Bob Hill's bottom line?

[elohiym]

I dont care what the original post was, you gave a false definition of what "taking the Lord's name in vain was"

You are double minded. You just said in your last post that my interpretation was correct.

Go away. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[azrael777]

You are double minded. You just said in your last post that my interpretation was correct.

Go away. I have nothing more to say to you.

Ok, I will spell it out for you like you were my six year old son, If you spell apple a-p-l-e
you got it wrong buddy. But its ok daddy told you where to put the other P, now be a good boy and go back to bed.

 

[elohiym]

Ok, I will spell it out for you like you were my six year old son, If you spell apple a-p-l-e
you got it wrong buddy. But its ok daddy told you where to put the other P, now be a good boy and go back to bed.

Oh, I see.

Saint isn't spelled s-i-n-n-e-r. And anyone that sins while claiming to be a Saint, is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Gotcha! Thanks!

 

[Evoken]

Should I not rebuke sinners now? Are these new TOL rules you want to make us all aware of, along with "don't say God damns anything"?

It is indeed a good thing to rebuke a person that does some particular sin. But as St. Paul says..."Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest." (Romans 2.1)

Now, you say that you do not sin, but we see that this is false and that by claiming to have no sin you make God a liar (1 John 1.8-10). So, since you are judging others of the mere act of sinning while still sinning yourself you make yourself the type of hypocrite St. Paul condemns in the verse above.


Valz

 

[azrael777]

Oh, I see.

Saint isn't spelled s-i-n-n-e-r. And anyone that sins while claiming to be a Saint, is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Gotcha! Thanks!

I never agreed that a Christian is incapable of sinning. I agreed that a person who pretended to be a Christian but was not a Christian could be said to have taken the Lord's name in vain. I also stated that this was not the entire definition of the the Commandment. Litsen, I just want you to understand the meaning of some scripture. I am not condeming you or anything, just trying to hold you accountable as I am sure you would do for me. Thats what Christians do, right?

 

[elohiym]

It is indeed a good thing to rebuke a person that does some particular sin.

That's right.

But as St. Paul says..."Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest." (Romans 2.1)

But nothing. You can't use that verse to say we canot rebuke sinners. :nono:

Now, you say that you do not sin, but we see that this is false and that by claiming to have no sin you make God a liar (1 John 1.8-10).

You don't see. You are a spiritually blind Catholic.

You apparently missed the rest of John's epistle where he states:

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

All you proved is that you pick and choose verses so that you can bring people into bondage with you. I'll stay out of the confessional, thank you, as I wouldn't want to be molested by priest there.

So, since you are judging others of the mere act of sinning...

Mere act of sinning?

1 Peter 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

...while still sinning yourself you make yourself the type of hypocrite St. Paul condemns in the verse above.

You have yet to show me my supposed sin. It is not a sin to say that God damns something, since that is what the Bible states; and it certainly isn't a sin to quote someone saying that God damns something.

Maybe these legalists should join you at mass. You all sound so much alike.

 

[elohiym]

I never agreed that a Christian is incapable of sinning.

Too bad. It's a central concept in Christianity. Jesus dies to make the point, and if we sin after we have claimed to believe, we make ourselves transgressors.

Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

I agreed that a person who pretended to be a Christian but was not a Christian could be said to have taken the Lord's name in vain.

Then you agree with the interpretation I used. It doesn't matter if meant more, because it didn't mean what Turbo was accusing me of. It is not taking the Lord's name in vain to claim God damns something, or to quote some worldly article that claims God has damned something. That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Do you agree?

I also stated that this was not the entire definition of the the Commandment.

Even if that were true, it doesn't make my interpretation wrong, nor am I required to give a Bible study on other possible meanings when I am addressing Turbo for sinning while he claims to be in Christ.

Litsen, I just want you to understand the meaning of some scripture.

Save the Bible study for another time if my interpretation was accurate and appropriate for my use of it.

I am not condeming you or anything, just trying to hold you accountable as I am sure you would do for me. Thats what Christians do, right?

What Christians do is cease from sin.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.

Which is more important, me not explaining all possible meanings for a verse in the law, or Turbo ceasing from sin? You should deal with the more important issue first.

 

[elohiym]

Turbo,

Unless you can show me where in the Bible it is a sin to say God damns something, or that it is a sin to quote someone for saying it, I think an apology is in order.

Can you admit that you were wrong and say you are sorry?

Regardless, I forgive you, and I believe that you didn't know what you were doing.

 

[elohiym]

As a woman, I have no authority in a church. So, I remain silent in church (and no, I'm not catholic). If I have questions or disagree with my pastor, I go to him privately to discuss what I have a problem with.

The Church is not limited to the building with your Pastor. The Church is right here on TOL, comprising of all believers. If you are one of us, then this is your church, too. I respect your authority here, so please respect mine as a minister of God.

And, as an aside, elohiym, I don't remember saying that I believe that a Christian cannot sin.

How can you not remember something like that, Nori? If you said then you believed it, and you should know if you ever believed it. Come on.

But, instead, I explained your belief as "darkness cannot dwell in the light." I might be wrong about what I said. But, that's how I remember it right now.

I don't understand. You seemed to agree that a Christian cannot molest children, murder, commit adultery, right?

As to the question of whether Christians can sin or not, I haven't decided what I believe on that yet.

When you eventually realize that a Christian cannot sin, and why that is, then I hope you will strengthen your bretheren; but be prepared to take the heat when you tell others to stop sinning. People didn't like when Jesus did that to them, and you will not be treated any better then him.

One final thing, since I may be banned by morning, I have no problem learning from a woman, or having a woman share the gospel; but Poly had no right to accuse me of sinning when I didn't sin, and she had no right to lecture me about a sin I didn't do.

 

[ebenz47037]

The Church is not limited to the building with your Pastor. The Church is right here on TOL, comprising of all believers. If you are one of us, then this is your church, too. I respect your authority here, so please respect mine as a minister of God.

I respect you as a man of God and as a minister of God. But, you cannot expect the respect you demand to continue being returned if you're going to disrespect me and the other female moderators by saying that women have no authority over men.

How can you not remember something like that, Nori? If you said then you believed it, and you should know if you ever believed it. Come on.

I don't understand. You seemed to agree that a Christian cannot molest children, murder, commit adultery, right?

It's more like I agree that a Christian will not do those things. If a man or woman is willing to do them, they're not Christians. Bottom line. But, if I understood you correctly, you were going much further than that. You were saying that a Christian can not sin; do no wrong. Those aren't the only sins that people commit, elo. I can honestly tell you that I've never done any of those things you mentioned. Does that mean that I don't ever sin? If I look at the fact that I smoke cigarettes (defiling the temple of God), I have to say no. If I look at the fact that sometimes the things I say hurt someone else, I have to say no.

When you eventually realize that a Christian cannot sin, and why that is, then I hope you will strengthen your bretheren; but be prepared to take the heat when you tell others to stop sinning. People didn't like when Jesus did that to them, and you will not be treated any better then him.

But, you are not Jesus. And, pointing something out to you is not sinning. That is why I took issue with what you said to Poly.

And, I already said above that my belief regarding the issue of Christians and sin is that Christians will not do those things, not that they cannot do them. Either way, we have to make a conscious choice to sin or to serve God.

One final thing, since I may be banned by morning, I have no problem learning from a woman, or having a woman share the gospel; but Poly had no right to accuse me of sinning when I didn't sin, and she had no right to lecture me about a sin I didn't do.

Unless someone else bans you, you won't be banned. But, instead of coming out so strongly against Poly, maybe you should have asked her why she thought that you were sinning? It might have kept the stress level down a little more than it did.

 

[Evoken]

You can't use that verse to say we canot rebuke sinners. :nono:

I did not say that we cannot rebuke sinners, try and read my post again.

You don't see. You are a spiritually blind Catholic.

There is a sin for you, arrogance and lack of charity are evident in your posts.

You apparently missed the rest of John's epistle where he states:

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

If by not sinning you mean that once one becomes a Christian then one simply cannot fall into sin again, then you are going to an extreme position that is not supported by the text. But, if what you mean is that as long as we abide in hm we cannot sin, that is, as long as we keep his word and follow his commandments, then I would agree in some part.

As St. Paul says in Romans 7.15-25, we still have to struggle with the temptation to sin after we have become Christians, this is what we Catholics call conspuscience. And as he says elsewere (1 Corinthians 9.27) we can fall into sin after we become Christians.

This is why St. James and St. John encourage people to confess their sin for forvigeness...

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. (James 5.15-16)

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. (1 John 1.9)

My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: (1 John 2.1)

If a Christian sins he can be cleneased and restored thru confession and repentence. Now, you say that a Christian cannot sin but this fails to make the distinction of the two types of sins described...

"He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death." (1 John 5.16-17)

We call this venial and mortal sin. One is not unto death, and does not completelly separates you from God but the other does. Now, to translate this into what I think you are saying, if one commits a venial sin, one is still a Christian but if one commits a mortal sin one becomes a castaway as St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 9.27). But we have an advocate in Lord Jesus that forgives us our sins if we repent and cleneases us so that we can become his adopted sons again.


Valz

 

[azrael777]

Too bad. It's a central concept in Christianity. Jesus dies to make the point, and if we sin after we have claimed to believe, we make ourselves transgressors.
Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor..

I believe that a christian does not live in sin anymore. I believe that Jesus died to cleanse our sins even before we commited them. If christians became completly sinless after that became believers then why did Paul have to write so many letters to the churches? Why in revelation, why did God hold things against the churches? Did they not sin? Our nature is changed after we are saved. We are a new creation. I'm not saying that true christians sin daily but no one is perfect until death. After I sin, I personally fell the need to repent to God. But if I was struck dead before I had a chance to repent, I know I would not go to hell.

Then you agree with the interpretation I used.

No, you used one interpretation to claim that you did not sin. I introduced other definations to let you know that that may not be the case. You were spouting off to others that they did not know what taking the Lords name in vain meant when it was you who seemed not to know.

It doesn't matter if meant more, because it didn't mean what Turbo was accusing me of.

Your limited interpretation was not applicable to the situation but the full interpretation was.

It is not taking the Lord's name in vain to claim God damns something, or to quote some worldly article that claims God has damned something. That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Do you agree?

If you qoute filth it is still filth. You nor the author of the artical have the authority to say what is or is not damned. The author used God's name in an empty and worthless manner. You quoted him. Does this mean you sinned? I will let you and God work that out. I am in no position to judge something like that. Whether or not that was sin would require knowing what the condition of your heart was at the time you quoted it. If I were a betting man, I would say there is more of a chance you sinned when rebuking Poly than when you qouted the artical. I got the feeling that you were angry and not rightously when you posted what you did. Once again, I do not know the condition of your heart though.

What Christians do is cease from sin.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.

Which is more important, me not explaining all possible meanings for a verse in the law, or Turbo ceasing from sin? You should deal with the more important issue first.

This verse just tells us of the believer not having the intent to sin. I can give you a bible study on it if you like. As I said before, christians do not have the same nature anymore but they are far from perfect. If you think you are sinless then compare yourself to Christ, when you get up off your knees you will have a new understanding if you seek His will with all of your heart. The danger in believing you are perfect is that you will refuse to see your own sin.

 

[Turbo]

It's not a sin to use a word, legalist. You have misused the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain.

Why not have respect for the people that think writing God instead of G-d is taking the Lord's name in vain? Don't you care about how they feel? Why do you write "God" and take the Lord's name in vain? Why don't you use the proper Hebrew names as written in the Bible? See how far this legalism can be taken? You ought to think about that if you're going to play the legalism game.

It is your use of the word that is sinful. It doesn't matter whether you replace some letters with dashes or stars; you have still profaned the Lord's name, using it when you are neither talking to God or about Him, but rather just throwing His name in there wherever.

You defense that you were merely quoting another is empty; for you did censor the word in the title of your post, revealing that you knew the author's use of the Lord's name was profane and inappropriate. Then you went profane the Lord's name in like fashion on this thread, thinking that it would be OK if you just replace a letter or two with a dash.

The question is why you can filter words like **** and *** and ****, but couldn't set the filter to edit the word that sooooooooo offends you. That's your fault, not mine.

We do not have an exhaustive list of censored words; in fact it is rather short. And generally people mind their language. Using profanity and implied profanity is against the rules here, and even peppering one's posts with starred-out words will likely get one banned. We don't sit around trying to think of every filthy word conceivable to prevent people from being able to use profanity, but rather we want to make it so people won't want to use profanity here. It's kind of like making murder a capital crime rather than outlawing all weapons.

As for your profanity of choice, I don't remember ever seen someone use that term in the three years I've been here. But after I edited your post on June 11, I added it to the censored words list.

I just quoted someone's statement where they used a certain word that you are only now suddenly making a BIG DEAL out of because you are trying to find any way you can to accuse me of a sin, like a legalist.

Did you think to PM me and tell me that you thought I made a mistake when I posted that DAYS AGO. No! Why not?

Because for some reason I had this feeling that you would be hard-hearted and would not admit that what you did was wrong, because according to your theology you can do no wrong. Therefore I chose to rebuke you publicly so that at least others might benefit. Surely you remember this verse, since you've already posted it in this thread:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. 1 Timothy 5:20​

Because it wasn't a big deal until today.

Wrong. I edited your post (and updated the censored word list) when I first saw it, just hours after you posted on June 11. Look at the bottom: "Last edited by Turbo : June 11th, 2006 at 10:26 PM."

However, in the past when I described an aspect of child birth, you PM'd me immediately to tell me not to be graphic.

In that case I had reason to believe that unless I PMed you, you would continue to make similar posts because it was an ongoing discussion. It could not be contained by merely editing out a single word of one post (and other posts that quoted that one post).

In this case I did not expect you to continue to use that word. I was wrong however, and you have continued to use it on this thread.

Fortunately, I care enough about you to rebuke you for sinning before all so others may fear. May God break you and heal you.

Ditto. I truly hope you repent, admit that you still sin, and thank Jesus for dying for ALL of your sins, past, present, and future. (Likewise I hope that you will stop teaching others that believing that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead is optional.)

 

[Turbo]

Elohiym, you seem to be misinformed on what "taking the Lord's name in vain" actually means.

Oh, really? I don't? Then why do you contradict yourself by stating:

When you use the Lord's name in an empty or worthless manner you have used the Lord's name in vain. That can be as you said someone who is not a christian that pretends to be.

That's right. So why are you lecturing me because I interpreted the commandment correctly?

azrael777 did not contradict himself. The key word is "can." azrael777 is saying that what you are offering as the exclusive definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain" is actually just one example among many.

It would be like you saying that a fir is not a tree because trees lose their leaves every year.

Then azrael777 would come along and say, "Elohiym, you seem to be misinformed on what trees are. A tree is "A perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown." That can be as you said something that loses its leaves every year. But it can also be an evergreen."

Then you'd fire back that he contradicted himself by affirming your definition of a tree by saying, "That can be as you said something that loses its leaves every year."

I quoted an author who used the expression, which means "God cursed".

Do you really think the author meant to communicate that this movie was cursed by God? The reviewer approved of the movie, did he not? Why would he think that God would curse the movie? I think he was just throwing in that term to give his statement a little punch.

I just quoted a movie review, and I intentional replaced the word that means "God cursed" with *** in the title of my thread because I don't believe the film is damned by God.

Do you believe that the author believes that the film is actually damned by God?

Had this actually been a sin, shouldn't Turbo have PM'd me at that time to ask me if I was profaning God's name,

I didn't have to ask you, it was obvious that you were. And I knew that you would not admit it, because according to your theology you can do no wrong, and that is a huge stumbling block preventing you from confessing and repenting of your sins. Instead, you must call anyone who rebukes you a legalist and a hypocrite.

legalist n. One who identifies a sin committed by elohiym.

hypocrite n. see legalist​

 

[Evoken]

I believe that a christian does not live in sin anymore. I believe that Jesus died to cleanse our sins even before we commited them. If christians became completly sinless after that became believers then why did Paul have to write so many letters to the churches? Why in revelation, why did God hold things against the churches? Did they not sin? Our nature is changed after we are saved. We are a new creation. I'm not saying that true christians sin daily but no one is perfect until death. After I sin, I personally fell the need to repent to God. But if I was struck dead before I had a chance to repent, I know I would not go to hell.

And also, why would Lord Jesus include a phrase like "forgive us our trespasses" in the Lord's Prayer if Christians cannot sin? Seems rebundant and unnecessary if we are to see it that way.


Valz

 

[elohiym]

I respect you as a man of God and as a minister of God. But, you cannot expect the respect you demand to continue being returned if you're going to disrespect me and the other female moderators by saying that women have no authority over men.

You said that women have no authority over men. I said that Poly had no authority to rebuke me for sinning when I didn't sin, or attempt to instruct me about something she is wrong about. It appeared to me to just be a woman throwing a hiisy fit because she was suddenly offended because her friends were offended.

She obviously doesn't think her avatar is offensive, yet it endorses a movie that protrays a nun as a sex symbol. A woman that has chosed to remain pure is portrayed as a sex symbol. In the movie trailer, the nun is checking out Jack Black's butt. Nothing offensive there for women and children I guess?

Hypocrisy!

It's more like I agree that a Christian will not do those things. If a man or woman is willing to do them, they're not Christians. Bottom line.

That's what I believe. Have you noticed that your fellow moderators don't appear to believe that?

But, if I understood you correctly, you were going much further than that. You were saying that a Christian can not sin; do no wrong. Those aren't the only sins that people commit, elo.

Those sins are evidence that the person does not love their neighbor, and so they break the entire law. If a Christian is someone that loves his/her neighbor, then they fulfill the law. You can't break and fulfill the law at the same time.

I can honestly tell you that I've never done any of those things you mentioned.

I believe you, but when I say that, I get people like Turbo trying to play the accuser, making up new sins that I supposedly have broken. That's wrong.

Does that mean that I don't ever sin? If I look at the fact that I smoke cigarettes (defiling the temple of God), I have to say no.

Are you a Seventh-day Adventist? They say the same exact thing. In fact, my mothyer in law is not allowed in my home because she smokes cigarettes. Not because I think smoking is a sin, but because she thinks smoking is a sin yet continues to smoke. It's hypocrisy.

Smoking is not a sin, Nori. You are not sinning when you smoke. It has no bearing on whether you love me or not. It is a disgusting habit, and it is poisoning you, but you don't defile the temple by what you put in it (like Jesus said. Remember?).

If I look at the fact that sometimes the things I say hurt someone else, I have to say no.

Do you intentional say things to hurt people without a cause, Nori? I doubt it. You probably say hurtful things to hammer home your point. That's not a sin, and if it were then Jesus was a bigger sinner than you.

If you are making things up about people to intentionally hurt them, then you do have a problem. I pray you overcome that, if you do; but I doubt you do.

But, you are not Jesus.

I am one with Jesus, Nori. And like he said, when you do something to me, you are doing it to him. When you feed me, you are feeding him. When you reject me, you are rejecting him. When you have seen me, you have Jesus and the Father because they are both dwelling in me, and in every believer. That's Christianity 101.

And, pointing something out to you is not sinning.

Falsly accusing me of sinning is a sin, and that's what she did.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

And, I already said above that my belief regarding the issue of Christians and sin is that Christians will not do those things, not that they cannot do them. Either way, we have to make a conscious choice to sin or to serve God.

If we are fulfilling the law by loving our neighbor, then we cannot be simultaneously breaking the law. If you honestly believe that you are sinning when you smoke, then you should stop smoking. Make a conscious choice. Or don't expect others to turn from their wickedness based on your witness.

Unless someone else bans you, you won't be banned.

Then I will stay and do my Father's will, which is to call sinners to repentance.

But, instead of coming out so strongly against Poly, maybe you should have asked her why she thought that you were sinning? It might have kept the stress level down a little more than it did.

I didn't have to ask her, as it was very clear from her post. And the stress level is high only because people want "truthsmack" but not be Truth smacked back.

I care a lot about you, Nori; and now I am even more concerned for you because of this smoking issue, especially since it is an issue we are dealing with regarding my mother-in-law. It hits so close to home.

 

[CRASH]

You are a legalist. Learn what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.

You have done worse than take the Lord's name in vain. I rebuke you.

 

[elohiym]

It is your use of the word that is sinful. It doesn't matter whether you replace some letters with dashes or stars; you have still profaned the Lord's name, using it when you are neither talking to God or about Him, but rather just throwing His name in there wherever.

You are wrong, and a legalist.

You defense that you were merely quoting another is empty; for you did censor the word in the title of your post, revealing that you knew the author's use of the Lord's name was profane and inappropriate. Then you went profane the Lord's name in like fashion on this thread, thinking that it would be OK if you just replace a letter or two with a dash.

If I thought the author's use was profane, then I would have edited it out like I did from the thread title. I edited it out of the thread title because I don't believe the film is cursed by God. One is my opinion, the other is the authors opinion.

We do not have an exhaustive list of censored words; in fact it is rather short. And generally people mind their language. Using profanity and implied profanity is against the rules here, and even peppering one's posts with starred-out words will likely get one banned. We don't sit around trying to think of every filthy word conceivable to prevent people from being able to use profanity, but rather we want to make it so people won't want to use profanity here. It's kind of like making murder a capital crime rather than outlawing all weapons.

You are selectively indignant, and probably laugh at profanity when it suits you. Had Jack Black said God curses something in a movie, you would probably laugh. You are transparent to me, Turbo.

As for your profanity of choice, I don't remember ever seen someone use that term in the three years I've been here. But after I edited your post on June 11, I added it to the censored words list.

This forum is loaded with profanity. You are selectively indignant, and a legalist.

Because for some reason I had this feeling that you would be hard-hearted and would not admit that what you did was wrong, because according to your theology you can do no wrong. Therefore I chose to rebuke you publicly so that at least others might benefit. Surely you remember this verse, since you've already posted it in this thread

I don't believe it is profanity. You haven't proved it is profanity.

Shall we set out to prove how many of God's laws you are currently breaking, Turbo? It wouldn't matter, because you will slice and dice God's word to claim that whatever I call you on is for another dispensation. Convienent.

Ditto. I truly hope you repent, admit that you still sin, and thank Jesus for dying for ALL of your sins, past, present, and future. (Likewise I hope that you will stop teaching others that believing that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead is optional.)

The good Samaritan didn't know who Jesus was. He wasn't a Jew, wasn't a Christian. He was a Samaritan. He loved his neighbor. That is all that matters, but you believe what matters is intellectual legalism and careful choice of words. Keep stumbling in the dark. I know you will.

 

[Spitfire]

This forum is loaded with profanity. You are selectively indignant, and a legalist.

For your information, they banned me, I didn't get a chance to argue with them for days about it.

 

[elohiym]

You have done worse than take the Lord's name in vain. I rebuke you.

It doesn't work that way, CRASH. You actually have to state what I did, and then attempt to restore me in a spirit of meekness.

Lazy "christians" make me sick. :vomit: