captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The Bible alone idea is kind of self-destructive seeing as Bible alone isn't Biblical. lol Makes perfect sense.

Before I respond to that, let me ask you what your alternative to that notion is?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Asking people what sins they gladly engage in is mocking.

I disagree. And I don't think that Chris' intention was to "mock" sin, so much as find out just how "sinful" the people who frequent these boards are, and just how open they are about admitting them.

I prefer not to call it an alternative as said "alternative" is merely taking the Bible at what it really says. But this is kind of off-topic seeing as this is about sin, not theology.


Twas probably not Chris' intention, but it's the result nonetheless. I think at least one even admitted it. If you admit to "indulging" in a sin, you likely don't view it as a sin. And people who don't view something as a sin tend to enjoy mocking those who do. It's a mockfest. Don't worry. I don't let it bug me.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I prefer not to call it an alternative as said "alternative" is merely taking the Bible at what it really says. But this is kind of off-topic seeing as this is about sin, not theology.

Oh Jesus tittyfucking Christ, just answer the goddamn question! YOU already decided to take the this "off topic" when you decided to bring up "bible alone theology" and accuse people on here of mocking sin. Now that I've questioned your theology and am asking you to explain your position, suddenly the thread going off-topic is of major concern to you?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Twas probably not Chris' intention, but it's the result nonetheless. I think at least one even admitted it. If you admit to "indulging" in a sin, you likely don't view it as a sin. And people who don't view something as a sin tend to enjoy mocking those who do. It's a mockfest. Don't worry. I don't let it bug me.

Fair enough. I'll give you that one. I just wanted to make sure you weren't implicating Chris. Now back to your "bible only" interjection. WHAT exactly do you mean by that and what is the biblically "correct" way (according to you).

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I prefer not to call it an alternative as said "alternative" is merely taking the Bible at what it really says. But this is kind of off-topic seeing as this is about sin, not theology.

Oh Jesus tittyfucking Christ, just answer the goddamn question! YOU already decided to take the this "off topic" when you decided to bring up "bible alone theology" and accuse people on here of mocking sin. Now that I've questioned your theology and am asking you to explain your position, suddenly the thread going off-topic is of major concern to you?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Twas probably not Chris' intention, but it's the result nonetheless. I think at least one even admitted it. If you admit to "indulging" in a sin, you likely don't view it as a sin. And people who don't view something as a sin tend to enjoy mocking those who do. It's a mockfest. Don't worry. I don't let it bug me.

Fair enough. I'll give you that one. I just wanted to make sure you weren't implicating Chris. Now back to your "bible only" interjection. WHAT exactly do you mean by that and what is the biblically "correct" way (according to you).

My comments weren't off topic since they were on the topic of sin. (And it is mocking. ) In other words, I don't just look for sin by looking for explicit Bible passages. Having a theological war with you is bound to take it more off topic, especially since you become derivative when you get on the Alan Shore mobile.

I don't intend to insult Chris. He's at least genuine. Oh and thanks.

The Bible is the biblically correct way but saying that something isn't a sin because it isn't explicitly stated word for word in the Bible, IMO, is incorrect, since the Bible itself makes no mention of "Bible alone" theology. That's all.

BTW: I'd add taking the Lord's name in vain to your list.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

My comments weren't off topic since they were on the topic of sin.

Then by that logic NEITHER ARE MINE. The intepretation of sin is ultimately dependent on your particular brand of theology.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The Bible is the biblically correct way but saying that something isn't a sin because it isn't explicitly stated word for word in the Bible, IMO, is incorrect, since the Bible itself makes no mention of "Bible alone" theology. That's all.

BTW: I'd add taking the Lord's name in vain to your list.

THANK YOU (for attempting an explaination). Now I'll add my own position (so you don't judge me incorrectly).

A) You say that the bible is the correct way, but you simultaneously suggest that "another way" is also correct. I'm asking what the other way is? How do YOU determine "sin" outside of what the bible says?

B) According to what you've said, NOBODY goes off of "bible alone" theology as such a concept wouldn't even exist in Christianity if (according to you) sin can be extrapolated from teachings/sources outside of it.

C) I've NEVER taken the Lord's name in vein because Jesus isn't the true name of "the Lord". The commandment refers to the name of God (Yahweh/Jehovah) and taking his name in vein means using God's name to curse someone else or swear an unfaithful oath.

But you were very close to getting off topic, hence why I reeled it in.

I don't really like the language of "another way." IMO, it's all the same way. I see the Bible clearly establishing an authority for such matters. Not to mention, Bible alone simply is unbiblical. lol

I don't see how you get B. Just because people can find it doesn't mean they will. Plenty of people claim to go off of Bible alone. (Although, I'd argue, even they don't. )

That's your flawed interpretation. (Notice I am not completely serious here. I feel the need for a disclaimer since tone can't be conveyed as well online) See what I mean? The Bible alone is meaningless. People can and do apply whatever meanings they like to justify whatever they want to. We're a society that really doesn't believe in sin anymore. Even most who claim to don't really seem to act like they do.

I'm never gonna finish my novel with you around. Dang.

Thread hijacked.

(Oh!) Rob Petrie wrote:

Thread hijacked.

Take dis tread tu Habana Cuba!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I don't really like the language of "another way." IMO, it's all the same way. I see the Bible clearly establishing an authority for such matters. Not to mention, Bible alone simply is unbiblical. lol

You're not making any sense! You see the bible as the clear authority for such matters and you don't think there is "another way"? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I don't see how you get B. Just because people can find it doesn't mean they will. Plenty of people claim to go off of Bible alone. (Although, I'd argue, even they don't. )

Sounds like you're making my case for me. If you can argue that these so-called bible only proponents don't just go off of the bible, that pretty much validates what I just said.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

We're a society that really doesn't believe in sin anymore. Even most who claim to don't really seem to act like they do.

That's your flawed intepretation. You say "anymore" as if society ever really believed in this as a whole in the first place. In any case, its probably best if you speak for yourself and not for everyone else.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I'm never gonna finish my novel with you around. Dang.

I don't think you can finish it without me around.

FM I decided to make this simple for you:

Just what is it that the bible establishes which enables you to infer "sin" from sources outside of the bible?