But Bob nevertheless said he was willing to debate her on her book without even reading it and preparing for the debate. You would think she would salivate at the opportunity to debate someone so "unprepared."Originally posted by Nimrod
I think Bob should have read part of the book before having Janet on his show. That would help Bob's creditability.
But Bob nevertheless said he was willing to debate her on her book without even reading it and preparing for the debate.
You would think she would salivate at the opportunity to debate someone so "unprepared."
That's what she said. Bob replied with, "I disagree with your conclusion. For example, people who say it should be legal to own black men as slaves - I haven't read all their writings but I disagree with their conclusion. And because I've studied the evidence for Christianity for over a quarter of a century, I disagree with your conclusion."That is no excuse. Bob should have read something before the show.
Bob answered, "I'm trying to find out first if you're qualified to come to a conclusion that Christianity is false." What's wrong with that?Lets look at what Janet said. "I thought we were going to discuss my book". Was she deceived?
Bob replied with, "...I haven't read all their writings..."I don't expect Bob the read all of Janet's writings either, but I do expect some. Even Bob admits he reads some of their writings!
Bob replied with, "I disagree with your conclusion. For example, people who say it should be legal to own black men as slaves - I haven't read all their writings but I disagree with their conclusion. And because I've studied the evidence for Christianity for over a quarter of a century, I disagree with your conclusion."
Are we debating about morally right and wrong, or are we debating if it is Bob's obligation to read part of the book before having her on the show?
Yes, and he was getting to it. He just wanted to first lay out her qualifications for the audience. What's wrong with that?Originally posted by Nimrod
Now did Bob imply to her that they were going to discuss her book?
No, I don't work with him. Bob lives in Colorado. I live in Indiana.Ask Bob and clear this up. (I am guessing you work with Bob)
I think I heard Bob mention in the past that he sometimes uses a service that acts as a middleman that finds guests that are looking for self-promotion and links those people up with talk-shows that are willing to interview them. It's possible that this service did not inform Janet that Bob was a Christian fundamentalist who wants guests for the express purpose of debating. Janet might have been misled by this "service" (whoever they are) that Bob was some kind of a neutral interviewer who was just going to lob her softballs for an hour so she could sell a lot of copies of her book. I don't know for sure.What were the reasons why she came to the show?
He is not "obligated" to read her book. Some talk show hosts deliberately, intentionally do not read the books of their guests because they want to make sure they ask the same questions that the listening members of their audience would ask. They feel if they are too informed about the material they will ask questions that are at a junior or senior level when their audience is at the freshman level. So no, a host is not "obligated" to read a guests book. If the host is going to debate the guest (and not just interview them) then the host probably should read it to be better prepared for the debate but if he doesn't read it, then that would only benefit the guest he is debating.Are we debating about morally right and wrong, or are we debating if it is Bob's obligation to read part of the book before having her on the show?
But then you contradicted yourself when you wrote:Originally posted by Flipper
. . . it dawned on her that the intent of the interview was to attack her credentials . . .
So now you do want to know her credentials? Which is it?I myself would have liked to have heard what original sources she consulted, whether she could read Hebrew or Greek . . .
Whether she intended to attack or not the end result was that she did attack as Matthew 12:30 proves: "The one who is not with Me is against Me"Originally posted by Flipper
I don't believe it was her stated intent to attack the dearly held beliefs of Christianity