ThePhy on Bob Enyart Live?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Freak
New member
It is laughable for Enyart to ask me to cast out demons out of a phone. Does Enyart not realize Jesus was more concerned about humanity then objects?
All of these things, you mentioned, effect humans on a personal level. Radio, books, exorcisms, web ministry, etc These elements are people oriented.
Casting out demons out of a phone, as Enyart proposed, is asinine. :down: Do you not see the difference?
He was being facetious, of course. He doesn't really believe there are actual demons in his phone system. Then again, he doesn't believe you are an actual exorcist either. So you'd be just the guy to cast out demons that aren't even there.
All of the things I mentioned (including phones) didn't exist at the time of Christ's earthly ministry. It just struck me funny that you pointed out that Jesus never cast demons out of phones specifically. If only you had said inanimate objects, it wouldn't have been funny.
That's the point. It was a joke.
Freak
New member
Okay.
There were those in the days of Jesus who questioned his authority to cast out demons too. Were you aware of this?
Furthermore... many on this forum think Enyart is in great theological error regarding various man-made doctrines that he espouses.
I realize you're only 24 but come on Turbo you could do better then that. :down: You're the laughingstock of TOL.
Like I said for a 24 year old punk you can do better. Jesus didn't cast demons out of objects. Period. So, for Enyart to state such an asinine thing is quite bizarre to say the very least.
Perhaps Enyart needs the evil spirits cast out of him. Reminder: Just a joke.
Here's another debate that turned into a knock down, drag out WAR: http://kgov.com/BEL/2002/20021120-BEL221.mp3
And yet another good one. This time I'm the one debating Bob. I'm the first caller: http://kgov.com/bel/2002/20021203-BEL227.mp3
Last edited by a moderator:
Reconsidering
Reconsidering
Knight, in at least one of the Bob Enyart Live radio programs immediately after his late February debate with the Hugh Ross group, Bob said he would like to have another Age-of the-Earth debate, but have it one-on-one, and based on the science. If he is still interested in that, I might be willing to pick up his offer.
I would require that it be an in-person debate (in the Denver area is fine), under the normal protocols of debate (x uninterrupted minutes for each presenter to give their opening arguments, followed by y uninterrupted minutes of follow-up/rebuttal time, and perhaps an open Q/A session at the end). I would need at least several months scheduling and preparation time (and Bob may need as well).
Peripheral issues would only be permitted inasmuch as they directly influence the core subject. For example, whether or not evolution happened is not critical to establishing an old earth, since evolution could be completely false and the earth still be old. (On the other hand, establishment of a young earth would necessarily falsify evolution.) Evolutionary ideas would be permitted to the extent they are directly related to an old or young earth – such as the methods and reliability of dating fossils that are claimed to come from times long before the Genesis creation. Scriptural passages would only be permitted for analysis of relevant scientific content. Thus issues like the possible meanings of the word “day” in Genesis are outside the scope of the discussion.
Can you see if Bob is interested?
Reconsidering
Knight, in at least one of the Bob Enyart Live radio programs immediately after his late February debate with the Hugh Ross group, Bob said he would like to have another Age-of the-Earth debate, but have it one-on-one, and based on the science. If he is still interested in that, I might be willing to pick up his offer.
I would require that it be an in-person debate (in the Denver area is fine), under the normal protocols of debate (x uninterrupted minutes for each presenter to give their opening arguments, followed by y uninterrupted minutes of follow-up/rebuttal time, and perhaps an open Q/A session at the end). I would need at least several months scheduling and preparation time (and Bob may need as well).
Peripheral issues would only be permitted inasmuch as they directly influence the core subject. For example, whether or not evolution happened is not critical to establishing an old earth, since evolution could be completely false and the earth still be old. (On the other hand, establishment of a young earth would necessarily falsify evolution.) Evolutionary ideas would be permitted to the extent they are directly related to an old or young earth – such as the methods and reliability of dating fossils that are claimed to come from times long before the Genesis creation. Scriptural passages would only be permitted for analysis of relevant scientific content. Thus issues like the possible meanings of the word “day” in Genesis are outside the scope of the discussion.
Can you see if Bob is interested?
Re: Reconsidering
Re: Reconsidering
Re: Reconsidering
I will check into this.
- Status