daily Bible verse

[falcon9]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wouldn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

[falcon9]

Then don't open the thread.  Ignore (like you tell others.)  Move on and participate where you do enjoy things. 

Once again, take your own 'advice' and don't open replies which disturb your 'delicate sensibilities;, (e.g., irrational superstitious empty beliefs).  To reiterate the cognizant point; your attempts to issue repressive commands or censor viewpoints wgich oppose your blind faith are obnoxious, rude, contemptible and ignored as specious.  If you don't like that, use the ignore function because such attempts at repression will continue to be ignored.

[falcon9]

Then don't open the thread.  You CHOOSE to open it, and then CHOOSE to be offended.  AVOID what you don't like.  Go have fun in your wicca thread - you tolerate their choice.  You are like a poor little man who is so sad...

'Once again, take your own 'advice' and don't open replies which disturb your 'delicate sensibilities;, (e.g., irrational superstitious empty beliefs).  To reiterate the cognizant point; your attempts to issue repressive commands or censor viewpoints wgich oppose your blind faith are obnoxious, rude, contemptible and ignored as specious.  If you don't like that, use the ignore function because such attempts at repression will continue to be ignored.'

You are like a poor little man who is so sad...

Your blindness is a self-inflicted one which is opposed because of the inherent ignorance is blinding oneself via empty faith.

[jcribb16]

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't. 

Yet, that's how you religious adherents treat it; as if it's a platform for unopposed proselytizing.

But they also are not forums for atheists ...

Actually, the forums are for anyone; atheists, non-theists, xtian fundies, buddhists, wiccans, satanists, santeria, muslims, hindus, native american shaman, etc..  The forums are not exclusively xtian, as the constant proselytizing by xtians would make it appear - were it not for the opposition and dissenting viewpoints of non-xtians.

Don't open the thread; ignore; skip - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted. 

Take your own 'advice' and don't open opposing replies, ignore them, skip them and avoid feeling offended/insulted when your irrational superstitions are rejected.

I am getting a bit weary of your deceptive way of only quoting parts of what I say, instead of using the whole quote in its context, sir.  So this is what I was saying about it also not being a forum for atheists (THIS IS WHERE YOU CLIPPED MY QUOTE.  EXPLANATION TO FOLLOW.)

Quote from jcribb: (IN ITS ENTIRETY):
But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.

I have asked you before, to please "quote" my responses in their entirety.  Please do so, because otherwise, you are taking them out of context, to suit your agenda, and twist what I am saying, to mean something totally different than what I meant.  If you do not, I will ask Kohler to ask you to "quote" correctly.  There is that "Quote" button up there, and when you use it, please do not delete the rest of my words like you do, for reasons already listed.  Thank you, again.

[jcribb16]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

[jcribb16]

*Disclaimer - I realize this sounds sarcastic.  

No, for that to occur, the remarks would have to fall under the definition of sarcasm; yours don't.  Your inane remarks fall under the definition of ignorance since you're still attempting to repress/censor dissenting points of view by 'suggesting' that dissenters not reply to superstitious religious proselytization.  That's not going to happen, in these forums or in this country because neither are fundamentlist dictatorships.

 

You sound like a poor little man, complaining and whining...

[jcribb16]

The speciously-empty opinion of a faith-blinded supertitious believer is of little to no consequence since it ignored the previous points to keep harping on an inherent desire to have relivious proselytization go unopposed.  It won't; others will oppose it if they so choose and you can do nothing whatsoever to stop it.  Why do you persist in trying to repress dissent, fundie?

You sound like a ...

When you stop trying to persist in slamming Christians like you do, then I will lighten up with my defense against your rude accusations.

[Flackle]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

Disagreeing with someone is not a way to repress their opinion. Telling someone to ignore someone else's statement because they disagree with them is. We should no repress dissension, its healthy for people to disagree. To think anything else is censorship.

[jcribb16]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wou;dn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

 Oh my goodness, you poor thing.  You still don't get it.  Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

[Flackle]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wou;dn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

 Oh my goodness, you poor thing.  You still don't get it.  Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

[jcribb16]

Then don't open the thread.  Ignore (like you tell others.)  Move on and participate where you do enjoy things. 

Once again, take your own 'advice' and don't open replies which disturb your 'delicate sensibilities;, (e.g., irrational superstitious empty beliefs).  To reiterate the cognizant point; your attempts to issue repressive commands or censor viewpoints wgich oppose your blind faith are obnoxious, rude, contemptible and ignored as specious.  If you don't like that, use the ignore function because such attempts at repression will continue to be ignored.

You are having a rough night with this - I'm so sorry.  I cannot "NOT OPEN" replies that are replies in the thread that I am already in, and responding in.  You would like, apparently, for your replies to be accepted without question or rebuttal.  You are the one opening a thread and responding, letting yourself be offended, so when you respond mockingly, you honestly really think no one should respond back to you?  That's illogical, sir.

You cut a believer down, and a believer is going to defend and stand up to your comments.  So, ONCE AGAIN, if you don't want to be offended, either don't open the thread, ignore it, or skip it - problem solved for you.  Problem is, you CHOOSE to be offended deliberately, and you CHOOSE to open the thread deliberately, and you CHOOSE to comment like you do deliberately, and by doing so, should expect comments back to you.

I am not "sensitive" in the least - I'm not going to let a bully dictate to me what I must do, and I will defend my Lord, my Bible, and my Christian friends, especially when you enter a thread you don't approve of, and pester/bully believers for what they choose to believe in.  It's so sad how you can't let go of your disapproval for something that is chosen by some, and not chosen by others, and have to mock and pester your disapproval onto the believers, just to be mean and spiteful.  

We see right through you, and you either don't like it when some challenge you, or else you enjoy and crave the attention so much, that it's almost like you are begging for it.  Well, you've been definitely getting the attention!!!  I'll say that for you.

[falcon9]

I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable to comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wouldn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than Person A and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

Doubtless you meant her 'illogic', since there isn't anything of logic in her irrational remarks.  Either 'anyone' using a screen name is "hiding behind it" in a 'cowardly' manner, (a demonstrably false premise), or, she's calling herself and everyone else who uses a screen name on FC a "coward".  Any other conclusion is irrational, (such as hers that "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward", unless she was referring to "jedijohnnie"'s remark).

[jcribb16]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

Disagreeing with someone is not a way to repress their opinion. Telling someone to ignore someone else's statement because they disagree with them is. We should no repress dissension, its healthy for people to disagree. To think anything else is censorship.

So it's quite okay for you to "borderline censorship" when picking on others, but you want no one else to challenge you back.  MMmmm....  illogical.  It is healthy to have healthy and heated debates, within reason.  To be hateful, mocking, and disrespectful, with name-calling, certain type pictures, and hateful words and quotes, is not debating and discussing.  You should already know this.  You seem to just enjoy picking and disagreeing to goad others into arguing for the sake of arguing.  Pretty immature, actually...

[Flackle]

I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable to comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wouldn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than Person A and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

Doubtless you meant her 'illogic', since there isn't anything of logic in her irrational remarks.  Either 'anyone' using a screen name is "hiding behind it" in a 'cowardly' manner, (a demonstrably false premise), or, she's calling herself and everyone else who uses a screen name on FC a "coward".  Any other conclusion is irrational, (such as hers that "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward", unless she was referring to "jedijohnnie"'s remark).

The only way I can make this rational is this:

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B is a coward
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Which simplified is this:

Person B is a coward
Person C are not cowards.

But reading through the post, I don't see this as their "logic" Their post are rather convoluted, so I attempted to simplify the argument in hopes I can more insight into what they where trying to get across.

[jcribb16]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wou;dn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

 Oh my goodness, you poor thing.  You still don't get it.  Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

You are so on the wrong train track.  You are just nit-picking, so I will go back to ignoring you unless you want to discuss sensibly.  Good night to you.