daily Bible verse

[falcon9]

I'd much rather be a "bummer" for my Lord ...

Since no valid or substantive evidence has been presented for the existence of any such "lord", nothing that follows from that false premise has any rational meaning.

... than a "bitter" person who mocks others, hatefully ...

Characterizing the opposition to blind superstitious faith as "bitter" is irrational since the line of reasoning supporting such opposition has been delineated several times already, (and gone 'unseen' by those blinded by faith).   

And my Lord is no demon - 

I stated that some 'believe' they're possessed by a "spirit"; that's supposedly what daemons do too, (if half of the same superstitious nonsense is believed, so is the remainder).  The aspects of belief in a supernatural egregore are interchangeable for "daemons", (look up the older meaning of "daemon", if wished).

[Andrew09]

I'd much rather be a "bummer" for my Lord ...

Since no valid or substantive evidence has been presented for the existence of any such "lord", nothing that follows from that false premise has any rational meaning.

... than a "bitter" person who mocks others, hatefully ...

Characterizing the opposition to blind superstitious faith as "bitter" is irrational since the line of reasoning supporting such opposition has been delineated several times already, (and gone 'unseen' by those blinded by faith).  

And my Lord is no demon -  

I stated that some 'believe' they're possessed by a "spirit"; that's supposedly what daemons do too, (if half of the same superstitious nonsense is believed, so is the remainder).  The aspects of belief in a supernatural egregore are interchangeable for "daemons", (look up the older meaning of "daemon", if wished).

Why are you so annoying? Why do you even waste your time posting in this thread? Do you make money on here, or do you just use the forum to annoy people?

[falcon9]

Why are you so annoying?

Why does your religiously-biased 'opinion' find opposition to blind faith and superstitious belief to be "annoying"? <--rhetorical question
Additionally, why do you find it necessary to 'annoy' others with your religious superstitions when they are, presumably, private beliefs?

Why do you even waste your time posting in this thread if you don't believe in the Lord?

On the contrary, I don't consider opposing the same superstitious religious beliefs which instigated the crusades, the inquitions, the witch hunts and the atrocities of forced cultural suppressions/assimulations to be a waste of time.  I do consider such self-deceptive, self-blinding religious beliefs to be a major waste of time and oppose it.  Since others have the same option to oppose superstitious religious beliefs as those who choose to propagandize them by posting such, your question becomes an attempt to censor opposing viewpoints.  That isn't going to work.

Do you make money on here, or do you just use the forum to annoy people?

Each of your specious questions are inherently biased by your superstitious beliefs.  Yes, I make money on FC, (as if that's any of your business - be concerned about your own earnings).  The reasons for posting to the FC forums are not defined by religious adherents and range from 'because I choose to do so' to receipt of a forum posting bonus every month for about two years so far.

[JediJohnnie]

I'd much rather be a "bummer" for my Lord ...

Since no valid or substantive evidence has been presented for the existence of any such "lord", nothing that follows from that false premise has any rational meaning.

... than a "bitter" person who mocks others, hatefully ...

Characterizing the opposition to blind superstitious faith as "bitter" is irrational since the line of reasoning supporting such opposition has been delineated several times already, (and gone 'unseen' by those blinded by faith).  

And my Lord is no demon -  

I stated that some 'believe' they're possessed by a "spirit"; that's supposedly what daemons do too, (if half of the same superstitious nonsense is believed, so is the remainder).  The aspects of belief in a supernatural egregore are interchangeable for "daemons", (look up the older meaning of "daemon", if wished).

Why are you so annoying? Why do you even waste your time posting in this thread? Do you make money on here, or do you just use the forum to annoy people?

I'm guessing the latter.

[JediJohnnie]

1 Corinthians 2 10-16
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
    so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.
 

[falcon9]

Would you characterize yourself as an ignorant troll or, more self-deluded and faith-blinded?

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on November 02, 2012, 01:49:32 pm:
I'd much rather be a "bummer" for my Lord ...

Quote from: falcon9 on November 02, 2012, 01:58:02 pm:
Since no valid or substantive evidence has been presented for the existence of any such "lord", nothing that follows from that false premise has any rational meaning.

Quote from: jcribb16 on November 02, 2012, 01:49:32 pm:
... than a "bitter" person who mocks others, hatefully ...

Quote from falcon9:
Characterizing the opposition to blind superstitious faith as "bitter" is irrational since the line of reasoning supporting such opposition has been delineated several times already, (and gone 'unseen' by those blinded by faith).   

Quote from: jcribb16 on November 02, 2012, 01:49:32 pm
And my Lord is no demon - 

Quote from: falcon9:
I stated that some 'believe' they're possessed by a "spirit"; that's supposedly what daemons do too, (if half of the same superstitious nonsense is believed, so is the remainder).  The aspects of belief in a supernatural egregore are interchangeable for "daemons", (look up the older meaning of "daemon", if wished).


Quote from: Andrew09 on November 02, 2012, 02:38:46 pm:
Why are you so annoying? Why do you even waste your time posting in this thread? Do you make money on here, or do you just use the forum to annoy people?

Quote from JediJohnnie:
I'm guessing the latter.

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

So see, Kohler?  He is admitting to also using this forum to annoy people - mainly Christians.

[falcon9]

Would you characterize yourself as an ignorant troll or, more self-deluded and faith-blinded?

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

So see, Kohler?  He is admitting to also using this forum to annoy people - mainly Christians.

It doesn't do any good to lie to Kohler; he can read the unaltered posts in context too.

[jcribb16]

Would you characterize yourself as an ignorant troll or, more self-deluded and faith-blinded?

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

So see, Kohler?  He is admitting to also using this forum to annoy people - mainly Christians.

It doesn't do any good to lie to Kohler; he can read the unaltered posts in context too.

NO SIR.  YOU took JediJohnnie's comments and your comments (your question) and then deliberately left off what he was responding to, and instead made it look like he was agreeing with your name-calling.  STOP THE LYING.

[JediJohnnie]

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

So see, Kohler?  He is admitting to also using this forum to annoy people - mainly Christians.
[/quote]

Was there ever any doubt?As I said before FC is probably afraid he'll bring the ACLU down on them if they ban him.Rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit,we have to deal with a frivolous troll.

[jcribb16]

I'm guessing the latter.

They're both accurate, so it was a toss-up.

So see, Kohler?  He is admitting to also using this forum to annoy people - mainly Christians.

Was there ever any doubt?As I said before FC is probably afraid he'll bring the ACLU down on them if they ban him.Rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit,we have to deal with a frivolous troll.
[/quote]
His quote "snipping" for his twisted contexts, deliberately done for his advantage, will catch up with him.  People can see exactly what he did - he does this type of stuff to me, while I have asked him to quote me in my entirety.  It seems, obviously, that he needs to do the same with other Christians, since those are the main ones he does it to.

[falcon9]

YOU took JediJohnnie's comments and your comments (your question) and then deliberately left off what he was responding to ...

That's because he didn't quote what he was responding to in full.  I merely noted this by sardonically turning his specious trolling back at him.  All context is available, (that poster alternately pretends to have posts on and off "ignore" and didn't quote previous context).

 

[falcon9]

As I said before FC is probably afraid he'll bring the ACLU down on them if they ban him.Rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit,we have to deal with a frivolous troll.

I've never mentioned bringing any lawsuit against FC; that would be a former member and now you.  Your direct implication is a lie, this means
you're a liar.

His quote "snipping" for his twisted contexts, deliberately done for his advantage, will catch up with him.  

You're a whiny, faith-blinded lying fundie zealot xtian, aren't you? <--each of those adjectives is a accurate descriptor, supported by evidence posted by the xtian herself.

[jcribb16]

YOU took JediJohnnie's comments and your comments (your question) and then deliberately left off what he was responding to ...

That's because he didn't quote what he was responding to in full.  I merely noted this by sardonically turning his specious trolling back at him.  All context is available, (that poster alternately pretends to have posts on and off "ignore" and didn't quote previous context).

 

No excuse - you did it and were facetious about it - you deliberately did it.

[jcribb16]

As I said before FC is probably afraid he'll bring the ACLU down on them if they ban him.Rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit,we have to deal with a frivolous troll.

I've never mentioned bringing any lawsuit against FC; that would be a former member and now you.  Your direct implication is a lie, this means
you're a liar.

His quote "snipping" for his twisted contexts, deliberately done for his advantage, will catch up with him.  

You're a whiny, faith-blinded lying fundie zealot xtian, aren't you? <--each of those adjectives is a accurate descriptor, supported by evidence posted by the xtian herself.

Wow, is that all you can come up with?  Your words are simply that - words.  Name-calling gets you nowhere but looking like a bullying troll who can't stand for anyone to challenge you, nor disagree with you, nor catch you in your own trolling word twisting games.  Keep showing your true colors and your immaturity...