I never said you did. In post 45, I pointed out that the Soviet Union mocking the United States during the Cold War without full knowledge of it was analogous to someone mocking God without full knowledge of him/her/it. Your reply to this was that my logic was impeccable, but that my premises were flawed. Needing clarification, I then asked if you were arguing that Soviet propaganda didn't mock the USA.
Clear enough?
Once more, with precision: when one hasn't a clue as to what one is trying to mock, it's toothless.
That fact that it's toothless doesn't mean that the mocking in question never occurred. God obviously can be mocked.
I do not require "full and complete understanding" - that is your term, which you were applying in order to sway the argument. Now please play these games with someone else, I've stated my argument in perfect clarity. If you want to restate it in other terms, you're arguing with yourself.
If you don't want a reply, you really shouldn't ask me a question at the top of the post to which I am currently replying. In any case, it now seems that you're arguing that one can mock God as long as one has more than more than a "clue" about him/her/it. Correct?
No, you’re arguing that. Really, this is high school debate stuff, unworthy of FR. We’ll make a deal: you restate my case however you like, give your restatement a stern and logical disproof, and give yourself a high-five for winning the debate. I’ll be at the adult table when you’re done. Welcome to FR.