You can't make this stuff up.

I mean if this guy had his way we'd still be fighting the Civil War. Actually, maybe the ladies would be fighting it...in order to protect the men who have higher worth and all (so says our friend WM).

From thread "@SuzQz re: Presbyterian church - I looked up the website, and uh-oh..." http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,151978,152325#msg-152325

WM swipes in and shows us vile atheists some good old fashion (did I say old fashion) bible ethics supposedly straight from the big man up-stairs (ladders?) himself.

Poster WM: "I personally would never attend a church where the main (senior) pastor is a woman, as that is against God's design. As Paul pointed out it isn't right for a woman to be teaching a man. It was Eve who was deceived in the garden of Eden, not Adam. Women are more emotional and more easily deceived, and men aren't subject to hormones ("that" time of the month).

(I know, I know, tons of you will scream at this, but this is the Bible's teaching (and I know, HOW HORRIBLE!! (or, as Jim Rome would say, "The Horror"!) :P"

What a gentleman WM is. Ladies first, right? I mean, ladies ate the fruit first, which means they're eternally screwed (maybe it's better than being eternally pregnant).

Thanks for teaching us skeptics why we need God to keep us in line WM. Classy.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 06:08PM by Freevolved.

And shoot, I'm an agnostic who acknowledges he has "spiritual needs" from time to time... Gave him a bit of an Egyptian history lesson in hopes some pagan information would scare him off...Guess it didn't work...

Told me that I didn't need to go after witches because that was strictly Old Testament stuff that doesn't apply...

Okay, but if I remember rightly (and I ain't fact checking this one), all of the homophobic, anti-gay stuff is in the OT...

I'll bet WM doesn't like gays, however...

And hey Big Guy, I guess adultery is okay, too, since it's part of the OT... And stealing and murder...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Told me that I didn't need to go after witches
> because that was strictly Old Testament stuff that
> doesn't apply...
>
> Okay, but if I remember rightly (and I ain't fact
> checking this one), all of the homophobic,
> anti-gay stuff is in the OT...

You are absolutely correct. Now I'm the one not doing fact checking, but I think it's from Leviticus. Something like if a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, both men should be stoned to death.

I know of no similar mention in the NT, so is this strictly OT or not?

I think WM is on the OT cafeteria plan anyway.

>
> I'll bet WM doesn't like gays, however...
>
> And hey Big Guy, I guess adultery is okay, too,
> since it's part of the OT... And stealing and
> murder...

If WM has a good background in the OT, my guess is that WM would say those things aren't ok, because they are part of the 7 Noahide laws. When god made his deal with noah, it was said that anyone who follows those 7 laws will be considered righteous and will have a place in messianic age. It's interesting that the god of the OT, for all his violence and pettiness, does not require people to convert in order to be saved from the great scorching, they just have to follow those 7 laws/moral imperatives (one forbids idolatry, so worshiping jesus would break this law). However,for the god of the NT, those 7 laws aren't enough for a person to be saved, in fact, salvation requires breaking one of those laws.

I point this out not because I believe in any of it, but because WM has used Noah and gods covenant with noah, as backup for various arguments. So even down to that story, MW likely picks and chooses. MW uses parts of the OT to try to prove the validity of the NT, and then parts of the NT to prove the nullification of rules, laws, beliefs in the OT.

In my opinion, if one has to jump through so many hoops in order to make their "proof" conform to their beliefs, it's probably time for them to reexamine the validity of their beliefs.

This is the same dude that said he'd be running drugs and guns and killing people if it weren't for fear of eternal punishment. Oh! And claimed that teaching evolution causes events like Columbine. Real class act...

So, according to WM, it seems that logic and not faith is required to believe in a God.

Kind of a shame he doesn't appear to be LDS - otherwise we'd have to wonder whether he is Glen Beck.

I was accused, by WM, of approving school murders, because I'm atheist. How's that for logic?

People like WM really do make me wonder just how intelligent the human race really is. Hopefully he was just a troll.

An atheist doesn't kill because its wrong to kill, and won't kill no matter what anybody else tells him. An OT Israelite or a Christian Crusader will kill if someone who claims to be speaking for God tells him to kill.
Rhetorical Question: So how does that make a theist morally superior or more ethical than an atheist?

'An atheist doesn't kill because its wrong to kill, and won't kill no matter what anybody else tells him.'

That is a bit of a sweeping statement on behalf of atheists.
Don't atheists go to war?

My stepfather, a retired Lt colonel in the army, once told me that there are no atheists in foxholes. Hah!

Besides, anybody who joins the armed forces doesn't kill by choice. They kill because their commanding officers tell them to.

'...and won't kill no matter what anybody else tells him'

'They kill because their commanding officers tell them to.'

You are a bit contradictory...

...but I like the fox hole pun!

We have a Creationist on our little piece of cyberspace. The literal Bible believer, defender of faith apologist. He is serious. I live in a place full of these folks. They are young earther's, universal flood folk...and frankly, exhausting to be around when spouting their weak conversion of the sinner, project of the moment.

They will not marry a person who is not a Creationist, born again because of that little problem of..."unequally yoked". Gay hating, mysogynistic, fools. It pains me to see people so stuck in crazy, checking their brains at the door of their evangelical cult door. They only use Creationist lit, and the Bible they "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" is literal. A hopeless bunch.

Sadly, there are a bunch of Ex-Mormon's for Jesus that target other ExMo's on sites like RfM. They know newbies to the ExMo world are often vulnerable. Beware of this preaching bunch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 06:46AM by wings.

"Sadly, there are a bunch of Ex-Mormon's for Jesus that target other ExMo's on sites like RfM. They know newbies to the ExMo world are often vulnerable. Beware of this preaching bunch."
Like trading in your broken down Chevy for a dead horse. Evangelicals have the unsettling ability to make mormons look sane.

So true. At least Mormons have a reputation for being nice! No such luck with fundies. This is seriously delusional stuff. I do know a former young earther who was driven out of his crazy by getting his engineering degree and having to actually like, THINK and stuff. The WMs of the world need answers so bad they can't see the bullshit spewing forth from their mouths to keep the lies alive.

Due to Mormonism being a high accountability cult, I figure many leave Mormonism and feel a need to find "the true church". Some want nothing to do with any organized religion.

When families and spouse's find one disposable based on not being a Mormon, one finds themself alone. The vulture swoops in to "save" them.

Romans 1:26-27. New Testament

Accuracy my petutie.

Romans 1:25 (New International Version, ©2011)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Really? Who says? You? A man said this. A man who thought the sun revolved around the earth, thought mental problems equaled demon possession, and had to be careful how many steps he took on his day of worship or else. Now why would I not believe him?

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version, ©2011)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So if you think that belief in God is a lie, the immediate consequence is unnatural sex and homosexuality? Who determines the “unnatural” definition of sex? Could it be the man who wrote these words perhaps?

Seriously! How (and I’ll use a mormon expletive here) flippin shallow can you get?

I swear why is it so many Christians are like Waterbugs when it comes to such shallow thinking about scripture and its origins? Their brains are laying right on the water tension barrier completely oblivious to the ocean that lies below.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 01:04PM by AmIDarkNow?.

The accuracy alludes to the presence of NT mention of homosexuality in contradiction to what was said above.

What was said above was not about "presence of NT mention of homosexuality" It was about "homophobic, anti-gay" stuff. There is a big difference between "homophobic, anti-gay" and "homosexuality".

Yes, one can take a couple of lines of Romans and say "look, here is a homophobic comment" but that would be taking it out of context of the whole of Romans. Romans 2 says for people NOT TO JUDGED based on what was said in Romans 1 and that it was god that is to be trusted to know the nature of the sin.

How presumptious on your part to assume something not stated.

I claimed "Well, if you want to be the one about ACCURACY" Your desire to be a sticler for accuracy was stated in the subject of your post "Just for the sake of accuracy....."

You claimed that "The accuracy alludes to the presence of NT mention of homosexuality in contradiction to what was said above." I pointed out CORRECTLY that what was actually said was "about 'homophobic, anti-gay'". Everything I talked about was explicitly stated, quoted and referenced, so where did I assume something that was not stated?

There are many interpretations for the verse you cited for "accuracy." One is that it is an example of the "sin" of lust, acting on that and adultery was the shameful act. They committed a sin, men were just with whom they committed it. Additionally, women indulging in the sin of lust/adultery was cited in those verses too. That men were with men and women were with women doesn't lessen the sin of adultery.

Adultery is a biggie, it's in the 10 Commandments. Homosexuality gets two references, the one in leviticus and the one you cited. If homosexuality was the sin there, and something to be focused on above breaking one of the 10 commandments, don't you think homosexuality would have made its way into, say, the big 10 or warrant more than those two mentions?

The verse cited was a statement about the promiscuity and orgies of the day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 06:22PM by wittyname.

There is a conclusion to Romans 1, it is Romans 2. Reading the bible in context, we read romans 1, then the very start of Romans 2 is the conclusive statement to Romans 1 "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. "

So, in context, Romans 1:26-27 is NOT anti-gay, in context, the bible says that a person SHOULD NOT judge gays because in doing so, the person doing the judging is equally guilty.

Romans 2 goes on to say that we should trust God to do the judging because God's judgment will be in accordance with the truth. "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things." indicating that it is God that knows the nature of the sin, NOT man.

Of course this is reading the bible in CONTEXT and those that use the bible to condemn others rarely, if ever, use the bible in context.

It's vague.

It could be talking about shrine prostitution and not condemning homosexuality at all.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/does-romans-1-26-condemn-lesbians--3

...would still apply.

I most often use the concluding statements of Romans 2 because, as you say, Romans 1 is tricky and it is easy to get bogged down in a battle of interpretations. In my opinion, it is more difficult to reinterpret that in direct reference to Romans 1, Romans 2 commands that people do not judge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 02:34PM by MJ.

Never did address MY questions.

So, WM, do you really think "women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety"??

Duzzat mean what it sounds like, o literalist? Is a childless woman toast?

Like all of either the Old or the New Testicle - its there to warm the hearts of the incurable male chavenists among us.

Old or New Testicle, ha ha. hilarious.