Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Deeje]

Spanking in most modern studies is not associated with with benefits to a child but rather negative ones.

Who advocated "spanking"? I said an open handed smack on the behind. That is not spanking. You don't listen very well, do you? Besides, it is now against the law in my country to administer corporal punishment to children. Kids now get away with everything, knowing that you can't touch them. We have a nation of spoiled brats and 'entitled snowflakes' who can't handle the word "no" without a meltdown.

Just because your 2000 year old book says spare the rod spoil the child doesn't mean that they had a clue what they were talking about. Blood is not magical it is a neccesary component of life and not only Trauma patients need it by so do those with sickle cell, burns, cancers and many other modern diseases. Some old book written by people with no understanding of modern science have convinced you that a car accident victim who may need 100 pints of blood alone is just not worth saving. Blood substitutes are not always available and even when they are they are often just not going to work. It depends on why you need a blood transfusion. Progress is being made in this field but its no where near there yet and giving blood saves lives and actually helps people.

My brother has given you adequate medical information on the subject and so have I. Again, you don't listen very well, do you? How is it possible to have a conversation with someone who doesn't want to hear anything said against their own position. Try listening.

What people are told, and what is true, can be two very different things. The whole medical "industry" is just that. It is focused on making money and the cost of medical treatment is proof that the greed in this industry knows no bounds. Blood is a multi-million dollar a year business.....so who is going to allow a high risk of "morbidity and mortality" to stand in the way of profit?

All of this while hundreds of other religions read the same text and base their beliefs on the same scriptures but all came up with completely different answers often in direct conflict with each other.

Could it perhaps be the reason why "few" are on the road to life?....and why Jesus rejects "many" who call him "Lord" but who seen as "lawless" and not recognized by him as his disciples? (Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:21-23) God's laws don't have escape clauses.

We were once widely criticised for our refusal of blood in decades past....but not any more. As we have shown you, the data is now available to prove that our position, based solely on the Bible, was correct all along. Any doctor who routinely recommends blood transfusions because he always has, is not a doctor who has kept up with the latest findings, medical education and alternative strategies. Do you want your life in the hands of someone like that?....someone else who doesn't listen?

On the plus side you can still drink coffee I guess.

I drink tea too. I can't find a prohibition on either of those.

 

[nPeace]

Bloodcenters is Vitalant and they want you to donate blood. It saves lives. Yes it has risks but sometimes getting a blood transfusion is the only thing that will save your life.

Sometimes? When would that be may I ask?

Sometimes you can use blood alternatives, but if you or someone you love needs a blood transfusion and there are no other options are you going to refuse because of the way some minority religious group interprets a few verses in a bible written thousands of years ago or trust your doctors and hospitals?

When do we need a blood transfusion, and there are no other options?

Did you notice the article I linked, what was said?
Because of Mr. Greens low hemoglobin level, the trauma surgeons didn't want to operate. Consequently, his bleeding was never adequately controlled. Numerous phlebotomies to obtain specimens for blood work further depleted his blood supply Ultimately, only clear greenish serum could be drawn: His hemoglobin level was so low (0.8 grams/dL) that his blood was no longer red.

Mr. Green was our patient in 1997. Looking back, we realized that some standard nursing care provided to him was counterproductive, even harmful. For example, he was turned regularly, no one realizing that this would disturb clots that had formed to halt bleeding. His level of arousal was also checked frequently, fueling a need for oxygen that couldn't be met by his reduced hemoglobin level. Within a few hours,Mr. Green died.

In his case it set off a chain of events in our facility that resulted in a Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Program (BMSP). The program wasn't costly or difficult to implement, and it's been successfully used to treat all kinds of patients, including those with traumatic injuries. In this article, we'll tell you how we did it.

......
Everyone wins
In our experience, addressing the right of the patient to refuse blood transfusions has had many benefits. Clinical outcomes are improved because we have a program in place to provide alternatives to transfusion. The program also helps protect hospital and staff from legal lability connected to nonconsensual treatment. And even patients who don't refuse transfusions benefit because they feel more confident about their care knowing that the hospital is committed to a policy of blood conservation. The BMSP truly has been a "win-win" situation for patients and staff alike.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ha, YOU are the one trying these tactics of avoidance by constantly bringing in things that have nothing to do with the discussion about:
" ALL religions are man made and designed to insert themselves in between man mad God, so that they look to MAN for spiritual answers, but they have NO true spiritual answers to give, they only want control over others, self-aggrandizement, and $$$$, LOTS of $$$$."
Matthew 24:25-34
Now pat strict attention to these statements:
"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

I wonder what your high school English teachers would say about the verses.
Because both Matthew Chapter 24 and Luke chapter 21 have a 'minor' and a 'MAJOR' fulfillment.
The first or 'minor' fulfillment came in the generation of the year 70 when un-faithful Jerusalem was destroyed.
Jesus was addressing those first-century people in that initial fulfillment.
The second or 'MAJOR' fulfillment is for our day or time frame.
The 'great tribulation' of Revelation 7:14 did Not happen in the first century.
Plus, Matthew 24:27 has to do with the future time mentioned at Mark 13:24-27.
Not the tribulation of the year 70, but the coming 'great tribulation' of Revelation 7:14.
The limited fulfillment in the year 70 was Not such as was Not since the beginning of the world.....- Matt. 24:21.

Those standing there saw the transfiguration VISION - Matthew 17:9
Please notice the word VISION, and I wonder what your high school English teachers would say.

The religion of Jesus as found at Matthew 10:8 ( receive free / give free ) has No $$$$$ attached.
I wonder what your high school English teachers would conclude from that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ha. ha. ha...
The whole Christian brainwashing system is based upon a super heavy duty of FEAR mongering.
So prove me "wrong", if they didn't brainwash FEAR into you, then just walk away and quit being a Christian and join some other mythology. Since you just claimed you have nothing to FEAR, go ahead and quit Christianity. Nothing fearful will happen, right?

I recall there is an old adage that says he who laughs last (ha,ha,ha...)........
Please explain what is heavy-duty fear of being brought back to life ( resurrection )_________
Right, nothing fearful will happen to anyone, whether a Christian or a non-Christian at death.
No post-mortem penalty, No double jeopardy.
False clergy (Not genuine Christians) falsely teach that a person has red-hot fire to fear at death.
Scripture teaches, Not fear but sleep, unconscious sleep in death. No pain in sleep.
- Lullaby and good night.... Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes? When would that be may I ask?


When do we need a blood transfusion, and there are no other options?

Did you notice the article I linked, what was said?
Because of Mr. Greens low hemoglobin level, the trauma surgeons didn't want to operate. Consequently, his bleeding was never adequately controlled. Numerous phlebotomies to obtain specimens for blood work further depleted his blood supply Ultimately, only clear greenish serum could be drawn: His hemoglobin level was so low (0.8 grams/dL) that his blood was no longer red.

Mr. Green was our patient in 1997. Looking back, we realized that some standard nursing care provided to him was counterproductive, even harmful. For example, he was turned regularly, no one realizing that this would disturb clots that had formed to halt bleeding. His level of arousal was also checked frequently, fueling a need for oxygen that couldn't be met by his reduced hemoglobin level. Within a few hours,Mr. Green died.

In his case it set off a chain of events in our facility that resulted in a Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Program (BMSP). The program wasn't costly or difficult to implement, and it's been successfully used to treat all kinds of patients, including those with traumatic injuries. In this article, we'll tell you how we did it.

......
Everyone wins
In our experience, addressing the right of the patient to refuse blood transfusions has had many benefits. Clinical outcomes are improved because we have a program in place to provide alternatives to transfusion. The program also helps protect hospital and staff from legal lability connected to nonconsensual treatment. And even patients who don't refuse transfusions benefit because they feel more confident about their care knowing that the hospital is committed to a policy of blood conservation. The BMSP truly has been a "win-win" situation for patients and staff alike.

That is only the case of one man that probably doomed himself by demanding bloodless surgery. Now he may have survived with the new protocols, but that in no way means he would have survived it.

One of the reasons that blood transfusions are associated with higher rates of death is because they do not use this method except in cases that are very severe. You could have argued for limiting blood transfusions. Like any medical procedure there usually are ways that the use of it can be used more effectively, but you cannot support your outright ban of blood transfusions.

You probably read this article but misunderstood it. In Australia JW's became self appointed Guinea Pigs in a medical study. There were benefits in some cases of avoiding transfusion, but I am sure that quite a few JW's died that did not need to by refusing transfusions;

Why experts are rethinking blood transfusions - Health & Wellbeing



It is hard to estimate the number that die every year from refusing blood transfusions. It is similar to counting how many lives are saved from seatbelts. This article has a broken link that claims on the order of 900 a year roughly 20 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Jeho...y-year-because-they-refuse-blood-transfusions

A couple of factors would change that today. More JW's would mean more potential chances. But if car accident injuries are a major cause improved car safety would have reduced that number. And the fact that there are JW's that demand bloodless surgery has improved the doctors' knowledge of those techniques have probably lowered that number. But the fact is that many JW's still die needlessly each year due to a poor interpretation of the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Ouch ! I have a dyslexic friend ( who a grade school teacher called stupid )
Before college, that dyslexic friend graduated high school with a partial scholarship. Shows what some teachers know.
To this day that dyslexic friend can't spell as most can, but that life-long friend's misspelling of words is due to No lack of normal intelligence. What I want to say is that we should Not judge or impute something is wrong over spelling.
Like my friend, I think it would take courage to write or post something knowing there will be typo's.
As far as nonsensical diatribe, well that can be another matter.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Gotta get that GREAT patience in me.

At a time when I needed more than usual patience (GREAT) I noticed my long-time friend was silent.
I kept on hoping for a response although I did Not want to ask for one.
Finally, I got the advice that I so needed. That dyslexic friend finally turned to me and just said one word: "Job" !
Job as in meaning the man Job in the Bible book of Job.
So, we can remember to look to Job's example, or try to be like Job when under adverse circumstances.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Satan is not the same as Lucifer. Satan is the devil Lucifer is a angel. In fact, Satan is destruction itself and Jesus can withstand him without fighting.

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.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I recall there is an old adage that says he who laughs last (ha,ha,ha...)........
Please explain what is heavy-duty fear of being brought back to life ( resurrection )_________
Right, nothing fearful will happen to anyone, whether a Christian or a non-Christian at death.
No post-mortem penalty, No double jeopardy.
False clergy (Not genuine Christians) falsely teach that a person has red-hot fire to fear at death.
Scripture teaches, Not fear but sleep, unconscious sleep in death. No pain in sleep.
- Lullaby and good night.... Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14.

Nice word dance of avoidance to DIRECTLY answer my question.

So here, wanna try again:

"The whole Christian brainwashing system is based upon a super heavy duty of FEAR mongering.
So prove me "wrong", if they didn't brainwash FEAR into you, then just walk away and quit being a Christian and join some other mythology. Since you just claimed you have nothing to FEAR, go ahead and quit Christianity. Nothing fearful will happen, right?"

 

[Thief]

What was His purpose in putting the tree there in the first place? What would have happened had Adam and Eve never eaten the forbidden fruit?

It was a test......

Man needs to be that creature ....curious
even if death is pending

we passed the test

had Eve and Adam failed to partake.....the indication....

no one after them would seek a spiritual life

and all that did follow would need immediate attention.....hand to mouth
as did Adam and Eve
and that kind of following goes as far as the grave

 

[Ancient Soul]

I wonder what your high school English teachers would say about the verses.
Because both Matthew Chapter 24 and Luke chapter 21 have a 'minor' and a 'MAJOR' fulfillment.
The first or 'minor' fulfillment came in the generation of the year 70 when un-faithful Jerusalem was destroyed.
Jesus was addressing those first-century people in that initial fulfillment.
The second or 'MAJOR' fulfillment is for our day or time frame.
The 'great tribulation' of Revelation 7:14 did Not happen in the first century.
Plus, Matthew 24:27 has to do with the future time mentioned at Mark 13:24-27.
Not the tribulation of the year 70, but the coming 'great tribulation' of Revelation 7:14.
The limited fulfillment in the year 70 was Not such as was Not since the beginning of the world.....- Matt. 24:21.

Those standing there saw the transfiguration VISION - Matthew 17:9
Please notice the word VISION, and I wonder what your high school English teachers would say.

The religion of Jesus as found at Matthew 10:8 ( receive free / give free ) has No $$$$$ attached.
I wonder what your high school English teachers would conclude from that.

What?

I find it sad that you think quoting from a book of mythology in any way "refutes" my statement of:

" ALL religions are man made and designed to insert themselves in between man mad God, so that they look to MAN for spiritual answers, but they have NO true spiritual answers to give, they only want control over others, self-aggrandizement, and $$$$, LOTS of $$$$."

 

[nPeace]

That is only the case of one man that probably doomed himself by demanding bloodless surgery. Now he may have survived with the new protocols, but that in no way means he would have survived it.

One of the reasons that blood transfusions are associated with higher rates of death is because they do not use this method except in cases that are very severe. You could have argued for limiting blood transfusions. Like any medical procedure there usually are ways that the use of it can be used more effectively, but you cannot support your outright ban of blood transfusions.

You probably read this article but misunderstood it. In Australia JW's became self appointed Guinea Pigs in a medical study. There were benefits in some cases of avoiding transfusion, but I am sure that quite a few JW's died that did not need to by refusing transfusions;

Why experts are rethinking blood transfusions - Health & Wellbeing



It is hard to estimate the number that die every year from refusing blood transfusions. It is similar to counting how many lives are saved from seatbelts. This article has a broken link that claims on the order of 900 a year roughly 20 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Jeho...y-year-because-they-refuse-blood-transfusions

A couple of factors would change that today. More JW's would mean more potential chances. But if car accident injuries are a major cause improved car safety would have reduced that number. And the fact that there are JW's that demand bloodless surgery has improved the doctors' knowledge of those techniques have probably lowered that number. But the fact is that many JW's still die needlessly each year due to a poor interpretation of the Bible.

It is obvious, I am not the one who doesn't understand the article.

Because of Mr. Greens low hemoglobin level, the trauma surgeons didn't want to operate. Consequently, his bleeding was never adequately controlled. Numerous phlebotomies to obtain specimens for blood work further depleted his blood supply Ultimately, only clear greenish serum could be drawn: His hemoglobin level was so low (0.8 grams/dL) that his blood was no longer red.

Mr. Green was our patient in 1997. Looking back, we realized that some standard nursing care provided to him was counterproductive, even harmful. For example, he was turned regularly, no one realizing that this would disturb clots that had formed to halt bleeding. His level of arousal was also checked frequently, fueling a need for oxygen that couldn't be met by his reduced hemoglobin level. Within a few hours,Mr. Green died.

Everyone wins
In our experience, addressing the right of the patient to refuse blood transfusions has had many benefits. Clinical outcomes are improved because we have a program in place to provide alternatives to transfusion. The program also helps protect hospital and staff from legal lability connected to nonconsensual treatment.

Here is a bit more, in case you just skimmed the material.

Why would a patient refuse a transfusion?
Jehovah's Witnesses base their refusal of blood transfusions their interpretation of several Bible passages that they believe prohibit blood transfusions. However, decisions about some types of treatment are left to the individual. For example, some Jehovah's Witnesses accept minor blood fractions (such as albumin) and auto transfusion.

Not all patients refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. For example, many are afraid of blood borne infection, such as HIV/AIDS or hepatitis, or transfusion reactions. Banking units of their own blood before major planned surgery is an option for these patients. However, it isn't an option for Jehovah's Witnesses.

Other people strongly object to blood transfusions for personal reasons. For example, they may have heard of someone who had a bad experience with a transfusion, or they may simply feel squeamish about having another per-son's blood put into their veins.

People who object to transfusion because of fears or squeamishness may change their mind with education about the safety of the blood supply and the possible benefits of transfusion. Address the patient's misconceptions without bias, providing education,not coercion. Give the patient information on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment and let him make his own decision.

They added the last paragraph for people who are unaware of the truth. When someone tells you there are benefits to blood transfusions, you should ask, what are those benefits.

The bottom line: Most deaths occur because of negligence, and a refusal to "get with the program".
If JWs were to refuse certain advances in scientific breakthroughs, they would not hear the last of it, but because JWs were instrumental in this advanced medical understanding, it is a problem to people.

I see hypocrisy in both the medical and public bias.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Adam and Eve transgressed eating the fruit, meaning that they were very innocent but still sinned. Eating the fruit wasn't really the bad thing. What was bad would be that Lucifer would act on them and their children from then on to try to thwart God's plan. Lucifer wanted us to have the knowledge of good and evil..................

I agree the eating of the fruit in itself was Not what was really a bad thing, but breaking the 'do-not-eat' Law was.
The fruit was Not poison, but by God saying 'do not eat...' was as if God put up a no-trespassing sign on His tree.
To me, Adam and Eve 'did' know what the ' evil ' was because God defined that ' evil ' as 'death' to Adam.
You eat, You die. Dying was the evil/bad.
Adam easily had the knowledge (education) about what death was, simply by stepping on a bug.
So, Satan and Adam threw a monkey wrench into God's purpose, but that monkey wrench is temporary.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I mean, when someone thinks "God" is a 2,000 year old dead guy, well, that alone isn't rational.

I don't know of anyone ( rational or not ) who thinks a 2,000-year old dead guy is "God".

 

[nPeace]

That is only the case of one man that probably doomed himself by demanding bloodless surgery. Now he may have survived with the new protocols, but that in no way means he would have survived it.

One of the reasons that blood transfusions are associated with higher rates of death is because they do not use this method except in cases that are very severe. You could have argued for limiting blood transfusions. Like any medical procedure there usually are ways that the use of it can be used more effectively, but you cannot support your outright ban of blood transfusions.

You probably read this article but misunderstood it. In Australia JW's became self appointed Guinea Pigs in a medical study. There were benefits in some cases of avoiding transfusion, but I am sure that quite a few JW's died that did not need to by refusing transfusions;

Why experts are rethinking blood transfusions - Health & Wellbeing



It is hard to estimate the number that die every year from refusing blood transfusions. It is similar to counting how many lives are saved from seatbelts. This article has a broken link that claims on the order of 900 a year roughly 20 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Jeho...y-year-because-they-refuse-blood-transfusions

A couple of factors would change that today. More JW's would mean more potential chances. But if car accident injuries are a major cause improved car safety would have reduced that number. And the fact that there are JW's that demand bloodless surgery has improved the doctors' knowledge of those techniques have probably lowered that number. But the fact is that many JW's still die needlessly each year due to a poor interpretation of the Bible.

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?

 

[Ancient Soul]

No, i dont run away from ACTUAL debating. I just set rules that you must not mock me. DO THAT, THEN ill debate you.

You must agree with MY TERMS BEFORE debating. These terms are, NO MOCKING. No ad hominum attacks. Address every point, every counter argument and ANSWER every single one of my questions.

Those are my terms. Do you agree with these terms? Yes or no? If yes, then we may presume the debate. If no, then go find someone else to debate with. Someone that has more nerves to put up with being mocked constantly.

Because, look man, debating, researching takes ENOUGH work in itself, why should i have to do more work by putting up with being mocked through this process? Show some respect for the fact that im willing to do this tedious work with you in debating and going through the research, point by point.

If you cant do this, then your not a worthy debate opponent for me. You still have value as a fellow human being, but as fare as a debate opponent goes, your worth is nothing.

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...

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...

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is obvious, I am not the one who doesn't understand the article.

Because of Mr. Greens low hemoglobin level, the trauma surgeons didn't want to operate. Consequently, his bleeding was never adequately controlled. Numerous phlebotomies to obtain specimens for blood work further depleted his blood supply Ultimately, only clear greenish serum could be drawn: His hemoglobin level was so low (0.8 grams/dL) that his blood was no longer red.

Mr. Green was our patient in 1997. Looking back, we realized that some standard nursing care provided to him was counterproductive, even harmful. For example, he was turned regularly, no one realizing that this would disturb clots that had formed to halt bleeding. His level of arousal was also checked frequently, fueling a need for oxygen that couldn't be met by his reduced hemoglobin level. Within a few hours,Mr. Green died.

Everyone wins
In our experience, addressing the right of the patient to refuse blood transfusions has had many benefits. Clinical outcomes are improved because we have a program in place to provide alternatives to transfusion. The program also helps protect hospital and staff from legal lability connected to nonconsensual treatment.

Here is a bit more, in case you just skimmed the material.

Why would a patient refuse a transfusion?
Jehovah's Witnesses base their refusal of blood transfusions their interpretation of several Bible passages that they believe prohibit blood transfusions. However, decisions about some types of treatment are left to the individual. For example, some Jehovah's Witnesses accept minor blood fractions (such as albumin) and auto transfusion.

Not all patients refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. For example, many are afraid of blood borne infection, such as HIV/AIDS or hepatitis, or transfusion reactions. Banking units of their own blood before major planned surgery is an option for these patients. However, it isn't an option for Jehovah's Witnesses.

Other people strongly object to blood transfusions for personal reasons. For example, they may have heard of someone who had a bad experience with a transfusion, or they may simply feel squeamish about having another per-son's blood put into their veins.

People who object to transfusion because of fears or squeamishness may change their mind with education about the safety of the blood supply and the possible benefits of transfusion. Address the patient's misconceptions without bias, providing education,not coercion. Give the patient information on the risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment and let him make his own decision.

They added the last paragraph for people who are unaware of the truth. When someone tells you there are benefits to blood transfusions, you should ask, what are those benefits.

The bottom line: Most deaths occur because of negligence, and a refusal to "get with the program".
If JWs were to refuse certain advances in scientific breakthroughs, they would not hear the last of it, but because JWs were instrumental in this advanced medical understanding, it is a problem to people.

I see hypocrisy in both the medical and public bias.

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.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I don't know of anyone ( rational or not ) who thinks a 2,000-year old dead guy is "God".

Where have you been hiding?

That's what ALL Christians believe. Oops, ALMOST all. Actually the original myth is that Jesus is the SON of their "god', which is only a little less delusional.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, but of course theists tend to be dishonest when they trap themselves.

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.

I wanted a clear statement.

"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.

Your constant running away from doing so only supported my claim.

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.

I made it clear that 'contact's was not good enough.

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.

Forget the excuses.

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

Of course you believe in special punishment and reward.

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

You are contradicting yourself again.

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

You said and immediately forgot that you are a Christian.

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.

 

[Axe Elf]

Ouch ! I have a dyslexic friend ( who a grade school teacher called stupid )
Before college, that dyslexic friend graduated high school with a partial scholarship. Shows what some teachers know.
To this day that dyslexic friend can't spell as most can, but that life-long friend's misspelling of words is due to No lack of normal intelligence. What I want to say is that we should Not judge or impute something is wrong over spelling.
Like my friend, I think it would take courage to write or post something knowing there will be typo's.
As far as nonsensical diatribe, well that can be another matter.

I'm a paranoid dyslexic. I always think I'm following someone.