Daily Bible Verse

[falcon9]

If you want to call it "blind faith," that's your personal choice to do so. 

It's much, much more than simply my "choice"; it's an accurate description of religious faith without any substantive basis.  It isn't 'sighted-faith' because it relies upon an empty belief to support an empty faith and that's a circular/illogical rationale.  If "faith" or "belief" had a basis, it wouldn't be a self-referential circularity of irrationality.

Yes, an accurate description from your studies and feelings on the matter. 

No, it's an accurate description from the standpoint of rational thinking and logical analysis, ("feelings" are irrelevant because they vary from an objective basis).

Yet, inaccurate for those who choose to be saved, by grace, through faith, and live by the choices they choose.  

No, it's accurate no matter how irrational some religious adherents choose to be by relying upon blind faith and empty religious beliefs, (neither of which have any evidentiary basis).  As long as such irrationalities remain inside the skulls of such 'true believers', it wouldn't be noticed much - let alone become a problem, (like the xtian crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts and cultural assimulations of native/pagan peoples became much more than a 'problem' for them).  As we can see, such superstitions don't stay inside the heads of 'believers' and instead, leak out to infect the infosphere.

[jcribb16]

If you want to call it "blind faith," that's your personal choice to do so. 

It's much, much more than simply my "choice"; it's an accurate description of religious faith without any substantive basis.  It isn't 'sighted-faith' because it relies upon an empty belief to support an empty faith and that's a circular/illogical rationale.  If "faith" or "belief" had a basis, it wouldn't be a self-referential circularity of irrationality.

Yes, an accurate description from your studies and feelings on the matter. 

No, it's an accurate description from the standpoint of rational thinking and logical analysis, ("feelings" are irrelevant because they vary from an objective basis).

Yet, inaccurate for those who choose to be saved, by grace, through faith, and live by the choices they choose.  

No, it's accurate no matter how irrational some religious adherents choose to be by relying upon blind faith and empty religious beliefs, (neither of which have any evidentiary basis).  As long as such irrationalities remain inside the skulls of such 'true believers', it wouldn't be noticed much - let alone become a problem, (like the xtian crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts and cultural assimulations of native/pagan peoples became much more than a 'problem' for them).  As we can see, such superstitions don't stay inside the heads of 'believers' and instead, leak out to infect the infosphere.

While you are speaking out against believers, you are actually doing the same type of thing, by consistently knocking believers for what they believe and in essence, making them appear as diseased and infectious, when you are infecting others with your intolerance.  I want to clarify here, I am not trying to be ugly saying that - I'm honestly trying to show that what you are "spreading" about believers and their freedom to worship, is infecting others with negativism and intolerance; which is what you are accusing believers of doing, spreading irrationality and infection.

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else?  Opposition is one thing, but intolerance with the types of words used - from both sides, I'm saying, are not following in accordance with what the Constitution affords us.

[falcon9]

While you are speaking out against believers, you are actually doing the same type of thing, by consistently knocking believers ...

No, failure to separate a "belief" from a "believer" is yours, not mine.  I oppose the superstitious religious beliefs, not any particular religious adherent to such beliefs.  I've stated before and I'll state it again; a 'believer' is not their beliefs; they are the one holding such beliefs.  Unless this difference is discerned for the separate aspects they are, continued confusion on the part of religious adherents will ensue.
 

... making them appear as diseased and infectious ...

No, I've been comparing their religious beliefs to a potentially infectious mind virus, (and this parallel has lots of supporting evidence to substaniate it as a valid metaphor).  The only remarks I've made regarding those 'infected' by religious blind faith have essentially been that it manifestly causes a significant loss of reasoning ability and has lead to horrendous atrocities in the recent past, (thus providing support for the contention about the root of those atrocities).

... when you are infecting others with your intolerance.  I'm honestly trying to show that what you are "spreading" about believers and their freedom to worship, is infecting others with negativism and intolerance ...

That's a completely biased and false analogy since I am not "infecting" anyone with a religious belief and what you call "intolerace" is an intolerance for irrational religious superstitions, (something no one is required to 'tolerate' once it gets hucked-up in public, or on a private forum).

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

[jcribb16]

While you are speaking out against believers, you are actually doing the same type of thing, by consistently knocking believers ...

No, failure to separate a "belief" from a "believer" is yours, not mine.  I oppose the superstitious religious beliefs, not any particular religious adherent to such beliefs.  I've stated before and I'll state it again; a 'believer' is not their beliefs; they are the one holding such beliefs.  Unless this difference is discerned for the separate aspects they are, continued confusion on the part of religious adherents will ensue.
 

... making them appear as diseased and infectious ...

No, I've been comparing their religious beliefs to a potentially infectious mind virus, (and this parallel has lots of supporting evidence to substaniate it as a valid metaphor).  The only remarks I've made regarding those 'infected' by religious blind faith have essentially been that it manifestly causes a significant loss of reasoning ability and has lead to horrendous atrocities in the recent past, (thus providing support for the contention about the root of those atrocities).

... when you are infecting others with your intolerance.  I'm honestly trying to show that what you are "spreading" about believers and their freedom to worship, is infecting others with negativism and intolerance ...

That's a completely biased and false analogy since I am not "infecting" anyone with a religious belief and what you call "intolerace" is an intolerance for irrational religious superstitions, (something no one is required to 'tolerate' once it gets hucked-up in public, or on a private forum).

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph.  Religion or not, people will always enjoy sharing something they enjoy or feel good about.  In the Bible, Jesus speaks of sharing with others, as well.  Others do not have to accept or take part, and don't, and that's their choice.  There are many faiths that either share or at least invite others to attend their churches - that's normal - people who don't want to go just say NO.  I don't agree with those who are pushy - I don't like being pushed and I don't agree to being pushy, either.  But sharing with others is and will always be there.  As far as opposition is concerned, I do agree it will be there - both FOR and AGAINST religion and no religion.  It's how far that opposition is taken that makes a difference under the Constitution with regards to a person's safety, whether physical or mental.

[Falconer02]

Whenever I do something that upsets someone, or I accidentally break a promise, I like to tell them "I work in mysterious ways. It's all part of my plan!" . I think it makes them feel better.

[jcribb16]

Whenever I do something that upsets someone, or I accidentally break a promise, I like to tell them "I work in mysterious ways. It's all part of my plan!" . I think it makes them feel better.

[falcon9]

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. 

Whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that there is no such 'constitutional' protection of unopposed religious proselytization.  That means, if someone chooses to oppose it, others cannot legally suppress such opposition.

[jcribb16]

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. 

Whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that there is no such 'constitutional' protection of unopposed religious proselytization.  That means, if someone chooses to oppose it, others cannot legally suppress such opposition.

You only took my one sentence as a quote - please don't do that, because I then finished the paragraph regarding the opposition and how I agree with you to a point, but added my extra point.  It's as if you deliberately disregard some things I do agree with you, but also disagree, with an added point, and only choose a one-liner that opposes your point, and leaves off the extra points.  That is very unfair - would you please not do that?

[falcon9]

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. 

Whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that there is no such 'constitutional' protection of unopposed religious proselytization.  That means, if someone chooses to oppose it, others cannot legally suppress such opposition.

You only took my one sentence as a quote -

Yes, I quoted the part relevant to what I was replying to.  Your subsequent reply focussed on that, instead of the content of that reply.  With that in mind, that which was not relevant to replies was not quoted.  You have a tendency to quote content which your replies do not address and I choose not to quote content to which I'm not responding, (since all content is available in previous posts down-thread and this eleiminates some extraneous repetition of content not being addressed anyway).  Should you change your mind and address previous content, context can be restored.

[jcribb16]

When it comes down to it, your right to dis-believe is just as protected as my right to believe, and though we do not agree with each other's choice, it is our choice and our right, and neither of us should be so intolerant of each other's rightful choice that it causes dissension, arguing, and otherwise.  Out of everything discussed in this forum, this is the main issue that I feel strongly passionate about.  If we all have our rights protected, then who is anyone else to try and tear down that right of believing or dis-believing of someone else? 

Once again, you're conflating two separate things and hoping no one will notice, (perhaps not even yourself?).  The constitution protects the option to believe/disbelieve/not believe in the first place in religious superstitions.  It most certainly DOES NOT provide for unopposed religious propagandizing, (because that would be one-sided).  In other words, there's no "right" to unopposed religious belief.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. 

Whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that there is no such 'constitutional' protection of unopposed religious proselytization.  That means, if someone chooses to oppose it, others cannot legally suppress such opposition.

You only took my one sentence as a quote -

Yes, I quoted the part relevant to what I was replying to.  Your subsequent reply focussed on that, instead of the content of that reply.  With that in mind, that which was not relevant to replies was not quoted.  You have a tendency to quote content which your replies do not address and I choose not to quote content to which I'm not responding, (since all content is available in previous posts down-thread and this eleiminates some extraneous repetition of content not being addressed anyway).  Should you change your mind and address previous content, context can be restored.

First of all, a person should be quoted in their entirety when being responded to - it's less confusion, and a matter of respect.  Plus I have asked you to, before.

Next, I must be addle-brained in how I'm apparently not answering to your specifications with regards to content.  I'm responding to what I perceive and I apologize if I am not touching on the exact part of the content you must be expecting me to.  I agreed to a point but also gave my reason for the not agreeing point. 

If there was something that you felt was wrong, then please say what it is I apparently didn't do in the first place instead of only partially quoting my comments and expecting me to understand why you partially quoted me.  I'm sorry if I appear "dumb" to you, since it appears that way through your words, but once again, I was responding with a yay/nay answer to what I perceived from your comments. 

So, please forgive me if I am not seeming to address "previous" context so that my privilege of my context can be restored.  I'm seriously not wanting to argue, just discuss, not to mention it's very late here and I'm going to retire now, but this just seems to be getting too technical over something.  All I am asking is please quote my entire quote, no matter what it is you are responding, and just include what ever in the world it is that I don't do to answer you how you think I should.  Thank you, have a good night, and see you tomorrow.

[falcon9]

First of all, a person should be quoted in their entirety when being responded to - it's less confusion, and a matter of respect. 

To reiterate two salient points in that regard; text replied to was quoted; text not replied to was not quoted, (rather than quoting material not replied to, as you tend to do).  The other point being that the previous posted exchanges are available immediately preceding, down-thread.  Requoting text which does not provide relevant context is extraneous.
 

Plus I have asked you to, before.

I'd considered you request and predicated compliance upon whether or not you replied to content in responses to your posts. 

Next, I must be addle-brained in how I'm apparently not answering to your specifications with regards to content.  I'm responding to what I perceive and I apologize if I am not touching on the exact part of the content you must be expecting me to.  I agreed to a point but also gave my reason for the not agreeing point. 

While anyone can choose what they want to reply to and what they do not, this point was raised due to an observed tendency on your part to continually gloss-over/avoid/side-step specifically-challenged assertions.  That's your choice, as stated and so too is it mine to do the same.
 

So, please forgive me if I am not seeming to address "previous" context so that my privilege of my context can be restored.  

The point most recently not addressed in your replies:
- The "right" to hold a religious belief is not equivalent to a 'non-right' to unopposed religious proselytization and no unopposed religious   
  propagandizing is 'protected' by the U.S. Constitution.

- The other previous points are too numerous to renumerate.

[jcribb16]

First of all, a person should be quoted in their entirety when being responded to - it's less confusion, and a matter of respect. 

To reiterate two salient points in that regard; text replied to was quoted; text not replied to was not quoted, (rather than quoting material not replied to, as you tend to do).  The other point being that the previous posted exchanges are available immediately preceding, down-thread.  Requoting text which does not provide relevant context is extraneous.
 

Plus I have asked you to, before.

I'd considered you request and predicated compliance upon whether or not you replied to content in responses to your posts. 

Next, I must be addle-brained in how I'm apparently not answering to your specifications with regards to content.  I'm responding to what I perceive and I apologize if I am not touching on the exact part of the content you must be expecting me to.  I agreed to a point but also gave my reason for the not agreeing point. 

While anyone can choose what they want to reply to and what they do not, this point was raised due to an observed tendency on your part to continually gloss-over/avoid/side-step specifically-challenged assertions.  That's your choice, as stated and so too is it mine to do the same.
 

So, please forgive me if I am not seeming to address "previous" context so that my privilege of my context can be restored.  

The point most recently not addressed in your replies:
- The "right" to hold a religious belief is not equivalent to a 'non-right' to unopposed religious proselytization and no unopposed religious   
  propagandizing is 'protected' by the U.S. Constitution.

- The other previous points are too numerous to renumerate.

I'm going to ask you again, in the future, to please hit the quote button of my entire response to your comments.  I quote anyone in their entirety.  I do not like to be only half quoted when my reasons are left out of the quote and are twisted to fit what ever point you are trying to make, which in the end, tries to make me appear stupid or ignorant.  This time I am sending a request to Kohler, since I have said I will do that when you do not quote my entire comment in return.  Thank you.

[heroftimes]

I'm going to ask you again, in the future, to please hit the quote button of my entire respon

Fusioncash Quoting: Super Serious Business. 

[jcribb16]

I'm going to ask you again, in the future, to please hit the quote button of my entire respon

Fusioncash Quoting: Super Serious Business. 

Perhaps not to some, but when serious discussions are going on, it is unfair to only quote a certain phrase or sentence, and then use it to their advantage to make someone appear ignorant, stupid, or making it obvious that certain points given are ignored. 

[falcon9]

I'm going to ask you again, in the future, to please hit the quote button of my entire response to your comments. 

I'm declining your 'request' and will retain the choice to quote context relevant to a response, (the same choice you or anyone else has).

This time I am sending a request to Kohler, since I have said I will do that when you do not quote my entire comment in return.  Thank you.

Go for it, as such does not violate any FC rules, policies or TOS.