Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, thanks for the link. Very useful.
Great article
They are supposed to save lives, but could a blood transfusion give you a heart attack?

Great response
Exactly like "how many lives were saved by seatbelts?" We don't know, and we can't know, because there is no way to count the people who were definitely going to die if they weren't wearing a seatbelt. They were already in a car accident, so there are a lot of other factors at play. The seatbelt data is overwhelmed by all the other factors involved.

How many Jehovah's Witnesses died from refusing blood transfusions? If you can find a death certificate that lists "didn't get a blood transfusion" as the cause of death, I would love to see it. But that's not the main problem generally. It's an accident, or an assault, or a complication in surgery that causes death. Receiving a blood transfusion is one of many possible treatments. Separating out the cases where the lack of a blood transfusion is the only factor in whether someone lives or dies is going to be impossible.

I see you liked the one from the ex-JW. They alway give the most welcoming "facts", don't they?

So once again you demonstrate an inability to understand sources.

Please pay attention. Blood transfusions are not perfect. That is what the sources that I linked showed. But it still saves lives. Like any tool there are better ways and worse ways to use it and new technology and knowledge improves results. But blood transfusions save lives and the superstitious views of the Jehovah's Witness cult does cause unneeded deaths. And the shunning of blood transfusions by JW's is not all bad because doctors have learned how at times that sort of treatment is beneficial.

Extremeists have a hard time understanding that 'sometimes' does not mean 'always'. Sometimes avoiding a blood transfusion is a good thing. But clearly not always. Mr. Green probably died due to his loss of blood. He may have lived if they used the new protocols, but that is not guaranteed. He almost certainly would have survived with a transfusion. The reason his case aroused interest because he probably would have survived with a transfusion. If he would have died anyway his case would not have been of any interest. There is a chance that he would have survived with these new protocols, that does not mean that he would have survived. Doctors are constantly trying to improve their techniques and sometimes limitations make them learn something that is of use outside of those limitations. That was what the paper told you. Not that the doctors screwed up and he would have survived with these new treatments.

 

[Jollybear]

But you don't even abide by your own terms, making you not only a coward who refuses to stick to any subject of debate, you are a total hypocrite to your own personal beliefs you demand OTHERS to follow. And then you wonder why people mock you. Geez...

Oh, i certainly abide by my own terms. But, the question is, do YOU agree with my terms? Yes or no? If yes, great, we can presume debate. If no, then find someone else.

Face it, you just don't have what it takes to stick to a subject of debate when you find out you got nothing, so throw out all this subterfuge to cloud the issue, then run away playing the victim. Boo hoo...

Oh i have more then what it takes to debate the subject. But, we have not even barely debated yet, and thats because you want to start a debate off with mocking. I wont allow that. Not only is it against forum rules to ad hom, but its against MY RULES.

So, abide by these rules and we can have a pleasent, challenging, informative, long most likely, debate.

Unless.....you dont want that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your personal opinion of theists is not relevant to this discussion, other than to the extent that it has caused you to lose sight of what the discussion was actually about.

It is more than opinion since your actions confirmed it.

"Well of course it exists; the wicked have SOME fate--whether it is to die and cease to exist, to be destroyed in the lake of fire, to burn forever in hell, to go to heaven with everyone else, or to experience some other imagined or heretofore unimagined afterlife--but the fate of the wicked most certainly exists," is a clear statement.

Buried in a wall of text that should not have been there. Try not to spend so much time spinning. Just a suggestion.

Any "running away" from restating my originally clear statement in ways that might make it even more clear to you is nothing more than a figment of your imagination--given that I did just that, twice.

Please, all that was needed was a single short sentence. You failed to do that. That is running away.

Yes, you made it clear that your ability to comprehend what you read is far lower than the ordinary reader, for whom the meaning and context of common English words is enough. I did my best to "dumb it down" for you; that's all I can do.

Now you are clearly being dishonest again. I don't want to waste my time on your attempted deflections. i don't care to waste my time. Your posts tend to be overly filled with wastes of time.

I do my best, but you keep coming up with new ones.

Now, now, you are merely projecting again.

I just told you what I believe. Surely you're not suggesting that you know what I believe better than I do?

Of course I do. You did not understand how you contradicted yourself.

No, I'm not; I'm contradicting you. There's a difference.

Wrong again. These posts are getting too long for a proper answer. And you are using an improper debating technique of excessively expanding a post. If you wish to discuss this properly I will gladly do so. If you keep debating in this matter all you will get are short corrections.

Ask politely and properly in a separate post and promise not to use this technique in response and I will gladly explain.

I said I am a Xian. I have not forgotten that I am a Xian. There, I contradicted you again. I'm curious why you think you have greater access to my own mental states than I do, as this is the second time you've tried to tell me what's going on in my own mind.

Yes, you contradicted me. You also demonstrated that you did not understand your failure. I know what you think that you believe, but I also know how you contradicted yourself. I don't have to know what you think I only need to be able to see your errors.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Oh, i certainly abide by my own terms. But, the question is, do YOU agree with my terms? Yes or no? If yes, great, we can presume debate. If no, then find someone else.



Oh i have more then what it takes to debate the subject. But, we have not even barely debated yet, and thats because you want to start a debate off with mocking. I wont allow that. Not only is it against forum rules to ad hom, but its against MY RULES.

So, abide by these rules and we can have a pleasent, challenging, informative, long most likely, debate.

Unless.....you dont want that.

You are completely delusional if you think you abide by your own rules and/or stick to any subject, and/or have what it takes to back up your beliefs.

ALL you have done so far is insult, throw out irrelevant mythology, totally avoid the topics, and offer up all kinds of diversionary tactics.

 

[nPeace]

I understood the article fine. Your quoting only shows that you misunderstood the point of the article.

Try again, drop the Green Ink and tell us what you think that it means. Your "bottom line" is clearly wrong.

I told you what it means... in English, not Japanese. If you understand what it means, it should not be so hard for you to express yourself.

@Subduction Zone Your last post is full of hypocritical bias, sorry to say, but it's the truth. You take that view not because it is reasonable, but because you need your argument to be right. It's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I told you what it means... in English, not Japanese. If you understand what it means, it should not be so hard for you to express yourself.

Too much green ink. Walls of text, especially of altered quotes from a source is a loss in my book.

Meanwhile if you read my entire post I explained your errors to you.

You made a false statement. That article does not help you very much. It does not advocate dropping transfusions at all. It did say that there could be some benefits from not using transfusions in some cases.

Please don't make the extremist error of conflating some with all.

 

[Jollybear]

You are completely delusional if you think you abide by your own rules and/or stick to any subject, and/or have what it takes to back up your beliefs.

ALL you have done so far is insult, throw out irrelevant mythology, totally avoid the topics, and offer up all kinds of diversionary tactics.

Those are all lies. And the thread record PROVES it.

Ill ask you again. Do ypu agree to my terms or not? Simple yes or no?

 

[Axe Elf]

It is more than opinion since your actions confirmed it.

Apparently you believe that if you say it, it must be so. However, this is easily demonstrated to be false.

It is your opinion that "theists tend to be dishonest when they trap themselves."

My actions have neither trapped myself, nor have they been dishonest, therefore this statement can only be understood as a load of hooey.

Buried in a wall of text that should not have been there.

First of all, you don't get to determine what "should" or "should not" be in my posts. If you can't comprehend more than a sentence or two at a time, that's your bad, not mine.

Secondly, this is another load of hooey that you must be hoping will magically become true if you say it is, since the statement in question ("Well of course it exists; the wicked have SOME fate--whether it is to die and cease to exist, to be destroyed in the lake of fire, to burn forever in hell, to go to heaven with everyone else, or to experience some other imagined or heretofore unimagined afterlife--but the fate of the wicked most certainly exists") constituted the full body of my post #331.

It was not "buried in a wall of text."

Try not to spend so much time spinning. Just a suggestion.

Try not to spend so much time pretending. Just a suggestion.

Please, all that was needed was a single short sentence.

It started out as a single short sentence (see post #331). I made it into an even shorter one upon your declaration of being unable to understand the original one (see post #335). And then I simplified THAT one even further (see post #335). You still professed an inability to comprehend it. So clearly, your statement here is false; more than a single short sentence was needed. So far, you've needed about eight long posts, and counting...

You failed to do that.

I did no such thing. See posts #331 and #335.

That is running away.

That is you trying to manufacture reality by saying something that isn't true as if it were true, and hoping that it then becomes true by virtue of you pretending that it's true.

It doesn't work that way.

Now you are clearly being dishonest again.

Disagreeing with something does not make it untrue. You are welcome to disagree if you like. It doesn't make you right, but you are welcome to disagree.

I don't want to waste my time on your attempted deflections. i don't care to waste my time. Your posts tend to be overly filled with wastes of time.

I agree; you are wasting your time. You are free to stop wasting your time any time you like. But as long as you keep trying to manufacture an illusion of reality with statements that are demonstrably untrue, I will continue to correct you.

Now, now, you are merely projecting again.

Now, now, you are merely making excuses again.

Of course I do.

You ARE suggesting that you know what I believe better than I do??

Well, there's only one appropriate response to that...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You did not understand how you contradicted yourself.

You do not understand that I have not contradicted myself.

My challenge to you, for your next post, should you want to make one of substance rather than smoke and mirrors, is to describe one way in which I have contradicted myself. Be concrete. Use quotes.

Since I have not contradicted myself, you are now faced with three options: a) tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors; b) demonstrate that you honestly don't understand what a contradiction is; or c) demonstrate that you honestly do not comprehend my words.

I think I know which option you will choose, but then, you know your thoughts better than I do...

Wrong again.

Oh boy. Now you're seriously going to claim that there is no difference between contradicting myself and contradicting you?

Dude, whatever your Axe Elf fantasies may be--I am not you.

These posts are getting too long for a proper answer.

Any time we exceed your attention span, you are welcome to walk away.

And you are using an improper debating technique of excessively expanding a post.

I'm responding to all of your nonsense, point by point. If you don't want so many responses, don't post so much nonsense.

If you wish to discuss this properly I will gladly do so.

Have at it. You haven't been able to do so up until now, but I'll allow you to change your tactics at this point.

If you keep debating in this matter all you will get are short corrections fantasies.

That street runs two ways.

Ask politely and properly in a separate post and promise not to use this technique in response and I will gladly explain.

I'll do no such thing. You wanted to discuss the fate of the wicked, so here we are. You can stay on that topic, you can keep being redirected from your smoke and mirrors, you can continue to be corrected on your errors, or you can go sit on your thumbs. Those are your only options.

Yes, you contradicted me.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You also demonstrated that you did not understand your failure.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand that I did not fail, at least when it came to asking a sensible question about the fate of the wicked. Your failure was in asking for evidence that the wicked had a fate, outside of the wishful thinking of a theist, when the clear evidence of reason shows that everyone--including the wicked--has a fate.

I know what you think that you believe, but I also know how you contradicted yourself.

And in that knowledge, you should have plenty of ammunition for answering the challenge of your next post: to describe one way in which I have contradicted myself, being concrete, and using quotes.

Or, if you like, you can just circle one of your three options below and save yourself some time and embarrassment.

a) I choose to tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors

b) I choose to demonstrate that I honestly don't understand what a contradiction is

c) I choose to demonstrate that I honestly do not comprehend your words

I don't have to know what you think I only need to be able to see your errors.

Looking forward to hearing all about them!

 

[lukethethird]

I haven't said maybe it is true, but going with your thinking, maybe it's true and you don't want it to be true, and the modern day fiction is more appealing to you.
However, we won't get anywhere with maybe, maybe not. I have a solid basis for believing the Biblical accounts to be true. Have you got a solid argument?

I have no interest in arguing over it, if you want to believe go right ahead, knock yourself out.

 

[nPeace]

I have no interest in arguing over it, if you want to believe go right ahead, knock yourself out.

Same to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you believe that if you say it, it must be so. However, this is easily demonstrated to be false.

It is your opinion that "theists tend to be dishonest when they trap themselves."

My actions have neither trapped myself, nor have they been dishonest, therefore this statement can only be understood as a load of hooey.



First of all, you don't get to determine what "should" or "should not" be in my posts. If you can't comprehend more than a sentence or two at a time, that's your bad, not mine.

Secondly, this is another load of hooey that you must be hoping will magically become true if you say it is, since the statement in question ("Well of course it exists; the wicked have SOME fate--whether it is to die and cease to exist, to be destroyed in the lake of fire, to burn forever in hell, to go to heaven with everyone else, or to experience some other imagined or heretofore unimagined afterlife--but the fate of the wicked most certainly exists") constituted the full body of my post #331.

It was not "buried in a wall of text."



Try not to spend so much time pretending. Just a suggestion.



It started out as a single short sentence (see post #331). I made it into an even shorter one upon your declaration of being unable to understand the original one (see post #335). And then I simplified THAT one even further (see post #335). You still professed an inability to comprehend it. So clearly, your statement here is false; more than a single short sentence was needed. So far, you've needed about eight long posts, and counting...



I did no such thing. See posts #331 and #335.



That is you trying to manufacture reality by saying something that isn't true as if it were true, and hoping that it then becomes true by virtue of you pretending that it's true.

It doesn't work that way.



Disagreeing with something does not make it untrue. You are welcome to disagree if you like. It doesn't make you right, but you are welcome to disagree.



I agree; you are wasting your time. You are free to stop wasting your time any time you like. But as long as you keep trying to manufacture an illusion of reality with statements that are demonstrably untrue, I will continue to correct you.



Now, now, you are merely making excuses again.



You ARE suggesting that you know what I believe better than I do??

Well, there's only one appropriate response to that...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



You do not understand that I have not contradicted myself.

My challenge to you, for your next post, should you want to make one of substance rather than smoke and mirrors, is to describe one way in which I have contradicted myself. Be concrete. Use quotes.

Since I have not contradicted myself, you are now faced with three options: a) tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors; b) demonstrate that you honestly don't understand what a contradiction is; or c) demonstrate that you honestly do not comprehend my words.

I think I know which option you will choose, but then, you know your thoughts better than I do...



Oh boy. Now you're seriously going to claim that there is no difference between contradicting myself and contradicting you?

Dude, whatever your Axe Elf fantasies may be--I am not you.



Any time we exceed your attention span, you are welcome to walk away.



I'm responding to all of your nonsense, point by point. If you don't want so many responses, don't post so much nonsense.



Have at it. You haven't been able to do so up until now, but I'll allow you to change your tactics at this point.



That street runs two ways.



I'll do no such thing. You wanted to discuss the fate of the wicked, so here we are. You can stay on that topic, you can keep being redirected from your smoke and mirrors, you can continue to be corrected on your errors, or you can go sit on your thumbs. Those are your only options.



Now we're getting somewhere.



You have demonstrated that you do not understand that I did not fail, at least when it came to asking a sensible question about the fate of the wicked. Your failure was in asking for evidence that the wicked had a fate, outside of the wishful thinking of a theist, when the clear evidence of reason shows that everyone--including the wicked--has a fate.



And in that knowledge, you should have plenty of ammunition for answering the challenge of your next post: to describe one way in which I have contradicted myself, being concrete, and using quotes.

Or, if you like, you can just circle one of your three options below and save yourself some time and embarrassment.

a) I choose to tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors

b) I choose to demonstrate that I honestly don't understand what a contradiction is

c) I choose to demonstrate that I honestly do not comprehend your words



Looking forward to hearing all about them!

This is boring. All you have are projection, lies and obvious errors. If you want to start again that is fine with me.

Here is on suggestion. You are not "answering every point". You are breaking up answers because you can't deal with the answer in context. It is a dishonest technique, a form of lying. And it contributes to your incredibly poor reading comprehension.

Once again, one question per post. Be polite. When you fail we will start over again.

 

[Axe Elf]

This is boring. All you have are projection, lies and obvious errors. If you want to start again that is fine with me.

Here is on suggestion. You are not "answering every point". You are breaking up answers because you can't deal with the answer in context. It is a dishonest technique, a form of lying. And it contributes to your incredibly poor reading comprehension.

Once again, one question per post. Be polite. When you fail we will start over again.

Ok, so you chose "a) tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors."

I kind of thought you might.

 

[Axe Elf]

That is a lie.

I don't think you understand what the word "lie" means. It means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. I neither have any intent to deceive you, nor have I made an untrue statement.

You chose "a) tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors."

True story.

 

[lukethethird]

Same to you.

No thanks, I have no interest in believing impossible things, I would rather accept theology for what it is.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I find there are people who think Lucifer is Satan's name.
Lucifer is a made-up name and Not part of the ancient biblical manuscripts.
Satan is an angel, a fallen angel. Satan had a special position as per Ezekiel 28:13-14 as a covering cherub.

Satans special position was hatred, where as the fallen angel of light Lucifer represents knowledge, a legitimate thing. Lucifer is found in other mythology before Christianity ever was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you understand what the word "lie" means. It means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. I neither have any intent to deceive you, nor have I made an untrue statement.

You chose "a) tapdance away from this challenge using smoke and mirrors."

True story.

Perhaps not consciously. But that is a weak excuse on your part. And no, I did not "tapdance" away. You ran away from my challenge first. You really should work on your reading comprehension.

Tell me, can you be honest? I will answer questions if you at least promise to try to be honest in your posts. If you are less than honest I will inform you and give you another chance.

 

[Axe Elf]

Perhaps not consciously. But that is a weak excuse on your part. And no, I did not "tapdance" away. You ran away from my challenge first. You really should work on your reading comprehension.

Tell me, can you be honest? I will answer questions if you at least promise to try to be honest in your posts. If you are less than honest I will inform you and give you another chance.

Still dancing, I see...

The tutu is a nice touch!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still dancing, I see...

The tutu is a nice touch!

Nope, that is just you running away as usual.

You tend to do that quite often.

But thanks for tacitly answering my question.

 

[Axe Elf]

Nope, that is just you running away as usual.

You tend to do that quite often.

But thanks for tacitly answering my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice likeness. You are light on your feet.