How the Christian Right's Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People

[Newby]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

Okay, I'm a Christian... what scripture are you referring too?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

Why are you so relunctant to support your argument?

And for the record, I do understand the Bible. That's one of the reasons I am Mormon. But I still realize I have alot more to learn of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh good. A pile on. Reminds me of the good old days in the Ass of God.

A pile on? Who is piling on what? Is it unreasonable to expect citations if you are claiming scriptures support you on an argument?

 

[Buford]

You know I'm well versed.

No one here thinks that except you.

You don't think it, you know it. Have you recovered from yesterday?

 

[koshergrl]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

Why are you so relunctant to support your argument?

And for the record, I do understand the Bible. That's one of the reasons I am Mormon. But I still realize I have alot more to learn of it.

Jake doesn't make arguments, he trolls.

He posts lies and then he scoots. Then he'll come back and proclaim victory.

Watch.

 

[Buford]

What led you to have that thought?

More to the point, why would it be relevant to Jake's point?

He self-identifies and proclaims as a Christian, but doesn't know the Bible? Or he's feigning ignorance because it doesn't fit his agenda.

Tough call.

Here's an easy call. You throw mud and insult because you haven't a clue about the topic and can't back anything up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

Okay, I'm a Christian... what scripture are you referring too?

You are a fundy, and you know the scriptures, you just don't abide by them.

 

[Buford]

The post is self evident, Buford, and you have nothing to support your position at all. It is anti-scripture. End of discussion.

You keep saying that, but you don't provide anything to back it up. Everyone can see you're ignorant of scripture and that is why you just toss out accusations without any scripture to back it up. Jesus warned us about "wolves in sheep's clothing". I'm well acquainted with people like you who claim to speak for Christianity while you twist and manipulate scripture to suit your agenda. That's why you can't and will not engage me in scripture debate. You know I'm well versed.

The scripture is clear on this point, and only those who despise women support an all male priesthood.,

You want to speak for Christianity, and so do most devils like you,

Show us the scripture you're speaking of.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

 

[Buford]

By definition common knowledge is a body of knowledge commonly known to those who would know the material.

You, Buford, and I know the material. The material is not the question.

The question is whether the material should be taken literally or the church fathers taken literally or traditiona should be taken literally, or any group of all the above.

Notice that kg stumbles, giggles, and pees on the lawn,

Blah, blah, blah. When you provide scripture to back up your points, then I'll start listening to you.

 

[koshergrl]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

 

[Buford]

The post is self evident, Buford, and you have nothing to support your position at all. It is anti-scripture. End of discussion.

So you are going to end the discussion. Without providing one iota of evidence to support your position? And you think that wins? Alright... but dont be surprised if people dont see things your way here Jake.

if you are going to argue that a position is scriptural it really helps your argument if you actually quote scriptures.

Read above.

Provide scripture to back up your position. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Newby]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

Okay, I'm a Christian... what scripture are you referring too?

You are a fundy, and you know the scriptures, you just don't abide by them.

I am? How do you know that?

Still waiting for the scriptures that back up your 'argument'?

 

[Newby]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

Apparently you do not..

 

[Buford]

Not to a Mormon, who does not understand the Bible,.

You are full of it. You just spew your opinion, but provide nothing in scripture to back it up. You're the kind of person who claims to be a Christian, but have no idea what the bible actually says.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am sure those LDS in the communal collectives of the church said the same thing, and yet it came to an end.

The Law of Consecration is still in force, though it's practiced in different ways. The Church has always recognized that this principles is difficult to live in it's fullness. So it's hardly unexpect to have periods, even long periods where it's not practiced in a particular format or wide spread.

Are you suggesting that women will be ordained to offices of the priesthood due to the wickedness of the people?

I am sure those LDS who practiced in and believed in polygamy said the same thing, and yet it came to an end.

The Lord's position on plural marriage has always been the same as well. It's alright when commanded. Otherwise, one man, one wife. The Church never had any reason to believe that it was always going to be practiced and that God would never command otherwise when the scriptures are clear that there are times He does.

Where in the scriptures does it suggest that there may be a time when women would be ordained to offices in the Priesthood?

BTW Are you familiar with the difference between the authority and power of the Priesthood? Or the difference between Offices and Orders of the Priesthood?

I am sure those LDS who said and believed the priesthood would always rule Utah said the same thing, and yet it came to an end.,

That's an odd claim considering Utah, since the day it was organized, has always been a secular government. I'd like to see a citation that anyone ever claimed that. And no, the "It's common knowledge" gambit isnt going to be sufficient for me on this.

I am sure those LDS who said and believe the the African-descended members would never benefit from holding the priesthood said the same thing, and yet it came to pass.

Except, of course, that from the beginning it was prophecied that they would hold the Priesthood and recieve the blessings of such. It's always been promised that they would. Could you point to a place where it's been promised that women will be ordained to the offices of the Priesthood?

A female priesthood too will come to pass.

I dont think you understand the doctrines of the Priesthood nor the prophecies if you believe that women will be ordained to the offices of the Priesthood. But then you probably dont understand the Orders of the Priesthood whatsoever. If you did, you'd realize that many women have already entered into these Orders.

 

[Buford]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

You don't know your bible. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing.,

 

[BDBoop]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

You don't know your bible. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing.,

And you fit Phil 4:8 to a T, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't have to because you know them. This is an argument whether scriptural is literal and authoritative. Or unless it is translated wrongly.

And how on earth would I know what scriptures you are refering to without you citing them?

Oh, here's a thought. You could think. What verses do fundamentalists use to control their spouse.

Considering I dont know any fundamentalists who "control" their spouses, how would I know what verses they use to justify it?

 

[Buford]

If you know your Bible, then you know them.

You don't know your bible. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing.,

And you fit Phil 4:8 to a T, right?

Doesn't matter. You don't believe the scriptures, so why would you use scripture?