The Bible's Buried Secrets

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
I am vacillating between marveling that you truly believe your rants and thinking this is just an attempted assault to minimize my opinions.

You need no help from me with this… you have singlehandedly destroyed your own credibility here and your current backpedaling will not correct your previous deceits.

Stahrwe
In the final analysis does it matter who has the disability?

Yes, especially if you try to gain sympathy or debate points by feigning the disability… and I still say that your dispute is a non issue… the blind watch by listening… they can and do (I have seen them at the movies) get quite a bit out of the dialog, even without the visual.

A blind person would have learned far more by listening to that video series than you did by refusing to.

Stahrwe
If a video is posted without a transcript you are limiting accessibility aren't you?

I suppose that they are, however that is their choice (it is still a free country) and is not something you or I can control...

Your outright refusal to watch it is something that you could control… and by refusing to (and making ignorant comments as a result) you demonstrated a lack of character that is far worse than simply not creating a transcript. So this is still not a valid excuse for YOU not to watch the videos… which is what we were discussing.

Then you blindsided everyone with your deceit of a disability and insinuated (sarcastically) that I owed you some sympathy for it… at the time (and even still now) this seems to me to have been an excuse to not watch the videos and a tactic to disrupt the conversation… things spiraled downward from there… which I expect was your plan all along. You’ll take the hit for being a contemptible ass as long as we stop talking about the very convincing facts that discredit your religion.

The more I think about it the more shameful your behavior appears to me… especially now since you are trying to cover it up.

Stahrwe
Having shown that I never said I was blind let me ease your anger a bit by saying that I also never said I wasn't blind.

This is where the deceit comes into play… but you are correct you never said that you were blind, you implied it… but you are not being accused of saying it… you are being accused of insinuating it. However that is just as deceitful and is still a lie.

Stahrwe
To complete the discussion let me say that I WAS blind, and that I have publicly proclaimed that hundreds of times. Finally, it was and is true that I Once Was Blind. Anyone familiar with Christianity since Newton will immediately fill in the ending phrase of that quote and understand the context in which I use and used it.

Then why would you need my sympathy? Your excuses reek of the attempt to create one lie to cover another… your behavior is becoming more and more contemptible.

Stahrwe
It was no insinuation, nor am I backpedaling now, it is just a bit of Christian doctrine which you all failed to recognize.

This excuse fails on several levels… That particular “doctrine” does not fit into the conversion we had, nor is it a valid excuse for not watching the videos… and again it does not explain why you would need any sympathy, or why you talked about DragonSpeech, or why you (up until now) have been restricting your comments to the actual sight impaired type of blindness.

You FAIL… again

Stahrwe
The moral question has not been answered and one cannot use logic to answer it. There is a basic factor missing which renders logic unreliable to answer the question. Do you know what the factor is?

I have no interest in answering a moral query posted by someone who obviously has none… this is not what we were discussing and it is not what I am commenting on here. Besides, Interbane answered it already.

Later

[Interbane]

Having shown that I never said I was blind let me ease your anger a bit by saying that I also never said I wasn't blind. To complete the discussion let me say that I WAS blind, and that I have publicly proclaimed that hundreds of times. Finally, it was and is true that I Once Was Blind. Anyone familiar with Christianity since Newton will immediately fill in the ending phrase of that quote and understand the context in which I use and used it. It was no insuation, nor am I backpedaling now, it is just a bit of Christian doctrine which you all failed to recognize.

Everyone failed to recognize it in the exact same way. Your insinuation worked as intended. The context of the adage that you were once blind but now see doesn't fit at all with your exasperation at not having a transcript. More backpedaling, more deceit.

The moral question has not been answered and one cannot use logic to answer it. There is a basic factor missing which renders logic unreliable to answer the question. Do you know what the factor is?

I've already answered this.

[lady of shallot]

Interbane:

Every person who read it took it the same way.

Actually I didn't Interbane, I knew Stahrwe was proposing only a hypothetical, cleverly though.

Dawn:

Hmmm... apparently LofS does...Interesting.

Actually Dawn this isn't my information but the scientific communities information. If sometime in the future they amend the dates and/or time spans I will adjust my knowledge to accommodate the new information.

As far as scientific Adam and scientific Eve. Don't forget they themselves are thousands of years apart and scientific Adam would be a descendant of scientific Eve. Also it is all MALES who are descended from scientific Adam (I actually don't know about the females)

As far as a "million" years and what they look like. Well I can certainly understand what 100 or 150 years looks like, so why is it such a stretch to imagine 1 million?

Dawn you seem like an extraordinarily intelligent person. I can not truthfully imagine what it would be like to go about your daily life holding beliefs that are so at odds with those whom you encounter. What do you think the beliefs of your doctors, dentists, university instructors, newspaper journalists and editors, government officials etc. etc. are pertaining to evolution vs. creationism? Since none of us know what started the "big bang" it could be assumed that it was a "God" why is that not enough?

[Interbane]

Actually I didn't Interbane, I knew Stahrwe was proposing only a hypothetical, cleverly though.

You're quite right. That was how I took it also. The problem was the insinuation was fairly clear. It was the only thing stopping me from coming right out and calling his bluff at the time.

It's actually interesting watching how someone's brain works to cover up mistakes. It reminds me very much of my brother. You have the obvious insinuation that someone is missing vision. The bluff is called and they then claim they were referring to hypothetical vision, in seeing the truth of the lord. It doesn't fit with the insinuation, but it's one of the few places to backpedal to. As obvious a deceit as a lying two year old. But it's a grown man, and something tells me he actually believes his own lies.

Stahrwe, in your memory of the moment, do you actually remember thinking about using the expression that you were once blind, but now you see? Meaning, were you able to suppress the real memory completely, or is it still in there as a reminder of your deceit?

[Frank 013]

Lady
Actually I didn't Interbane, I knew Stahrwe was proposing only a hypothetical, cleverly though.

I do not think any one of us regulars actually ever believed that stahrwe was really blind, but the insinuation was there… At first I only took it as a hypothetical, later he mentioned that he had the DragonSpeech software and I considered the possibility that he was actually “legally” but not totally blind. Since he never spoke up to clear up the questions that were being asked I can only think he enjoyed the confusion he created.

My thinking is that he was hoping to make us look like jerks to any non-regulars who might happen across the debate in an effort to limit the exposure of the videos. Now he is trying to cover his tracks, but the evidence of his deception is there for all to see.

Later

[stahrwe]

I suppose I will be accused of running this discussion off the rails but I plead that it was not me that is invoking the prior discussion of 'what if I said I was blind,'

I will be perfectly happy to continue this back and forth ad nauseum for as long as you and Interbane have a stomach for it but I must point out some fundamental flaws in your posts.

First of all, LOGICALLY, if one posts the question, What if I said I was blind? The immediate response should have been, Are you? and I would not have proceeded as if it were the case until postively confirmed.

Second, What if is not a statement of fact, it is a hypothetical.

Third, you are using the wrong word, I might have been guilty of implication but not insinuation. They are different terms. I can insinuate something about you or another person but not myself.

In point of fact, the point is not to prove anything regarding my statement but to assault my posts. That's fine it is much easier to reply to this nonsense then to formulate and research so keep it up.

One more thing, perhaps you missed the note I made that Nova provided a written transcript of the subject show. It is 29 pages long and I am cataloging the errors in it in anticipation of a future post which will be in the form of a blog. What I find hard to understand is the truly basic errors Nova included. Sitting and watching the SHOW with transcript in hand makes it convenient.

Your turn.

[Interbane]

Third, you are using the wrong word, I might have been guilty of implication but not insinuation.

You are aware of it then. Do you feel guilt, or is your conscience perfectly clear? Do you absolve yourself of any wrongdoing? Would you do it again to score debate points?

I suppose I will be accused of running this discussion off the rails but I plead that it was not me that is invoking the prior discussion of 'what if I said I was blind,'

There aren't many places we can get a front row seat to the workings of delusion. I've run this discussion off the rails, sorry. It's fun territory though.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
First of all, LOGICALLY, if one posts the question, What if I said I was blind? The immediate response should have been, Are you? and I would not have proceeded as if it were the case until positively confirmed.

You are applying behavior to us that never happened, so go on… you beat that straw man!

No one believed you were blind… we just recognized the suggestion… and when questions were asked you never bothered to clear anything up… in fact when I posted this…

Frank
Stahrwe… if you are blind why not say so from the beginning? Why imply… no, actually outright say you will not watch the videos and let us think you are capable of the feat… when you actually are not… and besides you can still listen to them can’t you?

Your reply was…

Stahrwe
Why would it be any of your business?

Clearly you had no intention of clearing up the situation… and now you are busted and exposed as the liar that you are.

stahrwe
Second, What if is not a statement of fact, it is a hypothetical.

I would agree, except you add the very leading “thanks for your sensitivity.” part, this sarcastic statement implies that there is a reason for me to be sensitive… a less than subtle hint that you might actually be blind.

In other words you insinuated that you might be blind… (And that is the proper word) later you added the DragonSpeech blurb which supported the initial hint. An indirect and gradual suggestion… see the dictionary definition below…

stahrwe
Third, you are using the wrong word, I might have been guilty of implication but not insinuation. They are different terms. I can insinuate something about you or another person but not myself.

Insinuation
1 Something unpleasant artfully and indirectly suggested to another person.
2 The act of hinting at something unpleasant or suggesting something indirectly and gradually.

The word fits… this is exactly what you did.

stahrwe
In point of fact, the point is not to prove anything regarding my statement but to assault my posts.

No, no, no… This is an assault on your character… or lack thereof… the posts are just the evidence.

stahrwe
One more thing, perhaps you missed the note I made that Nova provided a written transcript of the subject show. It is 29 pages long and I am cataloging the errors in it in anticipation of a future post which will be in the form of a blog. What I find hard to understand is the truly basic errors Nova included. Sitting and watching the SHOW with transcript in hand makes it convenient.

Goody for you.

Later

[Dexter]

Bible study, thataway --> (points to rest of Internet)

You could be arguing over Bible passages all day long, why waste your time here?

I should add that discussing the Bible is a perfectly fine topic, but I don't understand why Stahrwe wants to do it here.

[lady of shallot]

Stahrwe:

Your turn.

I guess this is a game, not an intelligent discussion with the aim of greater understanding. Just a game.