Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo just to be clear, can all JWs cast themselves as "umpires", if they want to, in deciding when to agree with Biblical condemnation and when not to, in accordance to "the dictates of their own consciences"?
He is still not understanding the process. An umpire when he renders a decision, he
looks at a number of factors, line, length, pitch of the ball, etc etc, its exactly the
same process that a Christian uses to discern whether entertainment is suitable for
them, they weigh up their knowledge of Biblical principles and try to ascertain how it
...[text shortened]... one, that its simply a meter of accepting or rejecting on
some arbitrary basis, is a nonsense.
Originally posted by FMFagain you are in your fabrication factory, spinning away on your spinning wheel, what I
Well, I asked you:
"Can the Bible also be used to condemn a fictional work that portrays a murderer getting away with his crime or one that portrays an adulterous relationship in which those involved are happy or one that portrays a homosexual person positively?"
And you said "Murder, homosexuality and adultery are all condemned in scripture, whether the ...[text shortened]... ondemn the fictional portrayal of "spiritism, sorcery, casting of spells" in Harry Potter?
actually stated was that the Bible condemns murder, homosexuality and adultery. No I
have not stated that the Bible condemns the fictional portrayal of murder, you have
made up that i did, because you are spinning! because that's what you do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI haven't used the expression "arbitrary basis". Where is it you thought I stated that? In fact I cited the "faculty of human conscience" thing that you raised, several times. Where is you hear me talking about "some arbitrary basis"?
To state, or attempt to state as FMF has done, that its simply a meter of accepting or rejecting on some arbitrary basis, is a nonsense.
Originally posted by FMFall persons consciences act in the manner of an umpire. You seem not to understand
So just to be clear, can all JWs cast themselves as "umpires", if they want to, in deciding when to agree with Biblical condemnation and when not to, in accordance to "the dictates of their own consciences"?
the process otherwise you would not be referring to 'agree or disagree with Biblical
condemnation' and the over simplification of the process.
Originally posted by FMFIt was the impression i received, so its not on the bis of an arbitrary process, therefore
I haven't used the expression "arbitrary basis". Where is it you thought I stated that? In fact I cited the "faculty of human conscience" thing that you raised, several times. Where is you hear me talking about "some arbitrary basis"?
, what is it which guides the conscience?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs for the last film i watched, which was last night, Frost/Nixon contained the virtues of temperance, courage, justice, patience, kindness and self control to name a few.
ok, I was thinking more of the fact that no matter how evil someone is, they may be
redeemable, as in the case of Darth Vader.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said that "Murder, homosexuality and adultery are all condemned in scripture," and you also said that whether it is real or whether it is a fictional portrayal "is neither here nor there". I haven't made anything up. It's what you wrote on page 15.
again you are in your fabrication factory, spinning away on your spinning wheel, what I
actually stated was that the Bible condemns murder, homosexuality and adultery. No I
have not stated that the Bible condemns the fictional portrayal of murder, you have
made up that i did, because you are spinning! because that's what you do.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFwhere is the explicit claim where i have stated , in your own words, 'that the Bible
You said that "Murder, homosexuality and adultery are all condemned in scripture," and you also said that whether it is real or whether it is a fictional portrayal "is neither here nor there". I haven't made anything up. It's what you wrote on page 15.
condemns the fictional portrayal of murder, homosexuality and adultery ', and you will
find that I have not made that statement at all, because you made it up that I have,
because that's what you do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, that "which guides the conscience" in the way you have been using it juxtapositioned alongside the Biblical condemnation, it must be something other than the Biblical condemnation. So please, stop sidestepping the question: Can all JWs cast themselves as "umpires", if they want to, in deciding when to agree with Biblical condemnation and when not to, in accordance to "the dictates of their own consciences"?
It was the impression i received, so its not on the bis of an arbitrary process, therefore , what is it which guides the conscience?
Originally posted by FMFstill fabricating away from your factory of spin, i have not said that JW's decide to
Well, that "which guides the conscience" in the way you have been using it juxtapositioned alongside the Biblical condemnation, it must be something other than the Biblical condemnation. So please, stop sidestepping the question: Can all JWs cast themselves as "umpires", if they want to, in deciding when to agree with Biblical condemnation and when not to, in accordance to "the dictates of their own consciences"?
agree or disagree with Biblical condemnation, you have asserted that they do, its your
assertion, you fabricated it, you substantiate it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn page 15 you said that "murder, homosexuality and adultery are all condemned in scripture, whether the matter is fictional or otherwise is neither here nor there"
where is the explicit claim where i have stated , in your own words, 'that the Bible
condemns the fictional portrayal of murder, homosexuality and adultery ', and you will
find that I have not made that statement at all, because you made it up that I have,
because that's what you do.
To which I replied: "Saying it is "neither here nor there" doesn't add up, robbie. Do you believe that the Bible condemns that stuff being portrayed in films?"
To which you replied: "what is it about, 'the Bible condemns.....' that you dont understand?"
You then quoted 1 Timothy 4:7.
Seems pretty clear.
Why are you accusing me of "making it up".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you said that the Bible condemns the stuff portrayed in Harry Potter but then you said that you don't personally condemn it. When I asked you to explain this, you used a cricket umpire analogy. So, can all JWs cast themselves as "umpires" in this way?
still fabricating away from your factory of spin, i have not said that JW's decide to
agree or disagree with Biblical condemnation, you have asserted that they do, its your
assertion, you fabricated it, you substantiate it.
Originally posted by FMFso you cannot produce the explicit statement where I have said, 'the Bible condemns
On page 15 you said that "murder, homosexuality and adultery are all condemned in scripture, whether the matter is fictional or otherwise is neither here nor there"
To which I replied: "Saying it is "neither here nor there" doesn't add up, robbie. Do you believe that the Bible condemns that stuff being portrayed in films?"
To which you replied: "what is it ...[text shortened]... 1 Timothy 4:7.
Seems pretty clear.
Why are you accusing me of "making it up".
frictional portrayal of murder, homosexuality and adultery', why not, because i never
stated it, that's why, you merely fabricated that I had stated it.