

 

[Turbo]

Well, fool and Enyart actually went a few rounds on the air so that's kind of not the same thing.

Actually, I was referring to this.

But I don't think Enyart was implying the Bible is fallible because it was written by men--that's the last thing Enyart would ever say.

:up:

 

[soothsayer]

Actually, I was referring to this.

I don't think that is in the same league as peacock's "nit-picking." At least fool didn't start a whole thread about that one point.
But I do think that peacock was stretching a little in the OP. There's no need to put words into Bob Enyart's mouth. If he IS a hypocrite, then peacock's point is not one of the reasons.

 

[hitek357]

Peacock was hallucinating. It happens to me sometimes.