clinton surgery question

"MU" 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.

You said that reward and punishment are not meted out in the afterlife. (I
said this was an assumption and you said it was incorrect.)

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.

A skeptic who doesn't need to ask questions? How cute.

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.

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

So much for skepticism. Anyone with a skeptical bone would ask why
Christian adherents are in the minority. But you just don't care to know.

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.

OK. Self evident to any faithful person. So why do people of different
faiths get different messages? How do you know that yours is true?

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.

Yes you do mu mu. It's the real version of universal reality that the
faithful, oops, Christian faithful, understand. But, like I said, can't
explain in a rational way to skeptics or non-believers. Just like the other
faithful...

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.

Occasionally. Better than drunk on Jesus.

le mo

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:23 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

COMENT:

No ****, Einstein.

Einstein could spell "Comment".

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Sure could.

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

If they are disguised, by definition, how would I recognize them as "my"
beliefs?

On 24 Sep 2004 12:10:11 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

I've had all these Christians earnestly tell me that allowing evil
people to exercise their free will in doing evil deeds, is *necessary*
for the Great Scheme of Things. If that's so, I'm trying to get them
to explain to me why good Christians become policemen, judges, prison
guards, and serve on juries. Since of effect of all these things is to
restrain exercise of free will by people who make evil choices. Is
this the thing to do, or not?

It is and you continue to refuse to learn the difference between the free
will and the freedom to act on it.

Why is that? It's a simple concept.

Similarly, I've had all these Christians tell me that natural disease
and suffering is NECESSARY for the great scheme of things. So I'm
wondering why Christians become social workers, sanitation engineers,
nurses, doctors, firefighters, paramedics, and so on. Since the effect
of all these things is to decrease the amount of natural disease and
suffering in the world. So is this the good thing to do, or not?

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

Let me get this straight: god won't restrain the undetected serial
murderer, but he wants US to do so. How's that again?

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

And if we can't
figure it out, god doesn't mind the string of victims which results,
until we do. And if we never do, god allows it to continue to Green
River Killer or Zimbabwe/Nazi genocide proportions.

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

Similarly, god won't restrain the lightning, but he doesn't mind if we
invent lightening rods. God won't wipe out smallpox, but god has no
problem with us if we do it. It sounds kind of like a yawner either
way, from the Christian point of view.

Seeing as you are not a Christian, your POV on Christianity is one of an
outsider looking in.

How amazing the view through your rose colored glasses, Chung! All
the people with free will, both good and evil, and all the natural
forces acting impersonally to cause suffering or not, by random
change, all conspire to make this world, every day and every way, the
best of all possible worlds at all times. With all the evils in it
*always* necessary ones. Or have I misunderstood?

Nope.

In article ,
MU wrote:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:23 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:08:33 GMT, Luna wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

In article ,
MU wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:08:33 GMT, Luna wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that
the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

Neat. I feel I have everything I need in the way of understanding too, but
no one gave it to me. I had to learn it myself. But in general, people
value more that which they struggle for, rather than that which is handed
to them.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

MU wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

COMENT:

No ****, Einstein.

Einstein could spell "Comment".

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Sure could.

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

If they are disguised, by definition, how would I recognize them as "my"
beliefs?

LOL More MU_Shy logic. But the more important question is why you're
answering questions as though you were Chung when the questions are
addressed to Chung? You say you don't do that. Hmmmmm Could that be
gasp untrue...?

Bob

MU wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris
wrote:

COMENT:

No ****, Einstein.

Einstein could spell "Comment".

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Sure could.

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

If they are disguised, by definition, how would I recognize them as "my"
beliefs?

LOL More MU_Shy logic. But the more important question is why you're
answering questions as though you were Chung when the questions are
addressed to Chung? You say you don't do that. Hmmmmm Could that be
gasp untrue...?

Bob

MU wrote:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

LOL That "accurately" is the kicker, huh? Chung says that there's a
lot that can be and he says he's a scientist. It looks to me, and I
certainly don't want to create a situation with you and your
cardiotrician, but you're saying he's dead wrong. That makes it pretty
much unanimous.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:23 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate

More "truth discernment" in action? Chung still insists that the Flood
happened and that it covered the entire world 15 cubits deep, even Mt
Everest where they only eat 2 pounds of food a day. LOL He insists
that there's geological evidence that this is so. Scientific American
disagrees and offers lengthy citations and references. Chung merely
says, "I discern it to be so."

It's wonderfully funny watching him pee on his big, floppy shoes.

and many
times contradictory from author to author.

Yet you think it's the word of God. Chung says it's absolutely true
(even while weaseling his way around the "inconsistencies"). "Author
to author" hmmm Sounds like a lot of different people wrote it. People.

Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

What sorts of lessons proceed from the Song of Solomon?

"Lesson" you say. But so much of it is in parables and cryptic
notions. What happens when 50 equally serious people come away with
different "lessons" from the same passages?

What a perfectly silly thing to offer as the only basis for the
bible's value. Read some history and see how it came to be. And where
the stories came from. And it really is funny that you try to divorce
the words from their meaning as though meaning is somehow independent
of the means of its expression. But I don't expect you to understand
this. It's too complex an idea for your pretty, curly head.

Here's five bucks, buy yourself something frilly.

Bob