Re: clinton surgery question

From: Happy Dog (happydog_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:20:51 -0400

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

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. 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.
>
>>You are such a bloviating god-on-a-stick
>> dumbstruck imbecile that you can't help but contradict yourself in the
>> most
>> amusing ways. You, like most christ-besotted fundies, after falsely
>> accusing skeptics of claiming to know the unknowable mind of the great
>> hairy
>> thunderer, do exactly what you so despise.
>
> Why do you care what I say? You made a point of claiming my uselessness.
> Why do you even respond? Why waste your time?

I care only enough to post worthy rebuttals, like above. I don't care that
you're a dysfunctional religious nut.
>
>>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.

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

moo

Quantcast