Re: clinton surgery question

From: MU (munospam_at_fastmail.fm)
Date: 09/24/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:26:49 -0400

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

> "MU" <munospam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>
>>>> I know this through God's teachings and the *intimate* reasons for His
>>>> Plan (why this and that) I don't have any real knowledge nor should I.
>>>> Nor do I
>>>> need to.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

>>> WTF is THAT supposed to mean?
>>
>> Exactly what is says. It's a simple sentence, grade school level.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:
 
> Grade one, maybe. Idiot Mu. You claimed that you know what doesn't happen
> in the afterlife WRT reqard and punishment. You claim to know this through
> god's teachings etc.

I claim to know that I learned that I do not know? Nope, never said that
Unhappy TrollPuppy.

> Then you claim that you have no real knowledge or any
> need for it. And you also claim to be a skeptic. This is patently
> hallucinatory.

Maybe to you. Makes perfect sense and works quite well for me. One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

>> Why do you care what I say? You made a point of claiming my uselessness.
>> Why do you even respond? Why waste your time?

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:
 
> I care only enough to post worthy rebuttals, like above. I don't care that
> you're a dysfunctional religious nut.

Oh, I am highly functional; what do you do when you aren't a TROLL? Do you
work? Sleep all the time? Use your Puppy pan?

>>>You claim to be a skeptic but
>>> feel that "God's teachings" are axiomatic.
>>
>> I never said that. You made that up out of thin air.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

> Nope. You can't explain how god's teachings are transmitted and how you
> arrive at a particular viewpoint when most of the rest of the world has a
> different one.

Sure I can. As to what the rest of the world knows is of little concern to
me.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

> All that adds up to a POV which requires god's teachings to
> be self-evident to any right-thinking individual. Like you, no?

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

>>>So when I ask you to show us, in
>>> detail, exactly what the no-*** teachings are that eclipse all the other
>>> no-*** teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and credible
>>> form. Not.
>>
>> You never asked me for any such detail. Drink less when you post.
>
> "When I ask you" is in the present. The question is implied.

I don't know what a "no ***" teaching is. Try again. No ***, please do.
lol

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

>>> Only to one so blinded by the Light that they can't grasp the logical
>>> fundamental that all untestable (as in impossible to test) claims are
>>> logically equivalent.
>>
>> See above regarding drinking.
>
> Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

Quantcast