Daily Bible Verse

[falcon9]

Okay, from the beginning:  You "quoted" under my name as a "quote:"
~unreasoned quotes~;  I did NOT write the words "UNREASONED QUOTES" - YOU DID. 

No, I remarked that the quotes you quoted were ~unreasoned quotes~, I did not attribute them to you, (since you didn't write them and had attributed them to others).   

You are saying my quotes are unreasoned ...

Correct.

but you "quoted" me as if I said those words. 

Incorrect. I remarked that the quotes you quoted were ~unreasoned quotes~, I did not attribute them to you.  The unreasoned quotes were mentioned in general by way of my '~unreasoned quotes~' catagorization, (with the "~" delineating that catagorization from quoted material). The catagorization followed your 'nym because you'd requoted the unreasoned quotes, not because you wrote the words "~unreasoned quotes~", or the actual quotes attributed to others.
 

YOU should have "quoted" my quotes and said, YOURSELF, that you considered them "UNREASONED." 

They weren't your quoted words; they were the words of others which you were requoting, (and which I considered to be unreasoned).  Had the remarks been attributible to you, they would've been attributed to you.

COMPRENDE YET?

Verstehen sie?

[jcribb16]

Okay, from the beginning:  You "quoted" under my name as a "quote:"
~unreasoned quotes~;  I did NOT write the words "UNREASONED QUOTES" - YOU DID. 

No, I remarked that the quotes you quoted were ~unreasoned quotes~, I did not attribute them to you, (since you didn't write them and had attributed them to others).   

You are saying my quotes are unreasoned ...

Correct.

but you "quoted" me as if I said those words. 

Incorrect. I remarked that the quotes you quoted were ~unreasoned quotes~, I did not attribute them to you.  The unreasoned quotes were mentioned in general by way of my '~unreasoned quotes~' catagorization, (with the "~" delineating that catagorization from quoted material). The catagorization followed your 'nym because you'd requoted the unreasoned quotes, not because you wrote the words "~unreasoned quotes~", or the actual quotes attributed to others.
 

YOU should have "quoted" my quotes and said, YOURSELF, that you considered them "UNREASONED." 

They weren't your quoted words; they were the words of others which you were requoting, (and which I considered to be unreasoned).  Had the remarks been attributible to you, they would've been attributed to you.

COMPRENDE YET?

Verstehen sie?

You are still not comprehending.  You included my name over the words "Unreasoned quotes" as if you were "quoting" me saying those words.

You should have "quoted" my "QUOTES I QUOTED OF OTHER PEOPLE" and said YOU CONSIDERED THEM "UNREASONED QUOTES."  I DO NOT take credit for those quotes I QUOTED OF OTHER PEOPLE. 

You mislabeled using my name to make it appear I said "unreasoned quotes."  You should have labeled, instead, that you considered the quotes I quoted as unreasoned and then continued on from there.  You "quoted" INCORRECTLY using my name for YOUR words.

[falcon9]

You are still not comprehending. 

As the replies demonstrate, I'm comprehending just fine - it's just not agreeing with your specious comprehension.

You included my name over the words "Unreasoned quotes" as if you were "quoting" me saying those words.

Once again, no; I remarked that the quotes you quoted were ~unreasoned quotes~, I did not attribute them to you.  The unreasoned quotes were mentioned in general by way of my '~unreasoned quotes~' catagorization, (with the "~" delineating that catagorization from quoted material). The catagorization followed your 'nym because you'd requoted the unreasoned quotes, not because you wrote the words "~unreasoned quotes~", or the actual quotes attributed to others.

The original post, (message ID#599086), shows your posting of the quotes from others.  Subsequent replies do not 'mis-quote' you; they misquote others, (who aren't FC members).

[lhz123]

Galatians 5:22-23



God's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled.

There is no law against behaving in any of these ways.

[falcon9]

Galatians 5:22-23
God's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled.

There is no law against behaving in any of these ways.

Nor are there any "laws" against making such false attributions, let alone xtian behaviour contrary to the religious admonishments.  That just makes xtians hypocrites.

[sexychocolate47]

1 Thessalonians 5:11
New International Version (NIV)
11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

Great verse Madeara, i love encouraging my friends, family and even those who don't know me, when i see someone down and not smiling i always say something positive to them and that seem to brighten their expression, because we do not know what someone is dealing with that day, they might had a death in the family, going through financial difficulties, sick in their bodies, contemplating suicide or something, and a smile or a hello or just a kind word can make a world of difference to them, just because it does not have anything to do with our life, does not mean we should not help another in their life, God word says to greet each other with kindness and sincere love and that's all people. I am a christian myself and i still deal with things and it helps me when someone encourage me and it lift my spirits. 

[falcon9]

The various xtian sects profess to follow various selective portions of written superstitious suggestions.

... God word says to greet each other with kindness and sincere love and that's all people.  

[lhz123]

But now you must stop doing such things. You must quit being angry, hateful, and evil. You must no longer say insulting or cruel things about others. — Colossians 3:8a (CEV)

[falcon9]

Hypocritical xtian.

But now you must stop doing such things. You must quit being angry, hateful, and evil. You must no longer say insulting or cruel things about others. — Colossians 3:8a (CEV)

[jcribb16]

Galatians 5:22-23
God's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled.

There is no law against behaving in any of these ways.

Nor are there any "laws" against making such false attributions, let alone xtian behaviour contrary to the religious admonishments.  That just makes xtians hypocrites.

Prove the attributions are "false," please.

Dissembler (a synonym of hypocrite) Meaning and Definition from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Dissembler Dis*sem"bler, n. One who dissembles; one who conceals his opinions or dispositions under a false appearance; a hypocrite. It is the weakest sort of politicians that are the greatest dissemblers. --Bacon.

Priests, princes, women, no dissemblers here. --Pope.
 
Syn: Dissembler, Hypocrite.

Usage: A person is called a dissembler with reference to his concealment of his real character, and a hypocrite with reference to his assumption of a false character. But hypocrite is the stronger word, being commonly used to characterize a person who is habitually insincere and false, especially one who makes professions of goodness when his aims are selfish and his life corrupt. (Dictionary 30.com)

*Many Christians, who make professions of faith in God, actually do live their lives in sincerity of their beliefs.  Their aims are not selfish and their lives are not corrupt.  There are always those to the exception.  However, what I'm observing from only a couple, is that they seem to enjoy calling Christians hypocrites, when instead, their own attitude and behavior reflect the selfishness and corruptness, insincerity and false accusations, that they are accusing the Christians of. 

Of course, once again, both sides have over-zealous reactions, including in here and out in the real world.  But this example of behavior is indeed taking place in here.  Respect and courtesy should be prime in discussions and debates, whether the topic is agreed or disagreed with.   


"Common hypocrites pass themselves off as doves; political and literary hypocrites pose as eagles. But don't be fooled by their eagle-like appearance. These are not eagles, but rats or dogs."
-Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

[falcon9]

Prove the attributions are "false," please.

That's not how the burden of proof obligation works since the INITIAL asserted claims, ("G-d's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled"), constitute attributing effects to a supernatural entity sans evidence of either the posited entity or, the effects attributed to it.  The obligation to "prove", (provide substantiating evidence for), such initial claims rests with the initial claimaint, not with challengers to those initial claims.  Positive initial assertions fall under the burden of proof obligation.  Secondary assertions derived from concluding that, (sans evidence), the initial assertion is false by default, have a secondary obligation after the initial claimant fullfils their primary obligation.  Attempts to shift the burden of proof from the primary to a secondary claimaint are disingenuous.

[lhz123]

Hebrews 3:7-8
It is just as the Holy Spirit says, “If you hear God's voice today, don't be stubborn! Don't rebel like those people who were tested in the desert.

[jcribb16]

Prove the attributions are "false," please.

That's not how the burden of proof obligation works since the INITIAL asserted claims, ("G-d's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled"), constitute attributing effects to a supernatural entity sans evidence of either the posited entity or, the effects attributed to it.  The obligation to "prove", (provide substantiating evidence for), such initial claims rests with the initial claimaint, not with challengers to those initial claims.  Positive initial assertions fall under the burden of proof obligation.  Secondary assertions derived from concluding that, (sans evidence), the initial assertion is false by default, have a secondary obligation after the initial claimant fullfils their primary obligation.  Attempts to shift the burden of proof from the primary to a secondary claimaint are disingenuous.

Chicken?  Prove what you are accusing others of - proof of your false claims rests with you since you choose to name call and are not willing to discuss anything Christians say - so prove your end that these things above are false.  I dare you.

[jcribb16]

Matthew 5:44

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."  (NIV)


John 3:19

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (NIV)


Colossians 2:8

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ."  (NIV)


1 Corinthians 1:18

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (NIV) 

[falcon9]

Chicken?  

Idiot unable to reason?  That was rhetorical since you've repeatedly demonstrated such an inability here.

Prove what you are accusing others of - proof of your false claims rests with you since you choose to name call and are not willing to discuss anything Christians say - so prove your end that these things above are false.  I dare you.

That's not how the burden of proof obligation works since the INITIAL asserted claims, ("G-d's Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled"), constitute attributing effects to a supernatural entity sans evidence of either the posited entity or, the effects attributed to it.  The obligation to "prove", (provide substantiating evidence for), such initial claims rests with the initial claimaint, not with challengers to those initial claims.  Positive initial assertions fall under the burden of proof obligation.  Secondary assertions derived from concluding that, (sans evidence), the initial assertion is false by default, have a secondary obligation after the initial claimant fullfils their primary obligation.  Attempts to shift the burden of proof from the primary to a secondary claimaint are disingenuous.