Yap wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:31 am, Ronald Turner
redearth.net> wrote:>> Yap wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 9:39 pm, Ronald Turner
redearth.net> wrote:>>>> Yap wrote:
>>>>> No, Alex.
>>>>> He is in no existence to play any game, sick or otherwise.
>>>> But Yappy, how can He be "sick or otherwise", and be "in no
>>>> existence to play any game" at the same time ?
>>>> That just don't make any sense.
>>>> Or, you can look at it the other way around. How can He not
>>>> be (in existence), and be "sick or otherwise" simultaneously ?
>>>> You need to check your premises, and rethink your philosophy.
>>> I think you did not read properly.
>>> I said that he is in non-existence to play any sick game, with
>>> reference to the sentence by Alex.
>>> And this is very true for the period since more than 2000+ years ago.
>>> Deep down you heart, you know that.
>>> Unlike buying a insurance, your belief has no value.
>> As long as I know you're wrong, that all that matters to me.
>>
>> You don't believe, because you have not be chosen to believe.
>>
>> Don't worry. You'll see what I'm talking about later.
>>
>> Until then, I can wait. I'm in no hurry.
>
> Oh, if I read you correctly, you are saying that I have not been
> chosen by him to believe?
From everything I've noticed so far, that assumption is correct.
> I don't know the reason, neither would I want to be chosen.
There's further proof that the assumption is correct.
> In fact, if he were able to appear, I would be one of the first to
> scream murder at him, while you will be like a dog with his tail
> tacked under. A pity sight.
You've got it all wrong, as usual. But, anyway, I'm glad you think so.
That's just further proof that my assumption about you is correct.
