Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb

[_Themis]

That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.

Others disagree yes, but reasonable, not at all. I understand that the spiritual/emotional experience and their interpretations each person attaches to them can create such bias that no amount of evidence will change their minds. This is why the apologists goes to such lengths and mental gymnastics to come up with some of the BS that they do.

I am not sure how much can reasonably be extrapolated regarding the meaning of the KEP from at best as single instance of a comparison of a single character.

Problem is that his comparing is a decent match for the Gael translation and what Clayton said, so yes the evidence certainly supports it.

[_wenglund]

That is one opinion. Again, others of us reasonably disagree.

Others disagree yes, but reasonable, not at all.

Again, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Other people reasonably disagree.

I understand that the spiritual/emotional experience and their interpretations each person attaches to them can create such bias that no amount of evidence will change their minds. This is why the apologists goes to such lengths and mental gymnastics to come up with some of the BS that they do.

Your own personal prejudices are duly noted.

Problem is that his comparing is a decent match for the Gael translation and what Clayton said, so yes the evidence certainly supports it.

As always, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Hopefully, you can handle differing points of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

Again, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Other people reasonably disagree.

Not reasonably, but I can understand why you think that.

Your own personal prejudices are duly noted.

No prejudice at all, only realization. I took quite a while to recognize my bias and to control for it.

As always, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Hopefully, you can handle differing points of view.

Sure, that does not mean all opinions have the same wight of evidence to back them up. This became obvious upon studying the facts, which eventually resulted in changing belief to fit the facts. I know some like yourself may be to biased to make this change, and that's ok.

[_Ren]

[There were about 5 different threads off-shooting from the 'Kinderhook Bomb' thread that seemed to be pretty similar in nature. So I've merged them all into one thread.]

[_Ren]

[I've also moved the whole thread out of Celestial - seems more Terrestrial in nature]

[_Buffalo]

Life is good, very good, away from this place.

You can't be speaking from experience.

[_Buffalo]

I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice. I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't. Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time, my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home. That was my point, and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time: I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None. Please do not make the same mistake again.

Misdirection Man strikes again!

[_Droopy]

Not to mention the fact that Schryver has a documented history of lying about who he is. Remember the "Provis" days? He lied about being himself then to Dan Vogel, and I suspect he was even posting as his wife a few months ago.

But then, you have a documented history of gross tendentiousness, guile, and bad faith regarding just about every piece of evidence, documentation, and the arguments of others that have ever come your way, so please excuse me while I barf.

Seriously, it is one thing to praise someone, but it is another to have a total man-crush on someone. So far I've seen no evidence that anyone could possibly be so in love with Will in this way, except Will. Wade comes close, but wade is clearly engaged and has been engaged with various apologetics for many, many years. We all know who wade is.

And we all know who - and what - you are.

Let's see. Nomad signs up and makes one post in Fe of 2009. He says nothing else until three months later when a Schryver debate is started. Virtually everything he has posted since that time has been related to a Schryverism of some sort. Though not an expert on any of the relaated Book of Abraham subjects, he pops in just to throw in a plug for the amazing Will Schryver. He then goes to the other forum and lies, by saying he's never seen anyone respond to Schryver's arguments. This is precisely the same tactic used by Schryver. And however he tries to mask his posting style, much of the usual Schryverisms seep through. I searched through all of Nomad's posts and even in threads that have no apparent connection to Schryver, he ends up talking about Schryver this and Schryver that. Really pathetic.

Yes Ronald McGraham, your empty, self absorbed life is rather pathetic, and I'm sure the fantasies your immersion in anti-apologetics allows you, at least here, where your intemperate, narcissistic chest thumping is taken seriously, such that you can posture and strut as being smart, is, at least for now, adequate anesthetic for the deeper issues that drive your ongoing witch hunt against the Church and anyone who dares speak in its behalf.

[_Droopy]

There, I feel better now.

Much better...

[_beastie]

There, I feel better now.

Much better...

It won't last long.

You'll need to binge and purge soon again.