Daily Bible Verse

[falcon9]

You are always on the offense while trying to hush the believers' free speech and expression in here.

Quote from: falcon9:
If so, why have I mentioned on several previous occasions, (in different FC threads), the exact opposite of what you contend? Specifically, that those who choose to post on a subject have just as much 'freedom' to do so as those who choose to reply to such posts.  That position doesn't inherently preclude any 'freedom of speech' or "expression" here.

You have been whining constantly about Christians "proselytizing" in these threads ...

Pointing out such constant xtian proselytizings isn't "whining" about it; it's an objection to it.  Nowhere has it been demanded/requested/implied/insinuated that such cease whereas there have certainly been implied/insinuated via
numerous complaints, (mostly from you), that accurately describing proselytizing as such cease.

... and calling the belief system of the believers all of those un-lovely words you just seem so much to enjoy to use against them.   

Since you just indicated, (in this thread), at least some understanding of the difference between a belief system and a beleiver, why are you now equating descriptors of a belief system with its believers?  That type of conflating is the most likely source of any confusion regarding such differences you may be laboring under.

[jcribb16]

{Thanks, Kohler - this is indeed a d&d topic}

You are telling me to cease and desist?  Really?

Yes, and since that's been brought up twice, you are certainly misquoting me intentionally.  The option to do the same with your posts remains.

You certainly don't care about respecting believers' beliefs with your unkind and inflammatory words.

You keep insisting that ... here's a little story:

patrol officer: "License and registration, please."
driver: (hands documents over)
patrol officer: "Thank you, do you know why I pulled you over today?"
driver: "I'm not sure, officer."
patrol officer: "The reason I pulled you over is for a hit-and-run traffic violation when you went through that last intersection."
driver: "Well, I did accellerate when I saw a spawn of hell or, Satan himself crossing that intersection.  The bible tells us to
spurn Satan and his minnions so, I thought I'd score one for g-d."
patrol officer: "I see.  As it happens, the pedestrian you struck was an elderly, disabled lady instead. Were you aware of your
vehicle striking that pedestrian when you sped-off, ma'am?"
driver: "I hit a demon-spawn, not an old woman and I don't appreciate your putting-down my religious beliefs, officer."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, my duty is to enforce the laws.  Under those laws, a driver is not permitted to run people over."
driver: "Well, I abide by g-d's laws and j-sus says 'get thee behind me, Satan!' The only way to do that was to run Satan over."
patrol officer: "Again, that wasn't Satan you ran over, ma'am.  You also ran over the elderly woman's seeing-eye dog when you
struck her."
driver: "That was one of Satan's minnions."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to turn off your engine and step out of the vehicle. Now."
driver: "Young man, I resent your talking-down to me because of my faith.  What's your badge number, I'm going to report you!"
patrol officer: "I'm not concerned with whatever you may believe, ma'am.  You may consider saving that sort of thing for the
hearing. Now, I won't ask you again, please step out of the vehicle now."
driver: "This is outrageous!  You're a very rude young man to disrespect someone's personal religious beliefs and I'm gonna
take out a hanky and stomp on it until you stop it!"
patrol officer: "Ma'am, it's almost more unfortunate that you ran over that elderly woman's seeing-eye dog since you apparently
also have a need for one."
driver: "How dare you insinuate that I'm blind ... as in, 'blind-faith'!"
patrol officer: "You either didn't see the elderly woman and her guide-dog crossing that intersection or, want to insist that
they were actually 'Satan and one of his minnions', ma'am. Your own words betray you, not mine. Let's go."

You are right, it is.  The original poster probably didn't realize it should have been in the Off Topic thread.  Technically, unless there is a debate about what certain verses mean, or are challenged, and discussed, it still doesn't mean you have to enter when you know those posters are simply sharing verses with each other for inspiration, and other reasons.

Your role play "joke" is not funny to me, has no relevance to a Christian or believer, other than to once again be inflammatory and make them look foolish and stupid.  Surely you can do better and kinder than that?

[falcon9]

Yet you still cannot or refuse to not see the way you belittle the Christians' or believers' choice to believe in God, and continue to spitefully call the choice the other names.  You are only receiving what you are giving out.

 

Since you just indicated, (in this thread), at least some understanding of the difference between a belief system and a beleiver, why are you now equating descriptors of a belief system with its believers?  That type of conflating is the most likely source of any confusion regarding such differences you may be laboring under. Any ad hominem name-calling on your part is not transmitting what I'm "giving out" because yours is not directed at logic/critical thinking/reasoning in the same manner as those directed against a belief system have been.

If wished, you'd be perfectly justified in going after the methodologies of logic itself, (which may or, may not be considered to be a "belief system").  Rock on.

[jcribb16]

That is where you are very mistaken.

Quote from: falcon9:
Your opinion is inaccurate.

That is just your opinion that I am inaccurate. 

The differences between a factual depiction, (not an "opinion"), and a subjective perception which lacks a factual basis have been previously delineated.  Any failure to discern such a difference rests with the one who cannot do so.
 

You are also picking out one little line from the context of the rest of the remarks.  You are still mistaken within the context of what I wrote.

The depiction remains an accurate deduction within the context of the remarks, (which are still available down-thread ... surely you aren't trying to tell me what I can and cannot reply to now?).

"What's all this fuss I hear about endangered feces?  That's outrageous.  Why is feces endangered?  How can you possibly run out of such a thing? Just look around you - you can see it all over the place.  And besides, who wants to save that anyway?"
-- Emily Litella/Gilda Radner

Wow - even your quotes are getting dirtier.        You definitely aren't flattering yourself with me, lol.  As for the above, I stand by my words, no matter how long you want to twist them to your own meanings.   

[falcon9]

... here's a little story (in context):

patrol officer: "License and registration, please."
driver: (hands documents over)
patrol officer: "Thank you, do you know why I pulled you over today?"
driver: "I'm not sure, officer."
patrol officer: "The reason I pulled you over is for a hit-and-run traffic violation when you went through that last intersection."
driver: "Well, I did accellerate when I saw a spawn of hell or, Satan himself crossing that intersection.  The bible tells us to
spurn Satan and his minnions so, I thought I'd score one for g-d."
patrol officer: "I see.  As it happens, the pedestrian you struck was an elderly, disabled lady instead. Were you aware of your
vehicle striking that pedestrian when you sped-off, ma'am?"
driver: "I hit a demon-spawn, not an old woman and I don't appreciate your putting-down my religious beliefs, officer."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, my duty is to enforce the laws.  Under those laws, a driver is not permitted to run people over."
driver: "Well, I abide by g-d's laws and j-sus says 'get thee behind me, Satan!' The only way to do that was to run Satan over."
patrol officer: "Again, that wasn't Satan you ran over, ma'am.  You also ran over the elderly woman's seeing-eye dog when you
struck her."
driver: "That was one of Satan's minnions."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to turn off your engine and step out of the vehicle. Now."
driver: "Young man, I resent your talking-down to me because of my faith.  What's your badge number, I'm going to report you!"
patrol officer: "I'm not concerned with whatever you may believe, ma'am.  You may consider saving that sort of thing for the
hearing. Now, I won't ask you again, please step out of the vehicle now."
driver: "This is outrageous!  You're a very rude young man to disrespect someone's personal religious beliefs and I'm gonna
take out a hanky and stomp on it until you stop it!"
patrol officer: "Ma'am, it's almost more unfortunate that you ran over that elderly woman's seeing-eye dog since you apparently
also have a need for one."
driver: "How dare you insinuate that I'm blind ... as in, 'blind-faith'!"
patrol officer: "You either didn't see the elderly woman and her guide-dog crossing that intersection or, want to insist that
they were actually 'Satan and one of his minnions', ma'am. Your own words betray you, not mine. Let's go."

Your role play "joke" is not funny to me, has no relevance to a Christian or believer, other than to once again be inflammatory and make them look foolish and stupid.  Surely you can do better and kinder than that?

No comprende`metaphors, eh?  Fair enough.

"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."
-- Mark Twain

[jcribb16]

You choose to do that - which means you also will be called out by others who have had enough of the constant badgering.
I am speaking of posters who will defend their beliefs against your foolish words [/u]trying to make their beliefs appear delusional, irrational, insane, and/or foolish.
"Calling out" in this case meant what I explained it to mean - calling you out by challenging your ridiculous name-calling of believers' belief system.  

You keep insisting that and yet ... here's a little story:

patrol officer: "License and registration, please."
driver: (hands documents over)
patrol officer: "Thank you, do you know why I pulled you over today?"
driver: "I'm not sure, officer."
patrol officer: "The reason I pulled you over is for a hit-and-run traffic violation when you went through that last intersection."
driver: "Well, I did accellerate when I saw a spawn of hell or, Satan himself crossing that intersection.  The bible tells us to
spurn Satan and his minnions so, I thought I'd score one for g-d."
patrol officer: "I see.  As it happens, the pedestrian you struck was an elderly, disabled lady instead. Were you aware of your
vehicle striking that pedestrian when you sped-off, ma'am?"
driver: "I hit a demon-spawn, not an old woman and I don't appreciate your putting-down my religious beliefs, officer."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, my duty is to enforce the laws.  Under those laws, a driver is not permitted to run people over."
driver: "Well, I abide by g-d's laws and j-sus says 'get thee behind me, Satan!' The only way to do that was to run Satan over."
patrol officer: "Again, that wasn't Satan you ran over, ma'am.  You also ran over the elderly woman's seeing-eye dog when you
struck her."
driver: "That was one of Satan's minnions."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to turn off your engine and step out of the vehicle. Now."
driver: "Young man, I resent your talking-down to me because of my faith.  What's your badge number, I'm going to report you!"
patrol officer: "I'm not concerned with whatever you may believe, ma'am.  You may consider saving that sort of thing for the
hearing. Now, I won't ask you again, please step out of the vehicle now."
driver: "This is outrageous!  You're a very rude young man to disrespect someone's personal religious beliefs and I'm gonna
take out a hanky and stomp on it until you stop it!"
patrol officer: "Ma'am, it's almost more unfortunate that you ran over that elderly woman's seeing-eye dog since you apparently
also have a need for one."
driver: "How dare you insinuate that I'm blind ... as in, 'blind-faith'!"
patrol officer: "You either didn't see the elderly woman and her guide-dog crossing that intersection or, want to insist that
they were actually 'Satan and one of his minnions', ma'am. Your own words betray you, not mine. Let's go."

Now you are re-playing your "role" story?  Or are you thinking you are making a certain point here?  I didn't like it the first time and I haven't changed my mind.   

[jcribb16]

You are always on the offense while trying to hush the believers' free speech and expression in here.

Quote from: falcon9:
If so, why have I mentioned on several previous occasions, (in different FC threads), the exact opposite of what you contend? Specifically, that those who choose to post on a subject have just as much 'freedom' to do so as those who choose to reply to such posts.  That position doesn't inherently preclude any 'freedom of speech' or "expression" here.

You have been whining constantly about Christians "proselytizing" in these threads ...

Pointing out such constant xtian proselytizings isn't "whining" about it; it's an objection to it.  Nowhere has it been demanded/requested/implied/insinuated that such cease whereas there have certainly been implied/insinuated via
numerous complaints, (mostly from you), that accurately describing proselytizing as such cease.

... and calling the belief system of the believers all of those un-lovely words you just seem so much to enjoy to use against them.   

Since you just indicated, (in this thread), at least some understanding of the difference between a belief system and a beleiver, why are you now equating descriptors of a belief system with its believers?  That type of conflating is the most likely source of any confusion regarding such differences you may be laboring under.

You must know how to do the twist quite well - you are certainly twisting very well here!   

[falcon9]

That is where you are very mistaken.

Your opinion is inaccurate.

That is just your opinion that I am inaccurate. 

The differences between a factual depiction, (not an "opinion"), and a subjective perception which lacks a factual basis have been previously delineated.  Any failure to discern such a difference rests with the one who cannot do so.

You are also picking out one little line from the context of the rest of the remarks.  You are still mistaken within the context of what I wrote.

The depiction remains an accurate deduction within the context of the remarks, (which are still available down-thread ... surely you aren't trying to tell me what I can and cannot reply to now?).

"What's all this fuss I hear about endangered feces?  That's outrageous.  Why is feces endangered?  How can you possibly run out of such a thing? Just look around you - you can see it all over the place.  And besides, who wants to save that anyway?"
-- Emily Litella/Gilda Radner

Wow - even your quotes are getting dirtier.        You definitely aren't flattering yourself with me, lol.  As for the above, I stand by my words, no matter how long you want to twist them to your own meanings.

Allow me to be perfectly clear when I remark that I'm NOT stating/asserting/claiming/implying/insinuating/accusing/suggesting that you're 'abysmally-stupid' in this regard.  It may be that you are unable to make the parallel connections between metaphors and context under discussion.  Just for you, the quoted metaphor will be "dumbed-down", however; Gilda, (as "Emily"), was misperceiving "endangered species" as endangered 'feces' for humor purposes.  This quote can be taken as a parallel metaphor of situations where something is misperceiving something and proceded on the basis of such misperceptions.

[jcribb16]

... here's a little story (in context):

patrol officer: "License and registration, please."
driver: (hands documents over)
patrol officer: "Thank you, do you know why I pulled you over today?"
driver: "I'm not sure, officer."
patrol officer: "The reason I pulled you over is for a hit-and-run traffic violation when you went through that last intersection."
driver: "Well, I did accellerate when I saw a spawn of hell or, Satan himself crossing that intersection.  The bible tells us to
spurn Satan and his minnions so, I thought I'd score one for g-d."
patrol officer: "I see.  As it happens, the pedestrian you struck was an elderly, disabled lady instead. Were you aware of your
vehicle striking that pedestrian when you sped-off, ma'am?"
driver: "I hit a demon-spawn, not an old woman and I don't appreciate your putting-down my religious beliefs, officer."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, my duty is to enforce the laws.  Under those laws, a driver is not permitted to run people over."
driver: "Well, I abide by g-d's laws and j-sus says 'get thee behind me, Satan!' The only way to do that was to run Satan over."
patrol officer: "Again, that wasn't Satan you ran over, ma'am.  You also ran over the elderly woman's seeing-eye dog when you
struck her."
driver: "That was one of Satan's minnions."
patrol officer: "Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to turn off your engine and step out of the vehicle. Now."
driver: "Young man, I resent your talking-down to me because of my faith.  What's your badge number, I'm going to report you!"
patrol officer: "I'm not concerned with whatever you may believe, ma'am.  You may consider saving that sort of thing for the
hearing. Now, I won't ask you again, please step out of the vehicle now."
driver: "This is outrageous!  You're a very rude young man to disrespect someone's personal religious beliefs and I'm gonna
take out a hanky and stomp on it until you stop it!"
patrol officer: "Ma'am, it's almost more unfortunate that you ran over that elderly woman's seeing-eye dog since you apparently
also have a need for one."
driver: "How dare you insinuate that I'm blind ... as in, 'blind-faith'!"
patrol officer: "You either didn't see the elderly woman and her guide-dog crossing that intersection or, want to insist that
they were actually 'Satan and one of his minnions', ma'am. Your own words betray you, not mine. Let's go."

Your role play "joke" is not funny to me, has no relevance to a Christian or believer, other than to once again be inflammatory and make them look foolish and stupid.  Surely you can do better and kinder than that?

No comprende`metaphors, eh?  Fair enough.

"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."
-- Mark Twain

I comprende just fine - I gave my reason.

[falcon9]

If that's the case, then your foolish babble would need to be left in your "skull."

That's not a logical conclusion; my responses, (whether inaccurately deemed as "foolish babble" according to an irrational opinion or not), have been in subsequent reply to publically-posted religious beliefs which had initially left the skulls of believers.  There are no archived instances of my starting any threads on FC to initiate an opposing viewpoint specifically in opposition to a religious belief.  Conversely, there have been an uncounted plethora of threads specifically initiated by religious believers to proselytize their beliefs.  Only some of these have had subsequent opposing/dissenting viewpoints posted in response, (by others and myself).  Therefore, the situations are not parallel and your conclusion is false.

Once again, that is your opinion that my conclusion is false.  

Now you're implicitly suggesting that a reasoned conclusion, proceding logically from a premise constitutes an "opinion" equivalent to an unreasoned one which procedes from an irrational premise?  Wow, did you even read the story about the driver being pulled over for a hit-and-run?

Just because posters are sharing Bible verses with each other for inspiration, encouragement, or for whatever reason, does NOT mean they are necessarily promoting "proselytizing."

"Not necessarily", eh?  Okay.
 

When you come into that thread, that is your choice then, and just like with the debate threads, you have entered at your own "risk" ...

You may not have noticed as yet but, Kohler moved this thread over to d&d a couple a posts ago, 'sunshine'.
 

... and try and squash a thread that's not even your style in the first place.

If you mean that it isn't my "style" to "try and squash a thread", you're correct.  I reply to such threads in order to contribute to the discussions/remarks in them, not to "squash" them.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[falcon9]

I comprende just fine - I gave my reason.

On the contrary, you gave your specious opinion; "reason" had nothing to do with that, (other than using the word in place of "excuse").

[jcribb16]

So noted.

Falcon9:
Allow me to be perfectly clear when I remark that I'm NOT stating/asserting/claiming/implying/insinuating/accusing/suggesting that you're 'abysmally-stupid' in this regard. 

Please show me where I said you stated that I'm "abysmally-stupid."  'Cause I ain't seeing that anywhere.   The words I remember saying were "Your role play "joke" is not funny to me, has no relevance to a Christian or believer, other than to once again be inflammatory and make them look foolish and stupid.  Surely you can do better and kinder than that?"          Your choice of a certain "joke" is being used to imply that they appear foolish and stupid.

As a noun:    1. A person who lacks good judgment.[Wordnet]
2. A person who is gullible and easy to take advantage of.[Wordnet]
3. A professional clown employed to entertain a king or nobleman in the Middle Ages.[Wordnet]
4. A compound of gooseberries scalded and crushed, with cream; -- commonly called gooseberry fool.[Websters]
5. One destitute of reason, or of the common powers of understanding; an idiot; a natural.[Websters]
6. A person deficient in intellect; one who acts absurdly, or pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom; one without judgment; a simpleton; a dolt.[Websters]
7. One who acts contrary to moral and religious wisdom; a wicked person.[Websters]
8. One who counterfeits folly; a professional jester or buffoon; a retainer formerly kept to make sport, dressed fantastically in motley, with ridiculous accouterments.[Websters].

As an adjective:  1. Being stupid, silly, addled, idiotic or zany. [Eve - graph theoretic]
2. Being imbecile, footless or half-witted. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being loony, lunatic, crazy or insane. [Eve - graph theoretic]
4. Being daft, witless, inane, weird or moronic. [Eve - graph theoretic]
5. Being goofy or footling. [Eve - graph theoretic]
6. Being dull, imbecilic or obtuse. [Eve - graph theoretic]
7. Being fatuous, unwise or insensate. [Eve - graph theoretic]
8. Being simple, mawkish, naive or natural. [Eve - graph theoretic]
9. Being ridiculous, comic or knavish. [Eve - graph theoretic]
10. Being vacant or vacuous.[Eve - graph theoretic]

Falcon9:
It may be that you are unable to make the parallel connections between metaphors and context under discussion.

Don't make assumptions of what I am able or unable to do.  I know exactly what you were meaning - I happen to not care for your slanted paralleling connections to the detriment of believers' belief systems.

Falcon9:
Just for you, the quoted metaphor will be "dumbed-down",

Let me make myself clear to you as well - I don't need "dumbing-down" about this metaphor.  You can leave the belittling of my "thinking" out of this.  I know what you were meaning and did not like the slant/bias.

Falcon9:
 however; Gilda, (as "Emily"), was misperceiving "endangered species" as endangered 'feces' for humor purposes.
Yes, I know that.  However, the humor in your case was not of the same humor as hers and was slanted/biased.

Falcon9:
This quote can be taken as a parallel metaphor of situations where something is misperceiving something and proceded on the basis of such misperceptions.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 04:28:28 pm
When you come into that thread, that is your choice then, and just like with the debate threads, you have entered at your own "risk" ...

You may not have noticed as yet but, Kohler moved this thread over to d&d a couple a posts ago, 'sunshine'.


Uh, no, I did not realize that.      I knew it was in Off Topic and some comment was made by you to Kohler, saying thank you, now I looked and saw "Debate," and to be honest, I thought my mind had finally fallen off the ledge.   
Trickery, I say, trickery!!  Y'all got me!    

[falcon9]

Falcon9:
"Allow me to be perfectly clear when I remark that I'm NOT stating/asserting/claiming/implying/insinuating/accusing/suggesting that you're 'abysmally-stupid' in this regard." 

Please show me where I said you stated that I'm "abysmally-stupid."  'Cause I ain't seeing that anywhere. 

It was a pre-emptive disclaimer presented due to your previous, (archived), tendency to 'loosely reinterpret', (e.g., "twist" or misquote).
  
Falcon9:
"It may be that you are unable to make the parallel connections between metaphors and context under discussion."

Don't make assumptions of what I am able or unable to do.  I know exactly what you were meaning - I happen to not care for your slanted paralleling connections to the detriment of believers' belief systems.

That assumption wasn't being made as I clearly posted "It may be ..." in that regard, (which implicitly means that it may not be as well).  The secular 'parable' is metaphorical; your perception of it as slanted or biased is simply an unsupported opinion until such time as you present any unbiased reasons, (in lieu of a slanted/biased religious perspective), to support your opinion.  Should you choose not to support such an opinion; that's your option.  My subsequent conclusion would be that an unsupported opinion carries no weight.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[falcon9]

When you come into that thread, that is your choice then, and just like with the debate threads, you have entered at your own "risk" ...

You may not have noticed as yet but, Kohler moved this thread over to d&d a couple a posts ago, 'sunshine'.

Uh, no, I did not realize that.     I knew it was in Off Topic and some comment was made by you to Kohler, saying thank you, now I looked and saw "Debate," and to be honest, I thought my mind had finally fallen off the ledge.  
Trickery, I say, trickery!!  Y'all got me!  

*whoops*