Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not about me.
I had no idea it was going to be quite so violent, there was no need to have the mans
wife tied to a post and have her throat slit, was there? what need did it serve other
than to appeal to the emotions and incite hatred, Gibsons films are the worst. When
was the last time you saw a film portraying some virtue?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFall persons have recourse to the faculty of conscience, why you think its a remit
Well, you say that, and yet I think you will agree that you are personally responsible for what you post. Is this "the faculty of human conscience" thing you mentioned a general principle held among JWs, that means that although you declare that he Bible condemns something, you yourselves don't personally have to condemn it?
exclusive to Jehovahs witnesses i cannot say. The conscience acts like an umpire in
cricket, it weighs up the pros and cons and renders a decision, based on certain
criteria. Its an oversimplification to state as you have done that although the Bible
condemns something, we personally dont have to condemn it, it simply does not work
like that as I have demonstrated with reference and illustration. Shall an umpire render
a decision on the basis of the cricket rule book when deciding whether a ball was
missing leg stump or not, on some LBW appeal?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're dodging my key question. This "faculty of human conscience" thing you have mentioned, it it a general principle that is held among JWs, meaning that although you declare that the Bible condemns something, you yourselves don't personally have to condemn it?
all persons have recourse to the faculty of conscience, why you think its a remit
exclusive to Jehovahs witnesses i cannot say. The conscience acts like an umpire in
cricket, it weighs up the pros and cons and renders a decision, based on certain
criteria. Its an oversimplification to state as you have done that although the Bible
condemns s ...[text shortened]... icket rule book when deciding whether a ball was
missing leg stump or not, on some LBW appeal?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have not dodged it at all, I have provided the illustration of an umpire, you may make
You're dodging my key question. This "faculty of human conscience" thing you have mentioned, it it a general principle that is held among JWs, meaning that although you declare that the Bible condemns something, you yourselves don't personally have to condemn it?
reference to that. All persons have recourse to the faculty of conscience, providing of
course that it works.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said that the Bible condemned films like Harry Potter. But you also said that you don't personally condemn it. This is clearly a major fundamental inconsistency. Your explanation seems to be a fudge. Now you are talking about Braveheart. Does the Bible condemn films like Braveheart?
I have not dodged it at all, I have provided the illustration of an umpire, you may make
reference to that. All persons have recourse to the faculty of conscience, providing of
course that it works.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo how does it work? You state that the Bible condemns something but you also see yourself as an "umpire" who doesn't necessarily have to personally condemn the thing condemned by the Bible. Is that it?
I have not dodged it at all, I have provided the illustration of an umpire, you may make
reference to that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan all JWs cast themselves as "umpires", if they want to, in deciding when to agree with Biblical condemnation and when not to?
Shall an umpire render
a decision on the basis of the cricket rule book when deciding whether a ball was
missing leg stump or not, on some LBW appeal?