Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[Nathon Detroit]

This thread is dedicated to discussion regarding the unique One on One between Ask Mr Religion (AMR) and Bob Enyart.

Bob Enyart invited AMR to take a shot at answering the 50 questions that Bob had asked Dr. Lamerson in Battle Royale X.

AMR has begun answer the 50 questions in the One on One so we can discuss their conversation here as it develops.

I like to call this One on One....

One on One - Enyart vs. AMR
Battle Royale 10.50

Or possibly....

One on One - Enyart vs. AMR
Battle of the actual likeness avatars

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."

Yorshik: "Now exactly who is sitting at the table across from me?"


:e4e:

Get on with it now.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:chuckle:

 

[Vaquero45]

In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."


:e4e:

Get on with it now.

What a bunch of hoi polloi!





Couldnt resist, if this gets deleted I'll understand.

 

[Yorzhik]

In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."


:e4e:

Get on with it now.

I take it I don't respond fast enough to make your list?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I take it I don't respond fast enough to make your list?

oops!

See edited original post.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Knight,

Given the length of AMR's response to just the first two questions, I think you better start looking for more storage space!

 

[Chileice]

Knight,

Given the length of AMR's response to just the first two questions, I think you better start looking for more storage space!

That may be true, but at least he has tried to grapple with the problems. I do hope not all of the answers are this complex and long.

 

[Chileice]

I think AMR makes a good point:
Unsettled theists spend a great deal of time and effort whining that somehow the past 1500 years of theological study and doctrine holds that God is not interested in relating to His creatures.

People had living loving relationships with God long before Open Theism came along. I think back on my grandfather as an excellent example. He was born in the early 1890s and had a great relationship with Christ from his youth.

I also have to laugh a bit at AMRs designation of Open Theism as Unsettled theists. It kind of smacks of the same smack he doesn't like from Open Theists.

 

[Servo]

I think AMR makes a good point:
Unsettled theists spend a great deal of time and effort whining that somehow the past 1500 years of theological study and doctrine holds that God is not interested in relating to His creatures.

People had living loving relationships with God long before Open Theism came along.

Wrong! Open theism never "came along", it always was...
That is what the closed theists can't seem to grasp.

The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

 

[Evoken]

The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

Your first sentence is a mere assertion. Surely you can point to us when this philosophy "came along" and "corrupted" things?


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Please...please...don't say St. Augustine!

Sorry about the double post, seems I can't edit in this thread.


Evo

 

[Servo]

Plato.

 

[Evoken]

Plato.

Who corrupted things? At what point?


Evo

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

 

[PKevman]

Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........

 

[PKevman]

1..........

 

[PKevman]

1..........
1..........

Wait, for someone to say:

God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.

There just HAS to be more Scriptural references to the beginning of his arguments. There just HAS to be.....

 

[PKevman]

we can know things about God

AMEN! I agree with AMR wholeheartedly! And WHERE do we go to know those things? Do we go to the really nice sounding big words of theologians (all of which I understood completely by the way)

Or do we go to the Word of God???

unsettled theism is all about man defining God in his own terms

Great AMR! I am sure in your two responses so far where you make such a HUGE deal about definitions that you would show some Scriptures to back up your arguments.

:think:

:idea:
Let's give AMR the benefit of the doubt. Back to counting.....


1........

1........

WOW! ONE Bible verse is all we find from someone who accuses Open Theists of basing all of their definitions on the thinking of MEN such as Sanders rather than on the Bible.

Nice try AMR, I sure hope the rest of your answers do better than these!

And for the record-let me say that I think AMR did a better job of answering than Lamerson did!

 

[PKevman]

Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress......... :think: