daily Bible verse

[jcribb16]

Quote from falcon9:
My extrapolated 'prediction' is that you will not refute any of these contentions and simply ignore them or, simply post the equivalent of "uh-uh" empty nay-saying, (nothing substative in rebuttal).


You know, whether or not I refute, ignore, or simply post the equivalent..., is none of your concern.  It matters not what is said, you will always try and make the "Christian" look bad.  So what?  You do not debate fairly in the first place because of your lack of respect for "Christianity" period.  I will or will not respond as I wish, not depending on your "prediction."  Because of your "prediction" challenge, at this point, I will not be challenged into refuting just because you infer I should or shouldn't through your line of "unreasonable" "extrapolated prediction."  When I respond, I will do it because I choose to, or not choose to, and it will not be "nothing substantive in rebuttal" as you say.  You should mind your own manners and not be so concerned with what others choose to say and how they say it, including when they say it.

[jcribb16]

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.   

(King James Version):

Psalm 91:2  "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust."

Psalm 91:4  "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

Psalm 27:1  "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"

[falcon9]

Romans 8:38-39
Psalm 91:2  
Psalm 91:4  
Psalm 27:1  

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
 -- Dan Barker

[falcon9]

Quote from falcon9:
"My extrapolated 'prediction' is that you will not refute any of these contentions and simply ignore them or, simply post the equivalent of "uh-uh" empty nay-saying, (nothing substative in rebuttal)."

You know, whether or not I refute, ignore, or simply post the equivalent..., is none of your concern.

It becomes the concern of any who bother to read your non-refutations, non-ignoring non-rebuttals in a public forum.
 

It matters not what is said, you will always try and make the "Christian" look bad.  So what?  You do not debate fairly in the first place because of your lack of respect for "Christianity" period.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. It is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, though logical consistency and factual accuracy.  'Respecting' a fallacious position is not required, just as your irrational "faith" has no inherent "respect" for logical reasoning.
  

I will or will not respond as I wish, not depending on your "prediction."  Because of your "prediction" challenge, at this point, I will not be challenged into refuting just because you infer I should or shouldn't ...

I didn't infer what you "should or shouldn't" refute; I deduced that you wouldn't refute and that extrapolation remains accurate to date.
 

... through your line of "unreasonable" "extrapolated prediction."

The extrapolation itself was not "unreasonable" since it was based upon your previous tendencies of irrationality.
 

When I respond, I will do it because I choose to, or not choose to, and it will not be "nothing substantive in rebuttal" as you say.  You should mind your own manners and not be so concerned with what others choose to say and how they say it, including when they say it.

Yet, *this* response of yours contains no refutation, no rebuttal and no substance.  Instead, you atttempt the 'impolite' diversionary tactic once again in lieu of debate.  Either that's a 'stall' or, you are unwilling/unable to actually debate, (that is, under the meaning of that term).

"Faith is the fatigue resulting from the attempt to preserve God's integrity instead of one's own."
-- Matt Berry

[jcribb16]

Romans 8:38-39
Psalm 91:2  
Psalm 91:4  
Psalm 27:1  

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
 -- Dan Barker

I am totally secure about God and my faith in Him.  Do you start using quotes more when you run out of your own words to say?  Lol.

[jcribb16]

Quote from falcon9:
"My extrapolated 'prediction' is that you will not refute any of these contentions and simply ignore them or, simply post the equivalent of "uh-uh" empty nay-saying, (nothing substative in rebuttal)."

You know, whether or not I refute, ignore, or simply post the equivalent..., is none of your concern.

It becomes the concern of any who bother to read your non-refutations, non-ignoring non-rebuttals in a public forum.
 

It matters not what is said, you will always try and make the "Christian" look bad.  So what?  You do not debate fairly in the first place because of your lack of respect for "Christianity" period.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. It is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, though logical consistency and factual accuracy.  'Respecting' a fallacious position is not required, just as your irrational "faith" has no inherent "respect" for logical reasoning.
  

I will or will not respond as I wish, not depending on your "prediction."  Because of your "prediction" challenge, at this point, I will not be challenged into refuting just because you infer I should or shouldn't ...

I didn't infer what you "should or shouldn't" refute; I deduced that you wouldn't refute and that extrapolation remains accurate to date.
 

... through your line of "unreasonable" "extrapolated prediction."

The extrapolation itself was not "unreasonable" since it was based upon your previous tendencies of irrationality.
 

When I respond, I will do it because I choose to, or not choose to, and it will not be "nothing substantive in rebuttal" as you say.  You should mind your own manners and not be so concerned with what others choose to say and how they say it, including when they say it.

Yet, *this* response of yours contains no refutation, no rebuttal and no substance.  Instead, you atttempt the 'impolite' diversionary tactic once again in lieu of debate.  Either that's a 'stall' or, you are unwilling/unable to actually debate, (that is, under the meaning of that term).

"Faith is the fatigue resulting from the attempt to preserve God's integrity instead of one's own."
-- Matt Berry

You are so off with your thoughts and reasonings here.  You stick to your thoughts if they make you feel oh so powerful and oh so right.  Others, including myself, choose what to debate or not to debate, when or not to answer, and with what to answer.  It is not your concern whatever you may think.  If you believe this, then by all means show me in the rules or guidelines where my comments concern someone enough, that I must answer back if I should choose to not do so.  You go ahead and enjoy riding on your "high" horse - it apparently helps you feel to be in charge and control over Christians and what they have to say.  A little secret - you aren't and don't, and never will.  In the end, they are your thoughts and comments only, and not the law of FC or the law of the land. 

[falcon9]

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
 -- Dan Barker

I am totally secure about God and my faith in Him.  

Your blind faith wasn't in doubt; the non-basis for it always was.

Do you start using quotes more when you run out of your own words to say?  Lol.

Do you quote specious biblical verses incessantly even before you run out of your own words?

[falcon9]

You are so off with your thoughts and reasonings here. 

Simply because you say so, in contradiction to the content of these posted exchanges?  Hardly.
 

Others, including myself, choose what to debate or not to debate, when or not to answer, and with what to answer. 

It always was, (and is), your choice to debate or not debate, to post specious unsupported religious claims, to be irrational and not substantiate your religious assertions or to answer contextually/non-contextually.  The option to use that ignore button also remains; you've chosen not to use it and go with specious/unsupported/unsubstantiated empty faith-based religious nonsense.  I've chosen to refute that stuff and have previously pointed out that you don't get to censor dissent by characterizing it as "rude", "impolite", "disrespectful", 'too difficult to refute' or otherwise. 

A little secret - you aren't and don't, and never will.  

Neither do you get to dictate whether or not your specious faith-based nonsense gets challenged/refuted/rebutted under the mistaken impression that it gets to be posted unopposed.  You remain free to post or not, just as I do.  There's a difference between a challenging dissent and attempts to suppress dissent that isn't subtle at all.

[jcribb16]

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
 -- Dan Barker

I am totally secure about God and my faith in Him.  

Your blind faith wasn't in doubt; the non-basis for it always was.

Do you start using quotes more when you run out of your own words to say?  Lol.

Do you quote specious biblical verses incessantly even before you run out of your own words?

I quote Bible verses in the Bible verse thread.  I will add them when I think they fit what is being discussed.  You love posting your sarcastic pic over and over to Christians' comments/verses of Bible; you are always posting your "lovely" quotes either with or without the picture - your choice of course.  Was just asking, lol.

"No man is ever whipped until he quits in his own mind."
-- Napoleon Hill
Christians will not be "whipped" by you and your lovely, disrespectful, and thoughtless cut-downs.

[falcon9]

I quote Bible verses in the Bible verse thread.

Or, in the "daily bible inverse" thread, depending upon whether you're proselytizing only or, adding a dodge to a previous challenge.
 

"No man is ever whipped until he quits in his own mind."
-- Napoleon Hill
Christians will not be "whipped" ...

They arrive 'pre-whipped' by faith-blindness, which is self-induced.

"I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." 
~ D. Dale Gulledge

[jcribb16]

I quote Bible verses in the Bible verse thread.

Or, in the "daily bible inverse" thread, depending upon whether you're proselytizing only or, adding a dodge to a previous challenge.
 

"No man is ever whipped until he quits in his own mind."
-- Napoleon Hill
Christians will not be "whipped" ...

They arrive 'pre-whipped' by faith-blindness, which is self-induced.

"I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." 
~ D. Dale Gulledge

I'm not forcing you to accept Christianity.  That's entirely your choice in your life what you do. 


"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- -- Joseph Joubert

[falcon9]

I'm not forcing you to accept Christianity. 

No one can - not even at the point of a sword, (as history attests).

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- -- Joseph Joubert

Where progress is not possible due to the circular arguements of religious blind faith, one must settle disregarding such arguements. 

[jcribb16]

I'm not forcing you to accept Christianity. 

No one can - not even at the point of a sword, (as history attests).

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
- -- Joseph Joubert

Where progress is not possible due to the circular arguements of religious blind faith, one must settle disregarding such arguements. 

Good example of narrow mindedness.

[falcon9]

Good example of narrow mindedness.

If you're referring to blind faith, I agree.

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson

[jcribb16]

You are so off with your thoughts and reasonings here. 

Simply because you say so, in contradiction to the content of these posted exchanges?  Hardly.
 

Others, including myself, choose what to debate or not to debate, when or not to answer, and with what to answer. 

It always was, (and is), your choice to debate or not debate, to post specious unsupported religious claims, to be irrational and not substantiate your religious assertions or to answer contextually/non-contextually.  The option to use that ignore button also remains; you've chosen not to use it and go with specious/unsupported/unsubstantiated empty faith-based religious nonsense.  I've chosen to refute that stuff and have previously pointed out that you don't get to censor dissent by characterizing it as "rude", "impolite", "disrespectful", 'too difficult to refute' or otherwise. 

A little secret - you aren't and don't, and never will.  

Neither do you get to dictate whether or not your specious faith-based nonsense gets challenged/refuted/rebutted under the mistaken impression that it gets to be posted unopposed.  You remain free to post or not, just as I do.  There's a difference between a challenging dissent and attempts to suppress dissent that isn't subtle at all.

Re-posting:
It is not challenging with respect when a poster is:

*Hateful towards certain persons, groups, or denominations. (Ex. Christians mostly receive your hateful remarks, quotes, and pics.

*Creating a disproportionate number of posts to disrupt a conversation or a thread.  (Ex. Bible Verse Threads)

*Making statements that are deliberately inflammatory.  (Mainly towards Christians)

*Interfering with conversations or posts (Ex. Bible Verse Threads) which inhibits the ability of others to enjoy that thread.

I'm really surprised that, with all of your knowledge, big words, and apparent enjoyment of debate, that you have conveniently or deliberately overlooked the respectful part of debating, in which both sides can gain better knowledge and perspective.