BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[hitek357]

Good debate, whatever the limit may be in the rules.

My preference might have been shorter posts on average than what I've seen here - seems like the chunks would have been easier to chew and the combatants would have converged more quickly on the meat of the debate. As it turns out now, there is good "clash" on the atoms of the disagreement and, the way I'm reading it, very little of Sam and Bob "talking past" each other.

On with the show.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I'm questioning Bob's and your integrity just like fool is, because as I said from the beginning - this is an issue of integrity.

No it's not. This is an issue of you being as annoying as possible. Now stop.

 

[defcon]

Now, everybody knows that I despise Bob, but this is ridiculous. Knight is the administrator, and the owner, of this site. There is no doubt that he is biased at times, as we all are; however, this is his site and these are his rules. If he feels like enforcing a rule strictly sometimes and loosely other times, that is his choice, NOT OURS.

Well, that may be, but it is unfortunate though that Sam appears to be being railroaded. Maybe we'll here from Sam soon - if he's not bothered by it, then I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Good debate, whatever the limit may be in the rules.

My preference might have been shorter posts on average than what I've seen here - seems like the chunks would have been easier to chew and the combatants would have converged more quickly on the meat of the debate. As it turns out now, there is good "clash" on the atoms of the disagreement and, the way I'm reading it, very little of Sam and Bob "talking past" each other.

On with the show.

:thumb:

I agree.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Well, that may be, but it is unfortunate though that Sam appears to be being railroaded. Maybe we'll here from Sam soon - if he's not bothered by it, then I guess it doesn't matter.

See, Knight. It just takes a little persuasion.

 

[defcon]

Whatever let's you sleep at night

 

[Mr. 5020]

Whatever let's you sleep at night

I assure you that not a second will be lost due to this issue.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The following note was emailed to both Sam and Bob....

Sam and Bob, I refuse to let BR X turn into a bickering match about word counts.

The rules clearly state that 6,000 words is the recommended word limit. The substance of the debate is what is important to TOL. Both of you have committed rule violations in this debate and I have let them slide because those are unneeded distractions in what is an awesome debate!

Both of you have put in a ton of work and now the debate is almost over.

I intended to not bring any of this up but apparently it has become a "big deal" to some so I am forced to involve myself.

Bob, you should have kept some of your posts shorter. Sam there are a few things in this debate that I wished you hadn't done also. However I am not going to use any of this to taint what has become a really great debate. Any moderator of any debate must make judgment calls as to what let slide and what they do not let slide. I am making a judgement call regarding all the previous rule violations that none of them are serious enough to distract from the substance of this debate.

Thank you for being understanding on this issue.

Let's finish the debate with our closing arguments and let the truth be judged by the readers.

If you have any comments or objections please email me.

- Knight

 

[Mr. 5020]

The following note was emailed to both Sam and Bob....

I thought I had settled it for you. :chuckle:

 

[Balder]

Bob is making passionate case for ethnocentrism, which may undo him. He wants to purge all "pagan" influence from the supposedly "pure" Hebrew thought. There is no reason to argue against the "taint" of all ideas that did not originate in a Hebrew mind except ethnocentrism, which is a hard position to defend on many fronts. But I think Bob will also be hard pressed to show that the Old Testament reflects "pure" Jewish thought. The Bible is riddled with influences from other cultures, with the sharing of moral perspectives, rules, worldviews, cosmological notions, etc. It is pure fantasy to imagine that the Bible preserves a "pure" line of thought that grew completely independently of the contact of Hebrew minds with other cultures and systems of thought. I don't know of any reputable scholar who would defend such a position.

 

[RobE]

Bob is making passionate case for ethnocentrism, which may undo him. He wants to purge all "pagan" influence from the supposedly "pure" Hebrew thought. There is no reason to argue against the "taint" of all ideas that did not originate in a Hebrew mind except ethnocentrism, which is a hard position to defend on many fronts. But I think Bob will also be hard pressed to show that the Old Testament reflects "pure" Jewish thought. The Bible is riddled with influences from other cultures, with the sharing of moral perspectives, rules, worldviews, cosmological notions, etc. It is pure fantasy to imagine that the Bible preserves a "pure" line of thought that grew completely independently of the contact of Hebrew minds with other cultures and systems of thought. I don't know of any reputable scholar who would defend such a position.

Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?

 

[Turbo]

Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?

RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.

 

[Mr. 5020]

RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.

Hey Turbo, who do you think is winning the debate thus far?

 

[Turbo]

Hey Turbo, who do you think is winning the debate thus far?

Bob.

How bout you?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Bob.

How bout you?

Just like you, I think the person that agrees with my theological viewpoint is winning.

 

[Clete]

Just like you, I think the person that agrees with my theological viewpoint is winning.

The difference is that our side can point to specific and substantive reasons why, our guy has already won the debate and your side has to cry over how Bob used too many words.

 

[RobE]

RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.

I just have to wonder....

Which god reacted to outside stimulus and made decisions as he went along. Which god didn't know the entire future and had to wing it as he went along? Yours, mine, or the Greek gods? The foundation of Greek theology would seem to infer that the gods didn't have foreknowledge of events and therefore were worshipped by open view followers.

 

[SOTK]

The difference is that our side can point to specific and substantive reasons why, our guy has already won the debate and your side has to cry over how Bob used too many words.

Don't use your side so generally, Clete. At least one of your side was honest enough to point out the problem and not all of my side really even cares about the problem.

Furthermore, the whole use of the our side and my side vocabulary further solidifies the notion that this debate was never really gonna go anywhere as nobody can obviously see past their own bias (mine included).

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

I couldn't have been more wrong!

I couldn't have been more wrong!

My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski

 

[Clete]

My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski

:wave2: