MozarkMan

Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. - Jeremiah 6:16

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

One of the most abused and misunderstood topics ever touched by the Messiah, and one that leads to all sorts of erroneous conclusions: Divorce

https://t.co/cJmTXCzT74

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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:
https://t.co/3k4u6cKBdQ
- Of the Good of Marriage, Chapters 11-12:
https://t.co/PiTY2e3zQU

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?

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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.

[Pete Rambo @RealPeteRambo]

@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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

Scholarly Work:

David J. Murphy: More Evidence Pertaining to “Their Females” in Romans 1:26
https://t.co/dzdZkhKb45

James E. Miller: The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?
https://t.co/wz66OOtVyJ

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:

https://t.co/xsK9vKGfXV

That was all a my lazy Google-fu returned.

Though I expect you will either flippantly hand-wave or simply ignore this response.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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

🙄

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@SecretFire79 Even Christ cannot contradict or alter Scripture.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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):

https://t.co/zDrrYlEI0P

[Pete Rambo @RealPeteRambo]

A completely false cop-out.

https://t.co/wMDO2yhHh5 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...

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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".

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@John_Roloson_Jr @NickQuient Yes, to both.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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. 😏

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

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.

[MozarkMan @Mozark_Man]

@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.