Originally posted by FMF
I'll reword the question then. Some bits of Deuteronomy are still OK; some bits of Deuteronomy are not OK anymore? How is it decided?

And here's another smack-bang-on-topic question you dodged just now: You haven't seen [the Harry Potter film in question] and yet you suggest that it falls foul of Deuteronomy. Did someone tell you not to watch it? Had they seen it?

it was a suggestion based on my own understanding of the Bible, I have studied it
almost daily for eighteen years, just saying. While the Law is no longer applicable in
practice, its principles remain, after all, murder, stealing, adultery, covetousness etc etc
are principally condemned.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was a suggestion based on my own understanding of the Bible, I have studied it
almost daily for eighteen years, just saying. While the Law is no longer applicable in
practice, its principles remain, after all, murder, stealing, adultery, covetousness etc etc
are principally condemned.

Did someone tell you not to watch the film? Had they seen it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was a suggestion based on my own understanding of the Bible, I have studied it almost daily for eighteen years, just saying.

So a kind of "self opinion" "masquerading [...] as some kind of self evident truth" then? Quoting the bible to condemn a film you haven't even seen - condemning something blind - strikes me as the antithesis of being "a free moral agent".

Originally posted by FMF
Did someone tell you not to watch the film? Had they seen it?

it was a suggestion based upon my own understanding, i provided the verse, i have
only seem clips of the film, I cannot speak for anyone else. Its not about me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was a suggestion based upon my own understanding, i provided the verse, i have
only seem clips of the film, I cannot speak for anyone else. Its not about me.

How can your personal condemnation of something "based upon [your] own understanding" be "not about [you]"?

Originally posted by FMF
So a kind of "self opinion" "masquerading [...] as some kind of self evident truth" then? Quoting the bible to condemn a film you haven't even seen - condemning something blind - strikes me as the antithesis of being "a free moral agent".

its not about me, it was a suggestion, you need not acquiesce, I have issued no hard
and fast rules, I have condemned nothing, all i was seeking to do was to provide a
basis as to why tim88's sister may have been reticent about letting minors watch it
based upon her religious convictions, she is not me, all further attempts to make it
personal to me shall be ignored.

Originally posted by FMF
How can your personal condemnation of something "based upon [your] own understanding" be "not about [you]"?

I have condemned nothing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not about me, it was a suggestion...

How can you say that it's "not about me" when you admit that your moral condemnation is merely "based upon [your] own understanding"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have condemned nothing.

You quoted Deuteronomy 18:10-13 with reference to Harry Potter. Deuteronomy according to your personal understanding says be "reticent" about Harry Potter but isn't condemning it?

Originally posted by FMF
How can you say that it's "not about me" when you admit that your moral condemnation is merely "based upon [your] own understanding"?

my moral condemnation? are you in your senses? how does citing a Biblical verse, which
may or may not provide a reason as to why someone else, who is not me, equate in
your twisted world to, my moral condemnation, you are frothing at the mouth, please
try to control yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my moral condemnation? are you in your senses? how is citing a Biblical verse, which
may or may not provide a reason as to why someone else, who is not me, equate in
your twisted world to, my moral condemnation, you are frothing at the mouth, please
try to control yourself.

Well because, just before you quoted Deuteronomy, you said the "Bible does condemn that sort of thing, as I have never seen the film myself, I cannot confirm or deny what it contains..."

Originally posted by FMF
Well because, just before you quoted Deuteronomy, you said the "Bible does condemn that sort of thing, as I have never seen the film myself, I cannot confirm or deny what it contains..."

I am not the Bible. Does the phrase ' I cannot confirm or deny having not seen the film ', mean anything to you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not the Bible.

But you believe that the "Bible does condemn" stuff like Harry Potter, and you have quoted Deuteronomy to back your claim.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not the Bible. Does the phrase ' I cannot confirm or deny having not seen the film ', mean anything to you?

You have quoted the Bible as condemning stuff like Harry Potter and now you claim you haven't condemned it because you didn't write the Bible?

Originally posted by FMF
But you believe that the "Bible does condemn" stuff like Harry Potter, and you have quoted Deuteronomy to back your claim.

It condemns spiritsm, sorcery, divination , casting spells, magic etc etc whether Harry
Potter contains these elements, I cannot say, I have seen only small clips.