Bob Hill's bottom line?

[Clete]

I want to ask you, anyone. What's your bottom line?

Bob Hill

Relationships are more important than anything else.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, elohiym is a mess. But he doesn't agree with Sozo, at all.:nono:

There were arguing similar vs identical ideas in relation to a recent topic on sin.

 

[Lighthouse]

There were arguing similar vs identical ideas in relation to a recent topic on sin.

On the surface they sound the same, because they both say Christians don't sin. However, they both mean different things when they say it.

 

[noguru]

Is this Elo?

Caution, no one under 18 allowed to see this.

I am apalled that he has one of my favorite George Clinton songs playing in the background.

I really like the poetic graphics at the end of your post.

 

[Bob Hill]

Clete,

I agree. What kinds of relationships are the most important to you? I really enjoy relationships with those who really enjoy God's Word.

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

I also enjoy relationships on line with people who are serious about the Bible.

Bob Hill

 

[elohiym]

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?

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Did you notice that Paul called the Corinthians "carnal"? Are you claiming that they were simultaneously "carnal" and spiritual?

Did you notice that the Galatians were seeking to be perfect in the flesh? They were still carnal, too.

Did you notice he was telling them all to stop sinning? Was he asking them to do something impossible?

You are mistaking Paul's statements to unconverted people as statements to converted people.

Our nature is changed after we are saved. We are a new creation.

How is your nature changed if you still sin? If you still sin, that's you old nature.

I'm not saying that true christians sin daily but no one is perfect until death.

Nonesense. The Bible gives several examples of men who no longer sinned before death. See Abraham, Job, and David for starters.

After I sin, I personally fell the need to repent to God.

Knight apparently disagrees with you. Do you think that Knight is wrong?

But if I was struck dead before I had a chance to repent, I know I would not go to hell.

Unless you repent amd are converted, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven, according to Jesus.

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.

That's not true. I don't agree with your broad interpretation, because it is wrong. Furthermore, you didn't correct Turbo who disagreed with my interpretation, even though you accepted my interpretation but only felt it wasn't the only interpretation.

Seems to me that you jumped into the middle of our conversation to earn browny points. However, that has backfired on you now.

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

My interpretation was applicable to the conversation that I was having with Turbo. Your supposed "full interpretation" is false. Kmoney started a thread on that commandment, and I addressed the so-called fuller interpretation there.

If you qoute filth it is still filth.

I didn't quote filth. You can't prove that I quoted filth. Your subject and selectively indignant opinion of what is filth is worthless, and it only makes you look like a legalist.

You nor the author of the artical have the authority to say what is or is not damned.

According to the Constitution, an ordinance of man that God commands us to obey, the author has the right you claim he does not have. Rethink your position.

I have the right to say who or what is damned. I can say the wicked are damned. I can say that people who claim the name of God, yet continue in sin, are damned. I can say a fuit tree is damned if I like.

You telling people what they supposedly can or cannot do is rediculous and unbiblical. Next you'll be saying I can't judge.

The author used God's name in an empty and worthless manner.

That is your opinion. You don't know what was in his heart. You don't know his intent.

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.

You seem to be able to judge when it suits you. I also think that you know it is not a sin for me to quote someone, but if you say that then you support my position, which will lose you browny points. And it should be obvious to you that Turbo did judge that, and you should lecture him as to why he should not judge unrighteously like that.

Man, you are sooooooooo double minded.

Whether or not that was sin would require knowing what the condition of your heart was at the time you quoted it.

Turbo seems to think he knows what was in my heart when I quoted someone. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Browny points for you.

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.

Do you have a commandment to support your allegation? Are you saying I cannot rebuke someone for bearing false witness against me?

Guess that statement was another attempt at browny points.

I got the feeling that you were angry and not rightously when you posted what you did.

Don't trust your feelings, since they are false.

Perhaps you think that Poly has the right to rebuke and abuse whoever she wants, but nobody has the right to rebuke her for bearing false witness. Figures.

Once again, I do not know the condition of your heart though.

That's right. You don't. So why not stop posting the rubbish you have posted against me?

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.

You are not qualified to give anyone a Bible study on anything in my opinion. You should study the Bible yourself a long, long time before you attempt to help others. Try getting the log out of your own eye first.

As I said before, christians do not have the same nature anymore but they are far from perfect.

Are you claiming they traded a carnal nature for a less than perfect spiritual nature?

You apparently don't have a clue what perfection in Christ is. Too bad for you.

If you think you are sinless then compare yourself to Christ...

I am in Christ. There is no sin in Christ.

when you get up off your knees you will have a new understanding if you seek His will with all of your heart.

That new understanding is that I am free from sin. My old man is dead.

You seem to be implying that we get down on our knees as evidence that we are miserable and wretched, and we get up knowing that we are still miserable and wretched. Is that what Baptists teach? If so, that's poison.

The danger in believing you are perfect is that you will refuse to see your own sin.

I saw my sin. I confessed my sins. He was faithful to cleanse me from all unrighteousness. Now I have his righteousness. I am perfect. I am holy. I am a saint. Just like the Bible teaches.

You should read your Bible more, and post less.

 

[elohiym]

That reminds me of the a preacher in california, in L.A to be exact. He said GD in the pulpit and used that very reason Elo said, "Is it the combination of the two words, which merely means that God curses someone or something?"

Do you think that replacing two letters with a dash somehow makes it excusable? (And you're calling me a legalist?) The word that your heart is expressing is obvious to anyone reading your post.

Implied profanity is a bannable offense at TOL. Were you aware of this?

You should repent drbrumley for using that word in you post. According to Turbo, you just took the Lord's name in vain.

 

[elohiym]

*EDITED for content purposes.*

You only edited yesterday, and that is because I pointed out in the shout box that it was posting a link to profanity.

I notice that Turbo didn't edit it, nor did he edit your use of the same word in the previous post. That's called selctive indignation and hypocrisy.

I intentionally left this thread after my wife clicked through to that link. It played a so-called preacher using the N word and other vularities. My children happen to be standing there when it played.

I wanted to see if Turbo would edit your post, or if anyone would object to you doing something worse than what I was accused of. Of course, nobody cared, because the enemy of their enemy is their friend, even if he uses profanity and posts links to it. Disgusting!

Now, drbrumley, were you sinning when you posted what you did? If not, then neither could I have been sinning when I posted what I did, because what I posted doesn't even come close to the vulgarity you posted to mock me. If you did sin, then please admit that right here for all of us to see, and in the future don't cast stones at others while you are comitting the same same alleged sins that they are accused of.

 

[elohiym]

I want to ask you, anyone. What's your bottom line?

Bob Hill

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[elohiym]

:rotfl: How dumb are you??? I mean really???

I ask the same of you, Knight.

There have been some class A idiots stroll through TOL but you rank right up there with the top. :kookoo:

I am honored. Thanks.

I am following in the footsteps of my mentor. He claimed to be the son of God. He claimed to not sin. He rebuked people for sinning, and told them unless they stopped they would perish.

They thought he was a kook, too. They mocked him, too. He stated that I would be called names and mocked if I followed him.

By the way... that part of the movie was hilarious!!! :rotfl:

You thought is was hilarious that a nun was being used as a sex symbol in a movie?

Then can I assume that you don't think quoting someone using a word that implies God curses something is a sin?

 

[elohiym]

So what is the profanity exactly. Is it the word "damn" which is found in the Bible? Is it the word "God" which is found in the Bible? Is it the combination of the two words, which merely means that God curses someone or something?

If nothing else in this entire thread proves that you do sin this single comment definitely does it.

Oh, so now a question becomes a sin, too.

I guess all things are lawful for you, but not me.

That isn't what the use of those two words together means.

That's you opinion. And your opinion is wrong. I know what those two words combined mean.

It's outright cussing and you know it!

No it's not. But assuming it is, can you show me where cussing is a sin? Calling someone a viper or whited tomb would be a sin, if that were the case.

The phrase is used to be offensive and intentionally vulgar.

That's not true. If I say it when I samsh my finger, I am not being offensive or intentionally vulgar to anyone, not even God.

Besides, all things are lawful. Remember, Mr. license to sin?

There is simply no possible way that you don't know that and so not only are you guilty of finding an opportunity to quote a gross profanity while leaving room for plausible deniability on your part (a very sinfully legalistic thing to do, by the way) but you have now compounded your sin by lying about what you know for a fact is the meaning of the phrase!

You statement is an example of legalism. When you say "guilty" you are referring to violations of law.

It is the pinnacle of stupidity to call someone that doesn't believe that he sins because he is not under a law a legalist because you think he is breaking a law. It is you that are the legalist, plain as the nose on your face.

You sound a lot like a lawyer to me.

I'm not.

Find all the loopholes that will allow you to invoke God in a vulgar manner while condemning others for supposedly doing the very same thing.

Untrue. And it's pathetic reading your words since you use Paul's words as loopholes to maintain a license to sin.

So lets make a list shall we...

Satan loves these lists. Go for it.

So far you are guilty of the following....

1. Profanity: Referencing God in an intentionally vulgar manner.

So now taking the Lord's name in vain has been distilled to a sin called "profanity." Can you show me that LAW, you legalist.

2. Lying: In an attempt to justify your own use of the vulgarity you make up what you know to be false definitions of vulgar phrases.

"Vulgar phrases" like? Is the word God vulgar? Is the word damn vulgar? Please show me where in the Bible puting the word God before the other word is considered vulgar.

Is it possible that the phrase is lawful but not profitable? :think:

Does that mean it is always unprofitable?

3. Hypocrisy: Giving definitions of words in order to argue that in a technical sense your aren't guilty of profanity while adamantly insisting that one should not be legalistic.

Oh, I see. We shouldn't define words, or explain what we understand them to mean.

I could go on for some time pointing out sins ...

...the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. Revelation 12:10

You play the part so well, Clete.

 

[Lighthouse]

Hey, elohiym! :shut: up.

 

[Spitfire]

He's going for broke!

 

[Inquisitor]

My bottom line? Roses have thorns.

Yes. I, too, take my theology from Poison lyrics.

 

[elohiym]

Hey, elohiym! :shut: up.

Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

 

[elohiym]

He's going for broke!

If you mean Lighthouse, he's already broke, just not broken.

If you mean me, no I'm not "going for broke," just responding to a number of posts about/to me on this thread.

Remember, this is a debating forum.

 

[Clete]

elohiym,

I have three questions for you...

Is lying a sin? (Since you tend to be very lawyerly it seems prudent to point out that I'm asking the question in a general sense. I understand that there are exceptions but I'm asking you if it is unrighteous to go around saying things that are not the truth. A simple yes or no will suffice, I promise not to hold you to account for every possible exception.)

Would accussing someone of teaching or believing something that you know for a fact that they do not teach or believe count as a sinful lie?

Would you say that I was guity of being a legalist?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

You only edited yesterday, and that is because I pointed out in the shout box that it was posting a link to profanity.

I notice that Turbo didn't edit it, nor did he edit your use of the same word in the previous post. That's called selctive indignation and hypocrisy.

I intentionally left this thread after my wife clicked through to that link. It played a so-called preacher using the N word and other vularities. My children happen to be standing there when it played.

I wanted to see if Turbo would edit your post, or if anyone would object to you doing something worse than what I was accused of. Of course, nobody cared, because the enemy of their enemy is their friend, even if he uses profanity and posts links to it. Disgusting!

Are you under the impression that I read every post and follow every link that is posted on TOL?

Why didn't you just report the posts, or PM me?


The day I added the term in question to the censored words list (inspired by your thread), I ran a search for it to see if anyone ever used that term at TOL. I found one such post, and it was in some article about George Bush posted by drbrumley several months ago. I edited it that day prior to adding the term to the censored words list.

 

[drbrumley]

The day I added the term in question to the censored words list (inspired by your thread), I ran a search for it to see if anyone ever used that term at TOL. I found one such post, and it was in some article about George Bush posted by drbrumley several months ago. I edited it that day prior to adding the term to the censored words list.

Is that the post that had Goerge Bush using the words?