Tristen

Proverbs 16:28
A perverse man sows strife, And a whisperer separates the best of friends.

1 Timothy 5:13
And besides they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not.

1 Thessalonians 4:11
that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you,

Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

Matthew 15:11
Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

On 5/6/2024 at 2:23 PM, Kristina said:

I'm asking these questions as about seven or eight years ago, a man came to me claiming he was a prophet sent from God and I received a foot washing and almost immediately was given the gift of speaking in tongues. Was this man really a prophet of God...

Hi Kristina,

I tend not to place too much emphasis on such labels (Apostles/Prophets) - especially when they are self-proclaimed. 

Proverbs 27:2
Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth;
A stranger, and not your own lips.

What matters is that God used this person to bless you with a gift. The gift is from God, not the "man".

No human should be placed on a pedestal above others - as if they have more authority than any other minister. If this "man" has a gift of prophecy, it is exclusively by the grace of God. In Biblical Christianity, there are no Christians who are more special than other Christians (i.e. no 'Saints' in the Roman Catholic sense).

All spiritual communications, including the words of this "man", are accountable to be tested against the authority of scripture - the same as the words of any other minister. Furthermore, we Christians each have the Holy Spirit to guide us in peace concerning spiritual communications (1 John 2:20, Colossians 3:15).

My advice would be to avoid getting hung-up on labels, and to set your eyes on the Giver of gifts.

13 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Hamas launched a horrific attack on Oct 7, 2023, killing 1,139 people. Israel has responded and so far the death count is 34,600.

You have chosen to believe the unconfirmable, statistically disputed, Hamas controlled Ministry of Health figures? If you are truly that susceptible to propaganda, there is little chance of a reasoned discussion.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers

How is it that people still don’t understand the Hamas playbook – i.e. cause trouble to instigate an Israeli response, then cry victim when Israel responds?

Israel claims to have killed around 15,000 Hamas combatants. Therefore, if we believe both numbers, that is a little over 1 non-combatant for every combatant killed. While the death of any non-combatant is regretful, this is remarkably low ratio for an urbane warfare setting.

The elected government of Gaza committed such heinous atrocities against the local superpower – in such a manner as was bound to provoke a war. Then, those who committed the atrocities hide themselves in and around their own non-combatant civilians. But now they want to have a cry about their casualty numbers? How many times does Hamas get to play this same game before the world wakes up to the fact that we are being played (and not even in a sophisticated way)?

Even if you believe the Hamas figures (which is so frustratingly naïve), there is no rule of war that a nation’s response to unprovoked attack must be “proportional” to the initial attack. A nation state is obligated to protect its own citizens. If that means hunting down its aggressors hiding amidst their own civilians – then so be it.

That is – the numbers don’t matter. When your nation attacks another nation, the attacked nation is obligated to do everything in its power to destroy the capacity of the attackers to pose any further risk to its citizens. That is what I would expect from my nation. The idea that only Israel should be limited in its capacity to protect its people is absurd – and demonstrates a pathetically overt bias. If you don’t want to get maimed, you don’t ‘poke the bear’.

The slaughter of Israel’s citizens by Gazans was ‘in cold blood’. The deaths of non-combatant Gazans by Israeli forces are collateral damage. That is, armed cowards from Gaza hunted unarmed, defenseless Jews, to commit en-masse, atrocities against them. Whereas the Israeli defense forces have strict rules of engagement designed specifically to mitigate civilian loss. One side specifically targets the unarmed while the other side specifically targets the armed. Any attempt to generate a comparison between the victims of each group is logically specious and intellectually compromised (a.k.a. blind to reality).

8 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if one nations limits the water supply to a community, to the point where they are technically lacking in basic water needs, does that not create animosity?

But if you are not prepared to negotiate for your needs, and subsequently throw an intifada tantrum whenever you don't get your own way, then you are at-least as responsible for the outcomes of your people.

Besides, it would be disingenuous/ignorant to suggest the "animosity" started when Israel got control of the water.

Furthermore, Hamas in Gaza has received billions in international aid. Perhaps they could have diverted some of that tunnel/rocket money to making Gaza water-independent (i.e. maybe use the aid money for the people it was intended to help - especially given that the Gazan population has near-doubled under Hamas' tenure).

8 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

About 90 percent of Gaza's water supply comes from the Coastal Aquifer Basin, which runs along the eastern Mediterranean coast from Egypt through Gaza and into Israel. However, the water is brackish and contaminated due to seawater intrusion, overextraction, and sewage and chemical infiltration.

 

Have you considered the possibility that this ban was to protect their people from pollution and major health issues?

You are making up excuses.

The pretext for the ban on digging wells was to combat the decline in groundwater levels.

https://jfjfp.com/gazans-fear-worst-after-hamas-bans-water-wells/

11 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Agreed!  I just didn't want to make it sound like Israel has never done anything sideways . . .

I agree. In the interest of objectivity, it is important that we honestly acknowledge Israel's shortcomings.

But it is also important that we honestly consider the broader context of the conflict. The secular mainstream paints the issue as overwhelmingly Israel's fault. Israel is their big, bad oppressor that is victimizing the poor innocent "Palestinian" civilians. That narrative is the opposite of what is demonstrably true. 

Therefore, in the context of such a one-sided, mainstream, deceitful narrative, we should be cautious when pointing out Israel's flaws - that we don't give the false impression of equivalent accountability.

10 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Great summary!  The makings of a grand conundrum . . .  Any ideas what the solution might look like?

Lol!

My prediction is that the spiritually blinded world will continue to align itself against Israel - and then God will ultimately intervene on Israel's behalf.

On 5/3/2024 at 6:38 AM, Vine Abider said:

From my understanding, in 1948 Israelis and Arabs (aka Palestinians) were each invited to form their own nations.  Israel did so, and also invited any Arabs within their borders to be part of their country.  But the Arabs didn't form a nation, as they were offered, and then immediately attacked the Jews.  Is that accurate?

I'd say it's slightly more nuanced than your summary. I think the important 'highlights' are as follows:

- The British were given official stewardship of "The Palestinian Territory" in July 1920.

- Approaching this period of British mandate, as the result of Jewish immigration, the Arabs had become increasingly concerned and violent because of the changing demographics.

- The British solution to the conflict was a partition plan (Peel Commision 1937) that separated Jews from Arabs (with a stretch in between remaining under the control of Britain). The Jews didn't really give a universal, united response to this plan. The Arabs increased their violence in the land as a universal rejection of this plan.

- After WWII, Jews also became increasingly desperate and violent - due to displaced Jews now needing a place to go. Jews therefore also became violent against the British for limiting immigration to the land.

- In 1947, Britain asked the newly-formed UN to help provide a solution. The UN resolution for a two-state solution passed. Jews celebrated and Arabs increased their attacks on Jews.

- On the final day of the British Mandate (Friday, May 14th, 1948), Israel declared Independence at 4PM. Egyptian bombs fell on Tel Aviv around 4 hours later. The military forces of the surrounding Arab states mobilized against Israel the following day - starting a war that would last two years.

On 5/3/2024 at 6:51 AM, luigi said:

OK, I see what you are saying. I guess it's just Wikipedia and those thousands of other sites describing the Nakba where Israel evicted the Palestinians from what is currently Israel, have got it all wrong. 

Correct.

There are two narratives surrounding the "Nakba". There are many resources espousing the virtues of each narrative. The mainstream has adopted the narrative that incorrectly attributes Arab migration exclusively Israeli military intimidation.

In this thread, you have also been a proponent of this false narrative.

On 5/1/2024 at 5:02 AM, Vine Abider said:

But I think it would be remise not to mention that there were things Israeli extremists did, as it goes to the root of much of what Muslims bring up.  I think we need need to have our eyes wide open nonetheless

I think that is perfectly reasonable.

However, as someone with no 'skin in the game', who has followed the conflict for decades and studied the history of the region (including prior to my Christian conversion), I would struggle to come up with 10 instances of the Israel side acting in an egregious, unprovoked, atrocious manner. To be conservative, let's say I missed some - and the true number is closer to 20 or 30. There are, by contrast (and without exaggeration or hyperbole), literally thousands of documented occasions when the Arab side has committed atrocities against Israel. That is, if you list and count them, there have been more attacks against Israel than days past since Israel's declaration of independence over 70 years ago.

I understand (and respect) the inclination to want to hear both sides of the conflict. But I can only do so much when the facts tell an overwhelmingly one-sided story, and the mainstream adopts and promotes a false narrative to make the opposite seem true.

How many times can the supposedly 'victimized' side of a conflict choose violence over negotiations - before we can start to question their good faith in the negotiation process? Not-to-mention the regional Arab's oft-stated, unequivocal, unhidden, uncompromising goal to snuff out the existence of Israel.

On 4/30/2024 at 11:17 PM, Eman_3 said:

Is it wise to appeal to the figurehead of a death cult?

 

Soon after Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, in June 1967, the Israeli military authorities consolidated complete power over all water resources and water-related infrastructure in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). 50 years on, Israel continues to control and restrict Palestinian access to water in the OPT to a level which neither meets their needs nor constitutes a fair distribution of shared water resources.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/

This policy was enacted in 1967 and is still practiced.

With regards to the West Bank:

In 1967, after the six day war (in which Israel was attacked by most of its neighbors), Israel gained control of the water supply and, unsurprisingly, favored distribution to its own civilians. Even so, for subsequent decades, the West Bank were also receiving ample water supplies for their needs from Israel (which Israel was not obligated to supply to its enemies – whose consistent stated goal is to annihilate Israel). However, since then, the needs of both Israel proper and the West Bank have increased beyond sustainability.

Currently, Israel gets most of its water through desalination. Furthermore, all of Israel’s attempts to negotiate water supplies into the West Bank have been stymied by “Palestinian” rejections. For example, in 2004, Israel proposed to build a desalination plant to increase freshwater supplies to the West Bank. The proposal was rejected by the Palestinian Authority. Negotiations over water have been on-and-off depending on the state of the conflict. It is therefore disingenuous, (and simplistic and/or uninformed) to paint this as simply Israel being the big bad meanies regarding this aspect of the conflict. Negotiations have been attempted, but it makes life difficult when you have to periodically dodge an intifada (i.e. when everyone stops talking to each other for years at a time).

Regarding Gaza:

If only there had been a government in Gaza since 2005, receiving billions of dollars annually in international aid; i.e. a government which could have used that money to secure its own electricity and water supplies.

Are you aware that in 2015, Hamas forbade their people from digging wells to get fresh water?

Gaza is essentially a mini-state, under the control of an elected terrorist organization. When a state goes to war with another state, there is no reasonable obligation on the attacked state to provide their attackers with resources.

I would therefore suggest that this example is a false equivalency - i.e. when compared against the consistent violent aggression against Israel; the constant threat to civilian lives; the thousands of rocket attacks, terrorist attacks (bombings, stabbings, shootings of Israeli Jews) and acts of war committed against Israel in the name of those explicitly seeking Israel’s extinction (not to mention the recent slaughter and kidnap of innocent Jews).

The current state of affairs is:

Israel gained control of the water supplies in Israel in 1967. Israel cannot sensibly give over control of the water supply (with the potential to compromise Israel’s access to water) to terrorist-inclined parties seeking Israel’s demise. Arabs in the West Bank consider accepting charitable solutions from Israel to be potentially compromising to their own claims over the water supply (a cynic might be inclined to assume the Arabs also gain political momentum from showing the sorrowful state of their people). Therefore, a solution needs to be negotiated – which is hard to do when no one is talking to each other.

Perhaps Israel could have been more charitable with regards to supplying more water to their enemies. It’s not an ideal situation. But it’s also not as black and white as your post implies.

On 5/1/2024 at 9:18 PM, luigi said:

Do your own research, and stop coming to me with lies, how the formation of Israel in 1948 did not come about by evicting the Palestinian peoples, commonly known as Nakba. Below is a Wikipedia site (one of thousands of sites) on the Nakba expulsion of Palestinians from what is now the nation of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight

The true story of "Nakba".

1- Israel peacefully declared independence. That is, there was no initiation of violence on Israel's part against Arabs directly associated with Israel's declaration of independence.

2- Shortly after Israel's declaration, Arab forces commenced terrorist and military actions against Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel. Many Arabs fled this heated conflict (i.e. the conflict started by the Arab forces).

3- Israel's policy was that Israel was happy for peaceful Arabs to remain in Israel (as many do to this day).

4- Several atrocities were committed by the newly-formed, unprofessional Israel forces (i.e. against the policy of the state). Hearing of these atrocities likely prompted more Arabs to flee the conflict zone.

5- The word "Nakba" (catastrophe) was first used in relation to this conflict by an Arab academic (Constantine Zurayk). The word "Nakba" had been previously used to describe the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Zurayk used the term to criticize the catastrophic military failure of the Arab forces in Israel. That is, "Nakba" was originally intended to slander the Arab forces for the outcomes of the conflict, not Israel. This was the understood meaning of "Nakba" for decades after Israel's declaration of independence.

6- In 1988, the terrorist, Yasser Arafat, started promoting a revisionist meaning of "Nakba" - advancing the false narrative that Israel, unprovoked, drove poor, innocent, Arab civilians out of their homes as part of the process of establishing Israel's independence. This narrative is a "lie".

Nevertheless, this false narrative is the one that has captured the mainstream paradigm. And this is the false narrative you are promoting in your posts.

18 hours ago, luigi said:

Not only does your history of the formation of Israel in 1948 contradict the historical record

Which of my claims pertaining to "the formation of Israel in 1948" do you think historically inaccurate? I'm happy to provide evidence supporting everything I wrote.

18 hours ago, luigi said:

but your perspective also keeps everyone from seeing the Lords Word in its correct context

I didn't address this part of your argument. However, if your argument is based on a demonstrably incorrect premise, your conclusions will be highly questionable.

10 hours ago, luigi said:

logistically they then appear incapable of completing their intended task of killing the 2.3 million residents of Gaza

This is a disgusting and unsupported slur - a demonic lie.

Israel has long had access to weapons of mass destruction (namely, nuclear weapons). Israel has therefore long had the capacity to exterminate/genocide the Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank. They have selected to not do that despite their military capacity because that is not Israel's "intended task".

18 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

3. Extremist actions took place on both sides: The world is painfully aware of Muslim terrorist activity; However, atrocities/massacres were also carried out by Israeli extremists, pointedly so in 1948 (aka "Nakba Day" - or the catastrophe).

Israel has certainly behaved poorly in some rare instances. But you mainly have to go back 5-or-more decades to find these instances. And even then you find that almost all of these instances were, a) against state policy (e.g. local Jewish authorities being overly aggressive in contravention of the government mandates), and/or b) overwhelmingly (almost exclusively) in response to Arab-initiated aggression.

By contrast, Israel has had to endure constant (near daily) attacks for over seven decades. These have included shootings, stabbings, and bombings inside Israel, as well as rocket fire from Israel's Southern and Northern borders, as well as wars initiated by the Arab states surrounding Israel, as well as a United Nations that routinely condemns Israel for responding to terror, but not the terrorist aggressors.

My concern with the above quote (point 3) is that it could be perceived as spreading the accountability equally between Israel and its aggressors. That would be an astonishingly unjust misrepresentation of the history of the conflict. 

Neither side is completely innocent. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelmingly right side - who reserves the just right to defend its citizens, and an overtly evil side - that considers itself to have an Allah-given right to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians (and Jews in general, and westerners more broadly). 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

C14 is just one of many methods

C14 is an interesting side-case to the other "radioactive dating" methods. 

The starting assumptions in C14 dating are far more local, and variable, and therefore far less trustworthy.

However, in the short term (over a few thousand years), we sometimes have local artifacts of actual known ages - against which to calibrate this method.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

The comment about dating 50,000 years into the future seems a bit suspect

I too have seen many carbon dated items give 'ages' into the future. My examples have all been under 10,000 years. But my impression is that this is a common outcome. 

It is a shame that modern journals don't publish full data sets anymore. There is, unfortunately, a positive results bias across all of science publication. This means we no longer have access to the data needed to assess the method itself.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

I'm not sure how that is even possible

It is only "possible" if, a) one (or more) of the assumptions failed, or b) the sample was contaminated.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

Certainly sample collection is pretty important. I don't know the checks involved in determining whether contamination is present, but that would certainly be a reason to dismiss a sample data point.

Sure - but is it a testable "reason"?

It has become a very convenient rationalization to simply disregard disagreeable data as sample "contamination". And then, Whoa!!! - what are we left with but data sets in overwhelming agreement. Funny how that happens.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

We used it once on a copper project for timing of the mineralization event (Re-Os, I think it was). It dated to an appropriate period based on the known dates of the surround host rocks.

And therefore gets a big green tick.

And by "known dates", you mean "dates" previously established by other methods using the same set of unverifiable assumptions. But not "known" in the sense of observed rock formation. I only point this out to demonstrate that allegiance to the method forces you to apply biased assumptions and use exaggerated language.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:04 AM, teddyv said:

Yes, there are assumptions - good ones that have been consistently repeated over millions of times. 

Right - so that is the propaganda.

- Apart from an investigator determining that the generated 'age' "dated to an appropriate period", how do we know that an assumption is "good"?

- How do we distinguish between a "good" assumption and a false positive result?

- What do we do with the "millions" of data points generated by "radioactive methods" that fall outside of expectations (apart from simply not reporting them)?

- What do we do about the many examples of dating methods disagreeing with each other, or disagreeing with the fossils, or even disagreeing with themselves?

Regardless of how you answer the above questions, these inexorable components of the methods remain "assumptions" - i.e. unobserved, unverified, unverifiable elements which are a logical requirement of accepting supposed 'ages'. Therefore, regardless of how pompous the posturing and propaganda, no-one is rationally obligated to accept the methods as valid.

Sorry - a bit late to the party.

On 10/16/2023 at 5:57 PM, dad2 said:

this thread is to discuss radioactive dating on earth. Unless you can prove that the laws were the same, then we can use young earth dates and still match all the patterns of isotopes we see in the rocks.

I'd suggest that there are far greater problems with "radioactive dating" than the old earth assumption.

1- The logic of "radioactive dating" is compromised by a fundamental, necessary, irreducible reliance upon a slew of unverifiable assumptions (and yes - that includes isochron dating). If even a single one of those assumptions happens to be wrong, then any supposed "ages" generated by the methods are entirely meaningless.

2- There is already a lot of evidence that the assumptions are commonly false (e.g. by testing newly generated rock formations). In fact, older geological papers commonly use the failure of these assumptions to explain why their data didn't line up with expectations.

3- The common impression of generated 'ages' being in overwhelming agreement is a demonstrable lie. It is very easy to find examples of "ages" disagreeing with each other. Or 'ages' that are so far outside of expectation as to be automatically rejected. Or where the 'ages' are rejected because they disagreed with the assumed fossil 'ages'. I recently read an old paper that tested the same sample (a single zircon (rock crystal)) seven times using the same method, generating seven different 'ages' (with non-overlapping errors).

Furthermore, these methods really should be in agreement more often - because many of the methods have been calibrated against each other by, a) rejecting 'ages' that disagree with those 'ages' generated by more trusted methods (i.e. leaving only agreed 'ages'), and b) literally calibrating one method to the other (i.e. using two methods, then using the 'age' generated by one to establish the decay rate of the other method). This practice should generate a bias towards broad agreement between the methods - which is still not achieved (despite the propaganda).

Another bias is due to the detection limits of the equipment - meaning that the method chosen is determined by the expectation of the investigator. That is, only certain methods can be theoretically used for certain expected 'ages'. Therefore, it is common for investigators to only use methods they consider to be valid for the 'ages' they are expecting.

I therefore don't trust "radioactive dating" whatsoever. I'm sure they can generate a relative pattern - but nothing precise enough to produce anything resembling a trustworthy 'age'.

If someone is "offended" when you "politely decline the meal", then they are being unreasonable. 

There are many reasons a person may "politely decline the meal". Many people nowadays fast for non-spiritual reasons. Many are on restrictive diets. It may be because of diabetes, or lactose intolerance, or Chrones disorder etc. Some medications affect appetite. People have allergies. Maybe you are just not hungry - that is allowed. etc., etc.

There are so many valid reasons to "decline the meal". It is therefore absurd for the person offering the meal to assume offense.

I suppose you could say you are currently on a restrictive diet. If you feel so inclined, you could tell them your diet includes periods of fasting. They don't need to know why.

I think the Matthew verse is more about having the right attitude - that your fast is between you and God (and not anyone else's business)- as opposed to a legalistic prohibition on mentioning that you are fasting. That is, don't be like the religious leaders who would use fasting to play the self-righteous martyr - to show everyone how holy and pious they were. 

Could we not simply pray that the God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-5) would reveal Himself across Sudan to the Sudanese people?

Then, if God thinks Sudan needs missionaries, He can put it on the hearts of the missionaries. Or if God would prefer to use the Christians already in Sudan, He can give them boldness and power to spread His Gospel. Or God can protect His own people in Sudan, or remove them to safety etc. Or some combination of the above.

God is not "mad" at you.

Or do you really think you surprised God into an emotional reaction?

God knew exactly what He was getting with you - and He loved you anyway - with a love beyond comprehension. If your feelings tell you otherwise, then your feelings are lying to you. It is your responsibility to make a decision to trust what God's Word tells us, and to reject the lies of your feelings.

Forget about what other Christians appear to be doing. They either will go through, or already have gone through, an experience similar to yours. Your walk with God is your own.

And forget about striving to be anyone other than yourself. Stop comparing yourself to others. Just get to know God. Talk to Him about what is on your mind - honestly. Let Him speak to you through His Word, through sermons, through circumstances etc.. No pressure. 

Constant striving puts out the flame in many Christians. Fellowship with God is not a chore, but relationship. You talk when you have something to say, and God talks when He has something to say. Otherwise, you can simply enjoy each other's company. 

If you think you are too angry or lax, talk to God about it. God's kingdom is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". If you don't have that, ask God how to get hold of it. It's not supposed to be rocket surgery 😊 .

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Of course you can "honor God" - by treating her with love and acceptance, by being kind and patient with her, by being the closest thing to Jesus she will ever likely encounter besides Jesus Himself (ideally).

The child is now a reality - and loved by God.

There's no reason you have to stop being friendly towards her. 

We were all corrupted by sin - before we found His grace. This friend is no different. She, like many others, has been deceived into thinking her sexual proclivities are morally acceptable. 

With a baby on the way, she is about to go through some challenging times (as is true for all new parents). This is an opportunity to show Her the love of God. Pray for her, see if she has needs you can help meet, get other Christians around her if possible.

Only Jesus can give her righteousness. If you show her His love, perhaps He will use you to turn her heart towards Himself in repentance. If she asks, be honest about the truth - that God loves her overwhelmingly but is very clear regarding His disapproval of homosexuality. Then the choice will be hers as to what she does with that information. But otherwise, be Jesus to her as much as you have opportunity.

"Love never fails".

Revelation 20:2
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

It was certainly Satan.

My question is, 'Why are snakes are held accountable?'

Genesis 3:14
So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.

I may be overinterpreting this - but it seems like a curse on all snakes - which now travel on their bellies. So I wonder how the progenitor snake earned this curse.

Or maybe it only refers to Satan, and the biological snakes moving on their bellies is an ancillary coincidence.

You ask a question, but then "Oy vey" everyone who presumes to provide you with an answer from a perspective you disagree with.

Why waste time asking questions when you will refuse to consider the answers?

Never mind - I will "Oy vey" myself if I can - to save you the effort.

EDIT:

Oy vey!

Hey fp,

This question can be addressed from several angles.

- The term “repentance” simply refers to a change of direction. In the case of salvation, we turn towards serving God (in righteousness), and away from serving ourselves and the corrupted desires of our flesh. In confessing Christ as Lord, we make an active decision to enter into His process of sanctification – allowing the Holy Spirit to separate us (our behaviors) from the corrupted world. That is, even though we stumble, we always turn back to God (repent). That is the direction we have chosen to travel.

- Central to the concept of Christian repentance is the recognition that sin is bad – not just in some ethereal, abstract, theological sense, but literally bad for us. Sin destroys us. Sin is the lie that we are missing out on something if we behave with righteous self-control. Sin is corruption, and deceit, and bondage, and death. Sin is not good nor to be desired, but rather something we need to be saved from.

- By contrast, righteousness is health, and freedom, and peace, and joy. Righteousness means we are in control of our actions – rather than being dictated to by our flesh. Righteousness is the power to live the all-conquering life God prepared for us.

- The reason we need a Savior is that we are corrupted beyond the capacity to be righteous enough to save ourselves. Perfect righteousness is the standard. We have all fallen well short. There is therefore no super-moral act that could add righteousness to our account. Nothing we do can ever earn God’s favor. Our salvation comes entirely by trusting in the grace offered through the Gospel of Christ. Therefore, Christ alone is exclusively deserving of all glory - we cannot take any credit for our own salvation. Nothing we ever did, nor can do, can ever make us deserving.

- To receive that salvation, one must sincerely surrender ownership of their life to the lordship of Christ as a faith response to His Gospel. That decision infers that we are no longer our own masters, but He is our Master/Owner/Lord. In choosing to make Jesus our Lord, we are choosing to surrender our behaviors to Him – i.e. to do those things that are in our eternal best interest – i.e. to live the free, overcoming, all-conquering life He created for us to enjoy – i.e. to have dominion over our flesh, rather than be enslaved to its desires.

- Because He loved us and saved us, we love Him and desire to do the things that are pleasing to Him. Good behavior is a natural response to comprehending His salvation – and the love expressed through His sacrifice for us.

3 hours ago, Eli1 said:

Tristen I can see from your response that you’re more interested in word games and it also comes from your legalistic culture so it’s not your fault.

A lot of atheists use this language too so it’s understandable .

It is ironic that you posture yourself as intellectually superior, but at the same time ignore my arguments - choosing instead to resort to logic fallacy (Appeals to Motive and Innuendo) as well as patronizing rhetoric.

You have decided to be disingenuous in your responses. Therefore, I agree that further conversation with you would not be fruitful.

4 hours ago, Eli1 said:

I’ve done this sort of thing before

I have no doubt.

4 hours ago, Eli1 said:

with this mindset where people are stuck in text or definitions without any larger point or failing to apply definitions to themselves

And you choose to end on more logic fallacy; more Innuendo and Appeals to Motive.

My "larger point" was very clear - I claimed you made an unfair and unfounded generalization in an earlier comment. I called you out to justify your comment, and you decided to start dishonestly accusing me of nonsense (e.g. "political correctness").

So be it - you are not accountable to me.

1 hour ago, Eli1 said:

This is just a simple fact of life my friend

You have not established your claim in "fact" whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Eli1 said:

as a mature Christian you should be beyond political correctness at this point

My decision to check you on what I consider to be an unwise statement is not a legitimate example of "political correctness". Ironically, trying to belittle an opposing view by misrepresenting the person (e.g. insinuating that the person is acting immaturely by disagreeing with you) is an established strategy of the politically correct. The politically correct are those who try to control disagreeable speech. Furthermore, the politically correct tend to emphasize the differences between groups in order to generate divisions between them.

My point is the opposite of "political correctness". I did not claim myself to be "mature". I claimed that there is a spectrum of maturity across Christianity. And therefore, your insinuation that immaturity is a problem exclusive to "Protestants" is both unfounded, and unnecessarily divisive.

1 hour ago, Eli1 said:

Are other denominations confused?

It is also absurdly simplistic to treat "Protestants" as a singular, homogeneous group (or denomination).