The entire premise of the post (and English-descended Protestantism) is that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written simultaneously in English for an English speaking audience

at first I

but are you for real?

is there more emphasis on the i?

Yes! In Hebrew (and so I assume its relatives and ancestors), it's pronounced more as kayin (qaː.jiːn) than kane

My favorite part of that whole saga was the justification of their prophecy/perspective on cain resting on the sound of the name "cain" (as westerners pronounce it today) happening to be a homophone of the english "cane"

What shutdown? Do you mean the mass infection events that were constantly happening in bars through 2020 and 2021 followed by the liberal capitulation and peeling off of the already rarely followed public health advice?

is that map showing the entire noaa operating with only a single nexrad station?

 undefined

        do not return.


  

Now that was unnecessarily rude.

That was actually polite. You can tell because I didn't insult you or otherwise demean you. I simply stated that I hope the person who was mean to me for no reason doesn't come back to a community that they apparently only visited to attack:

It amazes me how much you lovers of God hate truth which is God (...) I know this about you people. Not just you but all of you. You don't listen to reason. You don't listen to logic. You're blind to the truth. God has to pull a bunny out of his hat to get you to acknowledge the truth. And it's so insulting. Because you have minds capable of rationalizing. But you don't rationalize. You're attached to your ways and your lies.

No lol they're questioning your claims that the words you posted originate not in your mind but in God's

what I already did

If you reread our conversation, you will see that if you have done this it was not explicit.

If explanation and correlation isn't good enough for you

I was literally asking for explanation. I hope you find somewhere else to spend time online and do not return.

lol we call them apex predators

they call themselves bear noises

So to be clear, when a stranger who stated their position of relative naivety on christian theory asked you to clarify your analysis on a combination of old and new testament material that you end with

"I should note that these insights come not from me but from God."

and doesn't find your answers direct enough to answer their extremely straightforward question and informs you of this, you have chosen to demean them rather than address the question.

Why are you being unnecessarily rude?

You want me to explain my explanation?

yes, because

God's not the kind of person who speaks without reason. What's recorded is what God wants us to know for a reason. Cain's punishment is to be a wanderer and a fugitive. But we don't see that happen in the story of Cain. We see Cain settle in the land of nod and he founded a city where his people went on to be pretty successful. But you know who was a wanderer and a fugitive? Moses.

was not enough for me

Have I given any indication that I'm speaking any other way?

You haven't explicitly indicated which way you're speaking in the first place so I don't know what the "other" way is defined against.

I didn't say anything to indicate that. I'm asking you to explain why you think Cain is Moses and if you are speaking literally when you say that.

I believe Cain is Moses and Moses and his wife to be, are the two witnesses (I can talk more about why the other witness is a woman in another post if you'd like). I also believe that Jesus and Abel are the same person.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but speaking as a Jew, what?

Are you mixing literal and symbolic interpretations in the same analysis? At least one of us is very confused.

Hope someone out there takes notes from my mistake.

You could be this person (I do not know what your notes or mistakes look like)

co2 levels are falling

they are? I didn't see it when I skimmed the article

Your logical incoherence is a violation of Rule 3 of c/badposting

the vegan society also says you should be vegan, and I see no reason to grant an exception to this

I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don't think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can't consent.

consent doesn't appear anywhere in the vegan society definition of veganism

even by implication?