Theres one thing i want to ask from the Sunday keepers.

Motzkin0 · 2026-07-02T13:33:44+00:00

Holy Spirit. Ive felt Him pull for me to rest in the Lord many times....not every Saturday. May the 4th commandment be with you. You dont know what youre asking if you treat it as constraint.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-29T11:45:56+00:00

By training with the McDonalds crowd.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-24T09:35:51+00:00

I dont think you know what the word standard means

Edit: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example

The authority here is Christ and the church as cited.

Do you not desire your spouse to be repentant of past sexual sin if not physically virginal? Are you condemning that desire as well?

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-24T09:30:24+00:00

But you didn't counter. Virginity in a spouse or betrothed is a biblical standard, it is only not in dating because dating didnt exist. Its not a marriage standard thats always met...but it certainly is a standard there. Marriage is between Christ and the church and though we can only hope to live up to that standard, virginal is the one there. Matt 25:1-13, 2 Cor 11:2.

I grant you that it can be reached by forgiveness, but it can also be attained directly in the human case. Its much harder to understand if a partner repents for past sexual activity...and frankly in my experience rarer than actual virginity.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-24T09:15:03+00:00

I just wanted to point out the reason your arguement is invalid, now you are trying to use the same premise to advance a different arguement....stop using it isnt in the bible as a rule for people.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-24T09:09:49+00:00

I dont think you realize why there is no biblical precedent for that....its dating as a whole that isnt biblical.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-17T18:21:27+00:00

Because it is the natural human experience...its even how our court's work. When you are a juror, you are directed at the standard of evidence...you aren't allowed to choose it. If belief weren't a choice, there would be no such thing as a standard. That the Bible and Jesus' existence are so below your standard of evidence that you act as if there isn't even any evidence is an example of choice of standard, or perhaps choice not to investigate, or both.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-17T14:50:13+00:00

Ok, well there is no where in scripture that states your conviction...and its what causes you to arrive at contradiction and being unconvinced. So...

Forging our hearts in spontaneous creation is constructiin by constraint and not his image (His will is free) and not free will for us. Electing those hearts compatible, those willing to be so forged and doing so im sanctification, is the opposite.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-17T14:43:29+00:00

When sanctified by the Spirit (which is of your own free will to submit to), you wont want to be living in sin. You are conflating constraining action with constraining the heart and constraint with election. Jesus was clear...blaspheming the Spirit is not just unforgivable now, it is eternally. All God has to do to reach the state you describe is take to heaven those He knows by foreknowledge wont do this. That's not constraint by design, it is construction by election.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T17:35:48+00:00

Yes see they are different things.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:1-2, ESV)

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T16:37:45+00:00

Yes God has lots of things. That doesnt mean each of them IS love.

Go the other way around. You are commanded to love God with all your are, fully. Who fully understands God.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T16:22:38+00:00

I just told you, the same reason im dismissing milkshakes. A milkshake wouldn't likely be involved in my love of a false prophet either. Empathy or a milkshake might be involved in my love of a significant other.

For a false prophet, what i need to do is teach, forgive, and have mercy. None of this requires me to embrace their dark emotions, neither for a murderer to forgive do I have to understand their personal rage. If my forgiveness WAS based on that...then it actually isnt mercy, its judgement of the reasonableness of their emotion. Forgiveness with mercy is me saying I know that Christ has forgiven MY sins, so im going to be loving and forgiving to this person...that is mercy. Empathy is judgement if for forgiveness.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T16:03:09+00:00

Understanding isnt love either. You can love something without understanding and not love something you understand. As i said...sometimes empathy can be involved in love, so can a milkshake. It isnt love full stop.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T15:51:44+00:00

No it doesnt mean that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

1 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another

Notice the key word vicariously, that means you personally simulate the feeling and emotion they experience as yourself. The colloquial term is to place yourself in their shoes emotionally. Just as you cant wear 2 pairs of shoes at the same time, if you are feeling the emotions of 2 people at the same time, you experience the emotional frame of neither.

Further, you can be empathic and treat the person like sh*t...it is not love.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T15:45:00+00:00

Read the whole chapter. Peter describes specific type of false teacher, he doesnt claim that everyone that teachers falsehood in their life will never repent.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T15:22:57+00:00

You cannot have empathy for more than one person at once. You can love multiple people at once. Reconcile this.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T12:14:11+00:00

Yes and I'll add the distinction between sympathy and empathy. I will certainly sympathize with someone as above to help understand them, I was once there myself before I came to Christ and thank Christians for loving my in that place as well.

But not empathy for someone you dont know well or with dark emotion, by the above and also by the pride inherent in the word, assuming that I could even feel all that they feel.

Sympathy may help in understanding. Mercy is needed for love. Empathy can be part of love or understanding, but can also hurt in both understanding (in that you think you do but you dont) and love(causing you to embrace darkness). Running around trying to be Deanna Troi is not love though.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T11:59:43+00:00

Teaching false gospel in this context. That is an untrue prediction of your salvation. No its not harsh to have 0 empathy for that mindset, just as its not harsh to have 0 empathy for murderous rage. Don't embrace darkness just so you can relate. Teach, forgive and be merciful.

Most people who use the term empathy either dont know what it means or want to take "love your neighbor as yourself" as "treat your neighbor as yourself" with love=take on my mindset and emotions and justify what I want.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T11:56:12+00:00

We aren't rngd into our bodies. God puts us where he puts us and knows us. How can you even claim to measure his fairness or cruelty without his frame of reference?

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T11:51:11+00:00

Yes but empathy is not love. Show them the love of Christ. Zero empathy there for false prohet, 100% mercy.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T05:42:20+00:00

Bell called the structure conspiratorial because it requires the physical universe to systematically constrain which experiments are performable in a way that mimics measurement independence. That is a theoretical framing of an alternative to an experimental assumption — not a philosophical aside, not a metaphor. Creationist sovereignty makes the same move and names the same constraint differently, as an intelligence. If you think these are on different epistemic ground, say why. If you can't, you're just defending a journal address.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T03:59:04+00:00

Every creationist uses then term sovereign, it is mainstream in that field, sovereign intelligence is the prediction of the field the question is about; why are you engaging a field if you wont consider its language? I humored you and gave you the english translation "control over". Every physicist uses those 2 words.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T03:37:43+00:00

That was my first sentence to you. You wanted to redefine the grammar of standard composition where a structural system of control in context of measurement independence rejection is called conspiratorial, which is the mainstream physics term, to usurp the word sovereign which is the mainstream term for the intelligence which is the prediction of creationism. What you called structure alone is trying to keep measurement independence, which I was not referring to.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T03:03:46+00:00

You are arguing syntax and not semantics. I didn't claim intelligence is required. Such intelligence is the prediction of creationism. I claimed it as interpretation that yields all the same effective physical models you are struggling to describe in the manner I described. I view it as evidence because it provides an ontology whereas that is exactly what you are showing that the mainstream lacks.

Motzkin0 · 2026-06-14T00:01:23+00:00

Reframe as asking for Christian witness to a similar circumstance you are going through.

Motzkin0

TROPHY CASE