MozarkMan

One of the most abused and misunderstood topics ever touched by the Messiah, and one that leads to all sorts of erroneous conclusions: Divorce x.com/i/grok/share/a…

Easy answer: The safety (both mentally and physically) of young, impressionable children. A mentally ill child ought to be undergoing treatment to disabuse them of their disordered mental state. They ought not be interacting independently and ornin close quarters with young children on a regular basis, until such time as they have willingly and earnestly accepted the reality of their bodies and the broader word around them.

Can someone please explain what exactly is to be gained by banning trans youth from scouting?

Oh, I am quite aware you lack humility and resort to childish antic whenever someone dares to contradict your theological edicts, you have made that clear in exchange after exchange. As for your push-back, per usual, you don't bother to cite your sources. Augustine: Clearest case of you needing to show some work here. Consensus (I know you like this) is that Augustine did indeed read Romans 1 as I presented. He certainly found female-female sex as sinful, but there was no indication that this stance was tied to Romans 1. There are however, several writings demonstrating his understanding of v26 being exactly as I presented: - On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book II), Chapter 35: newadvent.org/fathers/15072.… - Of the Good of Marriage, Chapters 11-12: newadvent.org/fathers/1309.h… Ambrosiaster: Here, you actually have a point. My initial searches returned his earlier commentaries (Recensions α), apparently in his later updates, he shifts to include the female-female sex angle. So my brief Google-fu was was not perfect... I guess that totally negates the underlying point/assertion... Just in case you cant grasp the sarcasm no, it does not in fact impact the underlying assertion. The entire list I provided was simply to satisfy your appeal to authority and popularity distractions, which it did. So whats next? Further shift the goalposts? More attempts to poison the well or hand-wave away dissent? Or just more childish insults and run away?

It's taken you this long to realize that I have zero respect for you and don't take your ridiculous position seriously? Also, I looked up what some of those early Christian interpreters you cited above have said about Romans 1, and you lied. Augustine and Ambrosiaster both explicitly read Romans 1:26 as condemning female-female sex. This wasn't difficult to verify, and the fact that you guys have no problem just blatantly lying to support your agenda is embarrassing and contributes to why nobody takes you seriously. Your biased approach to Scripture is indistinguishable from that of progressive "Christian" gay activists.

The author of Genesis implicitly condemns Abram’s polygamy by linking it to the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. For instance, Genesis 3:6 states that Eve “took” (לָקַח) the fruit and then “gave” (נָתַן) it to Adam, while Genesis 16:3 similarly states that Sarai “took” (לָקַח) her servant Hagar and “gave” (נָתַן) her to Abram. Additionally, Genesis 3:17 states that Adam “listened to the voice of” (שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל) Eve, while Genesis 16:2 similarly states that “Abram listened to the voice of” (וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם לְקוֹל) Sarai. Both narratives utilize the same Hebrew words and phrases. Abram’s polygamy represents the fall of Abram and Sarai, mirroring the disobedience and subsequent fall of Adam and Eve. In the case of Abram and Sarai, Hagar, as the second woman, was the forbidden fruit.

@DavidWilberBlog @RealPeteRambo I suppose a handwave, complete with a textbook goalpost shift and classic Wilber-well-poisoning is far better than silence. You not only prove my assessment of you correct, but further demonstrate the entirely puerile nature of your rhetoric.

@Mozark_Man @RealPeteRambo Okay, fair enough, it turns out that a fringe minority of modern progressive gay activist scholars are also among those who engage in the same eisegesis of Romans 1 that Pete does. Thanks for the citations!

@DavidWilberBlog Adam violated a specific command. 'Do not eat..' What specific command did Avraham violate? Where there is no law, there is no sin... Produce the law.

Scholarly Work: David J. Murphy: More Evidence Pertaining to “Their Females” in Romans 1:26 doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1… James E. Miller: The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual? jstor.org/stable/1561233 Christians that understood "unnatural" acts in 1:26 as referring to non-coital heterosexual intercourse: Early: - Clement of Alexandria - Athanasius - Augustine Later: - Ambrosiaster (later) Modern: - The venerable @RealPeteRambo - Berean Patriot - Yours Truly - Nameless others - And the author of this excellent Biblical Hermeneutics stackexchange response: #17467" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1742… That was all a my lazy Google-fu returned. Though I expect you will either flippantly hand-wave or simply ignore this response.

@Mozark_Man @RealPeteRambo Okay, can you cite a single biblical scholar who agrees with Pete’s tortured eisegesis of Romans 1? What about any Christian throughout history who has read Rom 1 that way? Why is it only a couple random bloggers with questionable motives who come up with this nonsense?

@DavidWilberBlog @RealPeteRambo "Random blogger dismisses another random blogger while raising the "no-true-Scotsman" shield in his defense." 🙄

@Mozark_Man @RealPeteRambo I stand corrected. Pete is not the only one who engages in this hilariously tortured eisegesis of Romans 1. Some random blogger also does. Meanwhile, believers who take Scripture seriously are going to continue taking the text for what it explicitly states.

@SecretFire79 Even Christ cannot contradict or alter Scripture.

We don’t worship The Bible™️ We worship The God-man, Jesus Christ🇻🇦

@DavidWilberBlog @RealPeteRambo @RealPeteRambo is hardly alone in coming to the same conclusion, and here is a good breakdown as to why (I know you cant be bothered with any contrary data, this is for the folks who read to this point): #FemaleFemale-Sex" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">bereanpatriot.com/the-bible-on-g…

Thank you for confirming that you defend female homosexual behavior as biblically acceptable despite Scripture's explicit condemnation of it in Romans 1 (and implicit condemnation of it elsewhere). You didn't answer my second question. Do you still hilariously reinterpret Romans 1 as condemning a man “using a different orifice [of the woman] to prevent procreation” rather than interpreting it for what it plainly says—a condemnation of female homosexual behavior?

A completely false cop-out. youtube.com/playlist?list=… I've more than supported my position in the following playlist and exposed your falsehoods and errors. Your only defense is gaslighting, red herrings, cowardice, and fearmongering... Unbecoming of a 'scholar' but good for likes and follows...

All of scripture is written for us, but not all of Scripture is applicable at all times and in all instances, Romans 11 is pretty explicitly speaking about a specific remnant of Jews, not the broader Assembly. Ephesians 2:8-9, no it separates that which is responsible for salvation. You cannot separate faith from works (James 2:14-26), so while works are not responsible for salvation, without works you do not have faith and without faith you do not have salvation. You are faithful and through that faith, saved. Being faithful naturally begets good works, validating a living (working) faith. Without good works, you have a dead (non-working) faith, and are no longer faithful, having fallen away. Salvation is not a one and done thing. I can and is lost if you fail to be faithful and fall away.

@Mozark_Man @NickQuient Romans 11 is written to us. The Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, etc Ephesians 2:8-9 separates faith from works

QUESTION: are Christians required to do good works?

Yes the Torah and Tanakh have several passage that speak on how to handle the poor in the land: - Deuteronomy 15:7-11: Don't harden your heart to the poor among you. - Isaiah 58:3-7: Feed the hungry, house the homeless and cloth the naked among you. - Leviticus 19:18: Love your neighbor as yourself.

@Mozark_Man @AtheistTakes Law of Moses tells people to take care of poor?

Redditor interprets Luke 16

@John_Roloson_Jr @NickQuient Romans 11 context is speaking of a specific Jewish/Israelite remnant, not the Assembly at large. And Ephesians 2: "ye are saved through faith" You cannot separate faith from salvation, and you cannot separate works from faith, thus you cannot separate works from salvation.

Works can't be required, otherwise it is not grace. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” — Romans 11:6 (KJV) Ephesians 2 (KJV) ⁸ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: ⁹ Not of works, lest any man should boast.

@needGod_net Faith requires works, works demonstrate faith. If you don't have works, your faith is dead. So yes, if you don't have works, you are already effectively "in the water".

Faith Alone = Christ did everything needed. Faith + Works = Christ didn't do enough, your cooperation (works) is the deciding factor.

@John_Roloson_Jr @NickQuient Faith is required for salvation. If you don't have works, you don't have faith. Works are required for salvation.

@Mozark_Man @NickQuient Good works are required for salvation?

@John_Roloson_Jr @NickQuient Yes, to both.

@NickQuient Depends on what the requirement is talking about. Required for salvation? No. Required for God's blessing? Yes

@GbengaWemimo No, the quoted post is correct. Having the title of King and "being" King are two very different things. It takes more than simply being chosen by God to be a proper King, just aka look at Saul.

David was already a King before he fought Goliath. Read your Bible please

Oh no, edgy atheist-bro dodges any interaction not perfectly in line with his dogma! shock... horror... oh wait, that's just his modus operandi. Mute away, Puddin, can't let the horrors of logic harsh your echo chamber. 😏

@Mozark_Man @MariaGraceVT "The Holy Scripture is my objective moral standard," -- Yea we established you think fairy tales are true. It is pretty clear you are too far gone to have any sort of convo with so I'm gonna mute ya. You keep going though.

True, you don't need to be religious to have morals. You need to be religious to believe in objective morality though. Without God nothing can be truly either right or wrong just what feels right or not to an individual.

I did. The Holy Scripture is my objective moral standard, authored by the Creator of the Universe Himself. As for proof, you can find that in practically every bookstore in America. Grab a copy if you are skeptical, its all there. And no, I need not convince you for my claim to be true. It is logically sound, and I already gave you proof of my objective standard. Your being convinced is ideal but also irrelevant. Objective means true independent of opinion, including yours.

@Mozark_Man @MariaGraceVT Dude if you actually think objective morality exists then by the very definition of the word you can prove it regardless of what I think. We both know you are incapable of doing so.

@half0 @MariaGraceVT Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Yes, it's quite clear you had zero intention to actually put forth an honest argument to begin with.

@Mozark_Man @MariaGraceVT lolololol My dude you should prolly go pretend to use telepathy to talk to your imaginary friend than waste your time here with me. I'm entirely certain nothing will be gained from this conversation.