/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11068474
>but I was really thinking about all of your threads.
More claims with no evidence.

My unsupported claim is that all of the threads were structured basically like this one, and criticisms from those threads which were neither stupid nor wrong are reflected in the current version of the paper.

My claim is that you can go through my entire years-long post history and you would never (pretty much) find even one instance of a comment of the form "This is wrong because of XYZ," to which I responded with reminders about the Lord's justice as opposed to a careful consideration of the merits of XYZ. If you did find one, then look a little earlier and see if I hadn't just debunked XYZ a moment earlier.

Back in the summer, one day I said, "If you want to totally guarantee that the Lord God sets your soul on a better timeline after you die, then do so much good that that wicked kill you." The next day, this guy was walking around on fire. It looks like he was doing some real good there because that fire doesn't seem to be hurting him very much, based on his face.

This is my promise to you: if you do so much good that the wicked kill you, I will definitely use the time machine to go back and set your soul along a superior timeline.