Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Ancient Soul]

You feel better now that you vomitted your nonsense?

After your mental stomach settles, would you like to have A REAL debate/discussion? If yes, great, if no, keep it movin.

Axe Elf was right, you are a black hole of nonsense. ALL you seem to do is throw out mindless nonsense and run away from debating anything.

 

[Axe Elf]

You are no more of a prophet than I am.

Opinions vary. As I understand it, you're not even a Xian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Opinions vary. As I understand it, you're not even a Xian.

One does not need to be a Christian to understand the Bible. In fact I will argue that it makes it harder for some Christians to understand it.

 

[Axe Elf]

One does not need to be a Christian to understand the Bible. In fact I will argue that it makes it harder for some Christians to understand it.

But one DOES have to be a Xian to receive a spiritual gift, such as prophecy. The gift of prophecy is helpful in sorting out those things that you say you don't understand; in this case, the fate of the wicked.

 

[Vaderecta]

Its the law now you know. We found other ways to discipline our children because God is a disciplinarian and he advises his servants to discipline those who need it.....either children or adults. Children who are undisciplined are not fun to be around....undisciplined adults aren't either.

Discipline does not mean beating children. The past was horrible, try to be more present and think about a future where parents don't beat their kids.

 

[Vaderecta]

Wait....Millerites had a Kingdom Hall?

Jehovah witnesses are based on the millerites. You quoted the wikipedia article and I am not 200 years old. What are you blathering on about.

 

[Vaderecta]

God's word is specific about the use of blood. It is a command that is reiterated three times in different time periods throughout the Bible. The first time was to Noah when they came out of the ark and humans were given permission to eat meat, but consuming its blood was forbidden. (Genesis 9:3-5)
It was mentioned again in the Law of Moses. (Leviticus 17:10-12) and again for Christians in Acts 15:28-29 as a necessary thing. Blood has a sacred significance to God. Since blood is given intravenously, many think that is not technically "eating" it. But when patients cannot consume food by mouth, they are often fed intravenously, so we can't see the difference.

Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up all over the world because it has come to be appreciated as preferred medical practice.

I have heard mormons, catholics and every other religious person I have met make interpretations on the bible to come up with their conclusions about various different subjects. This is just nonsense though. The red cross saved my life and many others. If you can give blood, do so and save lives and take people like this who think getting a blood transfusion is sinful but beating your chrildren is blessed with a grain of salt. You are an anathema.

 

[Vaderecta]

I can understand the occasional typo, but the misuse and misspelling of words throughout the body of one's work is a legitimate indicator of their general level of intellectual functioning.

The saturation of your posts with such errors doesn't look good for you when you are trying to insist that one nonsensical diatribe or another is actually rational.

Bullies still exist. (Axe, Ad Hominems are a fallicious form of argument and make you look bad rather than good. Don't attack people to make your arguments look better. They are still bad arguments and you are just picking on people for no appearant reason)

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

But one DOES have to be a Xian to receive a spiritual gift, such as prophecy. The gift of prophecy is helpful in sorting out those things that you say you don't understand; in this case, the fate of the wicked.

Not if it does not exist in the first place.

 

[Axe Elf]

Bullies still exist.

So do educators. For your edification, a bully is defined as one who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. I have no strength or power here, and my motives are not to harm nor intimidate. On the contrary, my efforts are aimed at @Jollybear 's education as to what makes a rational argument, and why his arguments, in contrast, come off more like the accidental effluvium of an unstable chimp with a Tomy's Tutor Typer.

Axe, Ad Hominems are a fallicious form of argument

You seem to be confusing my descriptive posts of @Jollybear 's irrational exercises in nonsense with arguments against them. Nothing could be further from the truth. See, I learned a while back that logical and rational arguments are of no use in conversations with Jollybear, and so I avoid entering into them. My posts to Jollybear these days are much more descriptive, and, when justified, pejorative. We went through all this a few days ago, in posts #137 through #160. You were a part of that conversation. It turns out that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

and make you look bad rather than good.

This isn't about how I look, this is about keeping @Jollybear from looking like a 4th grade dropout when he posts on these forums. I don't really care if I have to take a hit in the process of enriching his ability to reason; that's just the kind of selfless humanitarian that I am.

Don't attack people to make your arguments look better.

I would never dream of such a thing. As I said, I'm far past the point of trying to make arguments with Jollybear. Now I can only concern myself with making him a more rational thinker. Consider it tough love.

They are still bad arguments

Like I said, they're not arguments at all. They are pejorative descriptors of objectively irrational thinking.

and you are just picking on people for no appearant reason

appearant

Sigh. I hope that's just a typo.

I've just explained the reason to you--again, since I had already explained it to you a few days ago in posts #137 through #160. Hopefully it will sink in this time, and I won't have to explain it to you again.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Irrelevant, for the reasons given above.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not if it does not exist in the first place.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And what evidence do you have of this besides wishful thinking?

 

[Axe Elf]

And what evidence do you have of this besides wishful thinking?

What a nonsensical question. To understand just how nonsensical it is, let me ask you instead--what will happen to the wicked, if not their fate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a nonsensical question. To understand just how nonsensical it is, let me ask you instead--what will happen to the wicked, if not their fate?

Hardly nonsensical. It only seems that way to you due to your nonsensical beliefs.

Your question is rather vague. Can you be more specific please?

 

[Axe Elf]

Hardly nonsensical. It only seems that way to you due to your nonsensical beliefs.

Nope, your question itself was nonsensical. You would understand how nonsensical it is if you understood my question, which you say you do not understand, but which was designed to help you understand how nonsensical your question was.

Your question is rather vague. Can you be more specific please?

It seemed pretty straightforward, but I'll try to distill it down even further:

Do you think that anything will happen to the wicked?

That is, do you believe that there will exist a time, subsequent to now, in which the wicked will experience events of some kind?

I could even ask it in the past tense, as such:

Do you think that anything has ever happened to the wicked?

That is, do you believe that at some time in the past, the wicked have experienced events of some kind?

If your answer to either question is "yes," then we have established that the wicked do, indeed, have a fate--the fate of the wicked exists, and the evidence of it is not wishful thinking, but the evidence of reason.

If your answer to either question is "no," then I presume that the wicked and all record of them throughout history have completely vanished so that no trace of their existence can be found, and no one even understands what is meant by "the wicked" any more--in which case the wicked have no fate; nothing would have ever happened to the wicked, and nothing will ever happen to the wicked.

(If your answer was no, but the wicked still exist, then I would encourage you to reconsider your answer--because if the wicked still exist, then something has happened or is going to happen to them; and again, the fate of the wicked exists by evidence of reason.)

 

[Deeje]

Discipline does not mean beating children. The past was horrible, try to be more present and think about a future where parents don't beat their kids.

Good grief.....discipline does not mean beating anyone. An open handed smack on the behind is not child abuse. Failure to discipline is child abuse.

Jehovah witnesses are based on the millerites. You quoted the wikipedia article and I am not 200 years old. What are you blathering on about.

We have only a vague connection to the Millerites through the Adventists....and that was towards the end of the 1800's.....what are you blathering about? Please check your facts.

If you attended a Kingdom Hall in the mid 1900's - the 2000's, sang Kingdom songs and had issues with blood transfusions, you must have been Jehovah's Witnesses....not Millerites.

I have heard mormons, catholics and every other religious person I have met make interpretations on the bible to come up with their conclusions about various different subjects. This is just nonsense though. The red cross saved my life and many others.

We are the living proof that that is not true. We refuse blood and now many doctors prefer to adopt non-blood management of many illnesses and surgical procedures because their experience with us was the opposite to what they expected. Plasma volume expanders do a better in of circulating what red cells are left in the body whilst the bone marrow makes up new ones.....which it can do quite rapidly. It means quicker recovery time and saves the hospitals a bucket of money.

If you don't believe me, here is a video put out by the Australian Government. For Media | National Blood Authority
Don't be fooled by the title...the content dispels any doubt about the dangers of blood transfusions. Look up the words "morbidity" and "mortality".

If you can give blood, do so and save lives and take people like this who think getting a blood transfusion is sinful but beating your chrildren is blessed with a grain of salt. You are an anathema.

Blood is not sinful...it is sacred. That is why God forbids misusing it. It is indeed life-saving, but its Christ's blood that does that, not other people's. You'd be surprised how many doctors have apologized to us for all the bad press this issue has caused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, your question itself was nonsensical. You would understand how nonsensical it is if you understood my question, which you say you do not understand, but which was designed to help you understand how nonsensical your question was.



It seemed pretty straightforward, but I'll try to distill it down even further:

Do you think that anything will happen to the wicked?

That is, do you believe that there will exist a time, subsequent to now, in which the wicked will experience events of some kind?

I could even ask it in the past tense, as such:

Do you think that anything has ever happened to the wicked?

That is, do you believe that at some time in the past, the wicked have experienced events of some kind?

If your answer to either question is "yes," then we have established that the wicked do, indeed, have a fate--the fate of the wicked exists, and the evidence of it is not wishful thinking, but the evidence of reason.

If your answer to either question is "no," then I presume that the wicked and all record of them throughout history have completely vanished so that no trace of their existence can be found, and no one even understands what is meant by "the wicked" any more--in which case the wicked have no fate; nothing would have ever happened to the wicked, and nothing will ever happen to the wicked.

(If your answer was no, but the wicked still exist, then I would encourage you to reconsider your answer--because if the wicked still exist, then something has happened or is going to happen to them; and again, the fate of the wicked exists by evidence of reason.)

This is always a problem with theists. They are the ones with indefensible nonsensical beliefs and they project that on others. That is highly dishonest and provactive.

Nor was there any excuse to write a book. Your question was poorly asked. You still could not ask if properly.

Try one more time and see if you can keep it short and sweet.

 

[Axe Elf]

This is always a problem with theists. They are the ones with indefensible nonsensical beliefs and they project that on others. That is highly dishonest and provactive.

This is always a problem with atheists. They are the ones with indefensible nonsensical beliefs and they project that on others. That is highly dishonest and provocative (some of them can't even spell "provocative").

Now, if you're through trying to distract from the issue at hand with unsupportable accusations and other nonsense, let's get back to determining whether the wicked have a fate, or whether the fate of the wicked is merely wishful thinking on the part of theists.

Nor was there any excuse to write a book.

You expressed your inability to comprehend my question. I elaborated with a few paragraphs of clarifying explanatory prose. If that's a book to you, you must find Dr. Seuss to be interminable.

Your question was poorly asked. You still could not ask if properly. Try one more time and see if you can keep it short and sweet.

Nah, that's ok. I've asked it twice now (three times, really) and you still claim ignorance of how your question was nonsensical. At this point, I'll just take your word for it--I will believe you when you say you are unable to understand--and leave the matter to those who have the reading comprehension required to understand why your question was nonsensical in the first place.

(Namely, because the evidence of reason is the evidence that the wicked have a fate, not the wishful thinking of theists.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is always a problem with atheists. They are the ones with indefensible nonsensical beliefs and they project that on others. That is highly dishonest and provocative (some of them can't even spell "provocative").

Now, if you're through trying to distract from the issue at hand with unsupportable accusations and other nonsense, let's get back to determining whether the wicked have a fate, or whether the fate of the wicked is merely wishful thinking on the part of theists.



You expressed your inability to comprehend my question. I elaborated with a few paragraphs of clarifying explanatory prose. If that's a book to you, you must find Dr. Seuss to be interminable.



Nah, that's ok. I've asked it twice now (three times, really) and you still claim ignorance of how your question was nonsensical. At this point, I'll just take your word for it--I will believe you when you say you are unable to understand--and leave the matter to those who have the reading comprehension required to understand why your question was nonsensical in the first place.

(Namely, because the evidence of reason is the evidence that the wicked have a fate, not the wishful thinking of theists.)

If you can't be honest there really is no point in continuing. When your false beliefs are challenged you are no no different from a creationist or a Flat Earther. You have no evidence nor do you have any reason. That is why you can't even ask your own questions properly.

And don't make false accusations against others. Why do believers put so little value on their own Commandments?

I knew what you meant to ask, but your question was so silly when properly phrased that you could not ask it. And you try to put others down..


I would.say 'Try again', but we both know that if you asked your questions honestly you would not need an answer from me. Your error would be obvious to you too.

 

[Axe Elf]

If you can't be honest there really is no point in continuing. When your false beliefs are challenged you are no no different from a creationist or a Flat Earther. You have no evidence nor do you have any reason. That is why you can't even ask your own questions properly.

And don't make false accusations against others. Why do believers put so little value on their own Commandments?

I knew what you meant to ask, but your question was so silly when properly phrased that you could not ask it. And you try to put others down..

I would.say 'Try again', but we both know that if you asked your questions honestly you would not need an answer from me. Your error would be obvious to you too.

Nope, nope, nope. You're not allowed to blather your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. At least @Jollybear tries to make points. Hopscotching around with this nonsense about why you don't need to make points because of false beliefs this and dishonest that is just a way to try to disguise that you were caught in an untenous position--demanding evidence to show that the wicked have a fate. Of course, the clear evidence of reason is that everyone has a fate--things happen to everyone, including the wicked.

You're not fooling anyone with pretending to not understand the question, or by trying to equate the evidence that everyone has a fate with evidence of a flat Earth.

Point at the sky all you like; no one is distracted from your failure here.