Re: Bob Enyart
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
:rotfl:
Well said fool! :up:
fool has demonstrated he is willing to put his foot where his mouth is errrrrrrrrrrr..... his money where his mouth is.
(I kid because I care)
Evoken
New member
PastorKevin said:
Why not let them speak for themselves instead of "poisoning the well"?
Evo
Nang
TOL Subscriber
They were just being silly, go easy on them... their feelings are hurt easily.
Oh really? . . .that's useful information!
Well said fool! :up:
fool has demonstrated he is willing to put his foot where his mouth is errrrrrrrrrrr..... his money where his mouth is.
(I kid because I care)
I was going to mention this earlier. I admire fool for at least making the effort and calling in. How many here who disagree have done that?
Listen to the shows that are linked in fool's signature. Bob is very easy to get along with if and the dialog will go very smoothly if you have a point and you can answer questions. Avoid obfuscation though!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Agreed!
I will hold you to your word.
No problem. We are in agreement.
No, I will post. No home court advantages will be conceded.
AMR when you are ready to post please make your post in the One on One forum. I will temporarily make you and Bob "One on One" status for the couple of posts that get made in this mini-exchange. Then I will open up another thread so that all of your answers and Bob's response can be discussed by the rest of us.
Sound fair?
Sound fair?
Oh, I guess I should have said why I wanted to set it up that way.
I don't want AMR's answers to Bob BR X questions and then Bob's subsequent response, to get lost in the shuffle of dozens of other off-topic posts.
I don't want AMR's answers to Bob BR X questions and then Bob's subsequent response, to get lost in the shuffle of dozens of other off-topic posts.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sounds fine. I was going to suggest the same thing to keep things isolated.
The hoi polloi can post elsewhere.
Just had to use the word again.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I think Nang asked me to answer these fairly simple questions. If I've erred, please let me know.
Given that God's intent is to have a people for Himself (Eph 1:4), and God's efforts since the fall to ensure that He does, and the fact that no one is able to prevent God from resurrecting any that He chooses gives me assurance that God will accomplish His purpose.
In short, it is God's omniscience AND His omnipotence.
But it is possible for God to know what He would do in a given possible future.
God's knowledge, wisdom, power and love.
I don't think God overrides anyone's free will, although God can certainly directly or indirectly create circumstances in which people will choose a particular direction.
Muz
Given that God's intent is to have a people for Himself (Eph 1:4), and God's efforts since the fall to ensure that He does, and the fact that no one is able to prevent God from resurrecting any that He chooses gives me assurance that God will accomplish His purpose.
In short, it is God's omniscience AND His omnipotence.
But it is possible for God to know what He would do in a given possible future.
God's knowledge, wisdom, power and love.
I don't think God overrides anyone's free will, although God can certainly directly or indirectly create circumstances in which people will choose a particular direction.
Muz
death2impiety
Maximeee's Husband
You see, AMR believes that every thought he has and everything he does was ordained by God. So when thinking, "should I nag Bob to hold true to his offer", instead of realizing that God has already decided how Bob will reply and accepting it, he believes that God put the thought into his head to question Bob so that he would be sure to make doubly sure that God ordained him to answer, because if God didn't ordain Bob to answer all the time spent asking would have been a waste and then AMR would have to spend time contemplating why God ordained that he should waste his time asking, only to realize that while he was at his computer making the post about whether or not Bob would reply substantively a squirrel lept from the tree outside his window onto the table on the back porch to the left of the newspaper that he left there earlier which is exactly where he would have placed his coffee had he taken a break from TOL, which would have resulted in him having to go back to the kitchen to replenish his mug where a "conveniently" placed clock on the coffee machine exposed that it just happened to be 3:31PM which is the exact time (or at least as far as he can remember) that his mother told him she'd be going to the library that day. Since library rhymes with arbitrary it's obvious that God had ordained that arbitrary rhyme with library so at that exact moment he'd have realized that everything he just thought about was pointless. Or maybe Calvinists are just retarded.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have.
BTW, best not to clutter up this thread with topics that have been discussed in other threads, such as the OT Archive Part 2 thread.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You have.
BTW, best not to clutter up this thread with topics that have been discussed in other threads, such as the OT Archive Part 2 thread.
AMR,
Muz did not err. He and I were discussing the subject of your very questions to Bob, and so I invited him to take a stab at answering them.
I apologize to both of you if I did wrong. :dead:
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
You have.
BTW, best not to clutter up this thread with topics that have been discussed in other threads, such as the OT Archive Part 2 thread.
Nang pointed me here, so I'll let her answer.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, he erred in the content of his response.
My second comment was to point out that he could have responded elsewhere, like in the forum where you pointed out the question to him. I just don't want to have discussions about theology in a thread that is "All About Bob". :chuckle:
themuzicman
Well-known member
No, he erred in the content of his response.
My second comment was to point out that he could have responded elsewhere, like in the forum where you pointed out the question to him. I just don't want to have discussions about theology in a thread that is "All About Bob". :chuckle:
It's Nang's thread. She's the one who ought to decide what belongs here and what does not.
Why do you feel the need to control everything?
Muz
Maybe it has something to do with the fact the he believes he cannot control anything. :think: