daily Bible verse

[Getinonthis]

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

[jcribb16]

Who am I to judge?

Seeing as how you are judging, who are you indeed?

With that being said I know when I see a post about God or the bible I'm going to see a follow up post by Falcon. And I have to agree with jcribb when I say I feel like you're constantly on the attack with this. I'm not saying other people who have replied to this thread have been completely respectful but wow. Where does it end? Why is it so hard to leave things at your beliefs are your own and that's ok?

That sword has two edges; bible-thumping proselytizing is perceived as offensive by some non-xtians.  Replies to such are seen as offensive by xtians.  If such beliefs remained internal to the believer, who would reply to unwritten proselytizing?  Once such offensiveness leaves the skulls of religious adherents, travels down to their fingers and is ejected publically then replies are well within reason.  No one says you must read them.

Exactly.  No one said you must read them.

[jcribb16]

Make it stop....

Make what stop? 

Just the constant back and forth. I've been watching this thread for a while. I normally stay away from confrontation because I don't like and I don't like being attacked. But I don't know, I just felt the need to say something. I'll start with this, I believe in God and I know not everyone does. I live in Utah, I was born and raised here. There's no separation between church and state here which there should be. I admit I'm annoyed the constant posts of bible verses and I honestly thought the person who started this thread and some of the others (I'm sorry I can't think of the SN off the top of my head, joanna something) was a bot of some sort. I went to a Christian school, I was made to learn bible verses and the order of the books in the bible. I felt all of that was unnecessary but hey, that's what you get when you go there. I hate it when some people bible thump. I don't like it when beliefs seemed to be forced on people. If you believe in God, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine. Who am I to judge? With that being said I know when I see a post about God or the bible I'm going to see a follow up post by Falcon. And I have to agree with jcribb when I say I feel like you're constantly on the attack with this. I'm not saying other people who have replied to this thread have been completely respectful but wow. Where does it end? Why is it so hard to leave things at your beliefs are your own and that's ok?

I can totally understand where you are coming from.  I agree that there are many Bible verse threads being made just to simply make them.  There are a couple of good ones going and people can add to them.  There are a couple of them in which the title is a verse, then another thread is started where it continues from the verse, and so on.  That's were those should stay in one main thread.

I understand about the back and forth of posters.  I know I'm one of the ones you are speaking of who goes back and forth outside of the verses at times.  I feel, though, when posters are constantly mocked, chastised, and made to look foolish for sharing their favorite verses, the disrespect needs to be addressed.  If certain ones don't like them, they don't have to come in in the first place.  Respect is a key issue for some for attempting to get along in these threads, and following the guidelines.  I appreciate your comments.   

[jcribb16]

I've said what I wanted. Take it however you want.

To the left, under your posting 'nym, there's an "ignore" button.  Take that however wished.

And the same suggestion is given to you, too.  Take that however wished.

[luvh8tragedy87]

I've said what I wanted. Take it however you want.

To the left, under your posting 'nym, there's an "ignore" button.  Take that however wished.

And the same suggestion is given to you, too.  Take that however wished.

Trust me I know the ignore button is there. I would use it if I wanted to. I also know I don't have to read the thread. I haven't read this thread from the beginning but what got me was seeing the growing number of pages for it and I wanted to see what was going on. What I said wasn't meant to offend anyone by any means that's just what I was feeling. I'm just trying understand what's causing the hostility.

[jcribb16]

I've said what I wanted. Take it however you want.

To the left, under your posting 'nym, there's an "ignore" button.  Take that however wished.

And the same suggestion is given to you, too.  Take that however wished.

Trust me I know the ignore button is there. I would use it if I wanted to. I also know I don't have to read the thread. I haven't read this thread from the beginning but what got me was seeing the growing number of pages for it and I wanted to see what was going on. What I said wasn't meant to offend anyone by any means that's just what I was feeling. I'm just trying understand what's causing the hostility.

I hope you know I was responding to falcon9 with that response.  A lot of hostility is in today's society, unfortunately.  There are many out there who are just more vocal about their hostility and more disrespectful towards believers.  Some non-believers are courteous, and respect for disagreeing with each other is obvious, because although they don't agree, they leave people to their own choices in life.  Some don't like that however, and can't leave people alone.  It does happen on both sides, too, which is wrong.  But in here, in a simple Bible verse thread, people who don't like the Bible do not have to enter, and when they do, making their rude remarks, believers are going to stand up against that.   

[falcon9]

But in here, in a simple Bible verse thread, people who don't like the Bible do not have to enter, and when they do, making their rude remarks, believers are going to stand up against that. 

People don't have to post offensive religious proselytizing however, when they do, others who oppose such propagandizing are as free to stand up against that too.

[falcon9]

I feel, though, when posters are constantly mocked, chastised, and made to look foolish for sharing their favorite verses ...

The dissenting replies are directed in opposition to the content posted, not specifically toward any individual xtian posting them.  I don't see any xtians here; I do see posted content from xtians and others however.  If someone is unable to discern that difference, they're going to be constantly "offended" by the least thing.  Religious proselytizing has always been offensive to me - not necessarily the proselytizer though, (although at times, one cannot be easily separated from the other, as with diehard fundamentalists).

[jcribb16]

I feel, though, when posters are constantly mocked, chastised, and made to look foolish for sharing their favorite verses ...

The dissenting replies are directed in opposition to the content posted, not specifically toward any individual xtian posting them.  I don't see any xtians here; I do see posted content from xtians and others however.  If someone is unable to discern that difference, they're going to be constantly "offended" by the least thing.  Religious proselytizing has always been offensive to me - not necessarily the proselytizer though, (although at times, one cannot be easily separated from the other, as with diehard fundamentalists).

The dissenting replies, if following the correct definition, would be replies that are disagreeing with the other choice, rejecting the other choice - now, yours most definitely express your disagreement, however they are done disrespectfully, rudely.  It doesn't matter what any of them say, you always come back with snide cut-downs.  If you are that offended by Bible verses in a thread, then you do not have to come in to them with your disrespect.  No own is forcing you.  And the "ignore button" you commonly like to refer others to?  You could follow your own suggestion and "ignore" those who share Bible verses.  But, you can't resist coming in anyway, to agitate, rile, and stir up the thread with disrespect.  Those verses are not labeled with your screen name to come and look at them. 

There are some threads that have some topics I do not like, or I disagree with wholeheartedly.  I pass by them or ignore them.  I'm not going into those threads just to be mean and stir things up, just because I don't like the topics, and/or they may offend me.  Unless FC has something to say one way or the other, everyone can pretty much post what they want, within the guidelines.  But it doesn't mean everyone has to go in every one of them.  If it's a debate between views, then yes, I'll go in if I want to, and debate/discuss my side as compared to their side.  And respect is key for worthwhile and interesting debates, even when there are sparks.

[falcon9]

The dissenting replies, if following the correct definition, would be replies that are disagreeing with the other choice, rejecting the other choice - now, yours most definitely express your disagreement, however they are done disrespectfully, rudely. 

Those adjectives constitute subjective opinion however, you are 'entitled' to any specious opinions.  It's unclear why you keep insisting upon the form such dissenting viewpoints must take, (i.e., implicit insistance that these be 'polite' and 'respectful' as you deem them).  In my view, such dissenting viewpoints are near as "rude"/"impolite"/"disrepectful" as the initial religious points of view to which dissenting replies are made.

It doesn't matter what any of them say, you always come back with snide cut-downs. 

It doesn't matter what the dissenting viewpoints consist of, some religious adherents always come back with more sanctimonious proselytizing and attempts to suppress points by deeming them as "rude" and such.

If you are that offended by Bible verses in a thread, then you do not have to come in to them with your disrespect.  No own is forcing you.

Alternatively, no one is forcing bible thumpers to initiate such religious proselytizing threads and "disrespect" those who don't share such specious beliefs.  Surely you're not tacitly suggesting that such religious propaganda threads are some sort of xtian-only domain on FC? 

And the "ignore button" you commonly like to refer others to?  You could follow your own suggestion and "ignore" those who share Bible verses. 

I could however, I also have the same option you do to not use the ignore function.  You already know which option I've selected so, why are you beating that dead horse?

Those verses are not labeled with your screen name to come and look at them. 

There are dozens of threads not labelled with my screen name extant.  On FC, we get to reply, (or not), to whichever threads we choose; whether they're addressed to us by 'nym or not. 

There are some threads that have some topics I do not like, or I disagree with wholeheartedly.  I pass by them or ignore them. 

That's you choice; just as my choices are mine.  You don't get to choose for me like your religious beliefs choose for you.
 

Unless FC has something to say one way or the other, everyone can pretty much post what they want, within the guidelines.  

I agree so, why are you attempting to restrict where someone else can or, cannot post?

[jcribb16]

The dissenting replies, if following the correct definition, would be replies that are disagreeing with the other choice, rejecting the other choice - now, yours most definitely express your disagreement, however they are done disrespectfully, rudely. 

Those adjectives constitute subjective opinion however, you are 'entitled' to any specious opinions.  It's unclear why you keep insisting upon the form such dissenting viewpoints must take, (i.e., implicit insistance that these be 'polite' and 'respectful' as you deem them).  In my view, such dissenting viewpoints are near as "rude"/"impolite"/"disrepectful" as the initial religious points of view to which dissenting replies are made.

It doesn't matter what any of them say, you always come back with snide cut-downs. 

It doesn't matter what the dissenting viewpoints consist of, some religious adherents always come back with more sanctimonious proselytizing and attempts to suppress points by deeming them as "rude" and such.

If you are that offended by Bible verses in a thread, then you do not have to come in to them with your disrespect.  No own is forcing you.

Alternatively, no one is forcing bible thumpers to initiate such religious proselytizing threads and "disrespect" those who don't share such specious beliefs.  Surely you're not tacitly suggesting that such religious propaganda threads are some sort of xtian-only domain on FC? 

And the "ignore button" you commonly like to refer others to?  You could follow your own suggestion and "ignore" those who share Bible verses. 

I could however, I also have the same option you do to not use the ignore function.  You already know which option I've selected so, why are you beating that dead horse?

Those verses are not labeled with your screen name to come and look at them. 

There are dozens of threads not labelled with my screen name extant.  On FC, we get to reply, (or not), to whichever threads we choose; whether they're addressed to us by 'nym or not. 

There are some threads that have some topics I do not like, or I disagree with wholeheartedly.  I pass by them or ignore them. 

That's you choice; just as my choices are mine.  You don't get to choose for me like your religious beliefs choose for you.
 

Unless FC has something to say one way or the other, everyone can pretty much post what they want, within the guidelines.  

I agree so, why are you attempting to restrict where someone else can or, cannot post?

Please stop twisting my words.  You are the one complaining about offensive insulting Bible verse threads being Bible-thumped.  FC has not labeled them as such and they are not such.  You are the one choosing to go into them being sarcastic, rude, and disrespectful, just because they are "offensive" to you.  You do not have to go into them - you tell others this about threads they complain about - the same applies to you as well.

 I am NOT telling you or anyone what to do - yet you actually do, especially regarding the "ignore" button.  I am not restricting anyone - that's your twisting of my words to make it appear so.  Also, my religious beliefs do NOT choose for me.  You do not share these beliefs, so, you would not know squat about that.  I make my own choices, guided by my beliefs, morals, values, compassion, and at times impulse, frustration, etc. (in which I try to think before I act.) I may not always do the right thing, but I'm going to try the best I can.  At least I don't go in some threads, deliberately, to cause problems, when those threads aren't my thing.

[falcon9]

Please stop twisting my words.

They were quoted intact without "twisting" them.  Please stop making false accusations, (no matter how unreasonable such a request may be).

You are the one complaining about offensive insulting Bible verse threads being Bible-thumped.  FC has not labeled them as such and they are not such.

Just because FC hasn't called them offensive, it doesn't mean they aren't any more than FC not getting into the content of posts unless that content violates the TOS means anything more than that.
 

You are the one choosing to go into them being sarcastic, rude, and disrespectful, just because they are "offensive" to you.

In the same manner, you are the one choosing to view dissenting viewpoints in the way you're expressing.  So, we each perceive the expressed viewpoints of the other variously as "offensive, sarcastic, rude, disrespectful, impolite, noxious, disparaging, insulting, pretentious, sanctimonious, credulous, specious, random and obtuse", right?  Now, where have I ever stated that you're not allowed to do that?  Conversely, one does not have to look far to find several examples of some xtians attempting to censor posts under such opinion designators.  A further example of this is thoughtfully provided by you, below:

You do not have to go into them - you tell others this about threads they complain about -  

I am NOT telling you or anyone what to do -

On the contrary, you've been attempting to do so for quite some time.  I'm just not complying with your 'terrorist demands' because it's not my policy to negotiate with such religious 'terrorists'.

...yet you actually do, especially regarding the "ignore" button.

I've recommended use of the ignore button, so has the FC moderator.  Neither of us are telling others that they must use it as it remains an optional choice.

I am not restricting anyone - that's your twisting of my words to make it appear so.

Don't twist my posted words; those were quoted as "... attempting to restrict ..."  That doesn't mean you've restricted it, it means trying to.

Also, my religious beliefs do NOT choose for me.

Are at least some, (or the majority), of your "choices" prescribed by, 'guided' by, limited by your religious beliefs?  Or, do you flout them when more convenient to do so?
 

You do not share these beliefs, so, you would not know squat about that.

I may not know precisely what you believe however, I'd wager that I have a far greater depth of understanding what the proselytized relgious beliefs entail.  That would be significantly more than "squat".  For instance, it's doubtful that the religious belief of "soteriology" could be described by any random xtian in their own words and without looking the word up.  Conversely, I'm aware of what that concept entails.
 

I make my own choices, guided by my beliefs, morals, values, compassion, and at times impulse, frustration, etc. (in which I try to think before I act.) I may not always do the right thing, but I'm going to try the best I can.  

That's what I essentially stated regarding "beliefs", (the rest are unverifiable claims and that's fine - no evidence is being requested for them).

[jcribb16]

I guess both of us could go on all day telling each other to stop twisting each others' words.  Neither one of us think we're twisting, yet there is definitely twisting going on.  Dissenting views can be made with respect.  If you don't agree or like it, then just say that, then tell why.  You finally spoke honestly when you said the Bible threads are offensive to you.  Up to that point, you had been calling others' beliefs certain things, posting demeaning quotes, and if anyone would respond, or give their opinions, you made their opinions and beliefs still look demeaning.  At least you finally came clean about the offense of it.  I would be interested to know why they offend you, if they aren't part of any belief system of any you may or may not have.  Did something happen in the past that totally turned you against them?  That is where the debate and discuss come in, and both sides can contrast and compare.  There may be disagreements, but at least there will be open and honest communication, with reasons, instead of names and quotes.  And I'm speaking both sides, here.

Also, since I have a degree in Biblical Theology, there are many concepts I understand, since having studied and taken university classes on things such as "Soteriology."  One difference between Christianity and many other world religions and/or cults, is the fact that Christianity is the only one based on "faith" alone, that salvation is based on that faith, through God's saving "grace," which is through Jesus Christ.  He died on the cross for our sins and is now the mediator between us and God.  We go through Jesus, alone, for salvation of God.  I remember having to learn Titus 3:5-8, that sums up much more than what I'm saying here: 

"5 ... not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men."

Now, these kinds of things, if in the D&D, are the kinds of topics I like to discuss with others.  Thanks for bringing up one of them. 

[falcon9]

I guess both of us could go on all day telling each other to stop twisting each others' words.  Neither one of us think we're twisting, yet there is definitely twisting going on.  Dissenting views can be made with respect.  If you don't agree or like it, then just say that, then tell why.  You finally spoke honestly when you said the Bible threads are offensive to you. I would be interested to know why they offend you, if they aren't part of any belief system of any you may or may not have. There may be disagreements, but at least there will be open and honest communication, with reasons, instead of names and quotes.  And I'm speaking both sides, here.

I've written of such matters honestly all along.  The only reason that recent mention was made concerning the offensive nature of bible-thumping was because of the continued mention of others about how my dissenting replies to the initial offensive posts were considered as offensive.  The content of prior dissenting replies inherently indicated some of the reasons I find religious proselytizing, (not just xtian proselytizing), to be offensive.  If those previous replies were too subtle to convey that, this was unintentional and I apologize for not conveying the intent clearly enough to be understood.

Also, since I have a degree in Biblical Theology, there are many concepts I understand, since having studied and taken university classes on things such as "Soteriology."[color]

Excellent, (though do recall that I'd mentioned 'any random xtian', (not ones with theological degrees however, I have asked the same question of a catholic priest so educated and he was unable to provide a rational explanation of soteriology by his own admission).
 

One difference between Christianity and many other world religions and/or cults, is the fact that Christianity is the only one based on "faith" alone ...

That's not an accurate statement; islam, judaism and hinduism, (for example), are also "based on 'faith' alone".  However, it's understood that you were presenting this within the context of "soteriology" and that the first two examples have varying positions on the soteriology concept while hinduism doesn't even address it.

Now, these kinds of things, if in the D&D, are the kinds of topics I like to discuss with others.  Thanks for bringing up one of them. 

Well, the point was raised within the Off Topic forum but, could be reposted to d&d in order to d&d it at your own risk, (as FC's warning admonishes).  If wished, simply entitle a d&d thread "Soteriology" and give your take on that concept.  You should already realize that bible-thumping quotes used in support of the concept are likely to be disregarded as not being your own words.

[jcribb16]

I guess both of us could go on all day telling each other to stop twisting each others' words.  Neither one of us think we're twisting, yet there is definitely twisting going on.  Dissenting views can be made with respect.  If you don't agree or like it, then just say that, then tell why.  You finally spoke honestly when you said the Bible threads are offensive to you. I would be interested to know why they offend you, if they aren't part of any belief system of any you may or may not have. There may be disagreements, but at least there will be open and honest communication, with reasons, instead of names and quotes.  And I'm speaking both sides, here.

I've written of such matters honestly all along.  The only reason that recent mention was made concerning the offensive nature of bible-thumping was because of the continued mention of others about how my dissenting replies to the initial offensive posts were considered as offensive.  The content of prior dissenting replies inherently indicated some of the reasons I find religious proselytizing, (not just xtian proselytizing), to be offensive.  If those previous replies were too subtle to convey that, this was unintentional and I apologize for not conveying the intent clearly enough to be understood.

Also, since I have a degree in Biblical Theology, there are many concepts I understand, since having studied and taken university classes on things such as "Soteriology."[color]

Excellent, (though do recall that I'd mentioned 'any random xtian', (not ones with theological degrees however, I have asked the same question of a catholic priest so educated and he was unable to provide a rational explanation of soteriology by his own admission).
 

One difference between Christianity and many other world religions and/or cults, is the fact that Christianity is the only one based on "faith" alone ...

That's not an accurate statement; islam, judaism and hinduism, (for example), are also "based on 'faith' alone".  However, it's understood that you were presenting this within the context of "soteriology" and that the first two examples have varying positions on the soteriology concept while hinduism doesn't even address it.

Now, these kinds of things, if in the D&D, are the kinds of topics I like to discuss with others.  Thanks for bringing up one of them. 

Well, the point was raised within the Off Topic forum but, could be reposted to d&d in order to d&d it at your own risk, (as FC's warning admonishes).  If wished, simply entitle a d&d thread "Soteriology" and give your take on that concept.  You should already realize that bible-thumping quotes used in support of the concept are likely to be disregarded as not being your own words.

I may just do that.  However, I need to do my paid things in here and in a couple of other sites; go through my email, and respond to a couple of them.  It's getting late and I need to get those things done!!

 I will say, though, that since salvation is an integral part of Soteriology, and has to do with accepting Jesus, through faith, by God's grace, God's Word has to be used in some responses to back up certain points.  From a Christian's point of view, God's Word cannot be ignored - it is part of our belief system.  You can disregard them - as is your choice.  They can be used, along with our "own words" as well, when responding to someone or questioning certain aspects of the topic.

I will also want to address your comment with you saying it isn't entirely accurate concerning the "based on faith alone" comment I previously made.