Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Gentlemen, it is just possible that you have all finally reached that elusive point where those of you who disagree should agree to disagree and leave it at that.
About watching movies on streaming
- Thread starter Erosantonio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fiction films marvel movies
- Status
If I cannot buy a movie subscription to Netflix due to content produced by immoral people, then I cannot buy kosher food or bagels from Jewish vendors because they reject the Messiah. Or any brand promoted by the godless. Or go to a Thai restaurant because they are likely Buddhist. Or buy meat in the shambles in Corinth in ancient times...and yet what did Paul say?
Where have I done that? I have been attempting to draw out precise definitions and clarifications, and challenging assumptions and assertions.
Once more, where have I done that?
Mainly, I have been trying to make sense of his (and your) position. I have not been at all satisfied, most of what I have said having gone ignored.
Scorn and derision? Maybe “baloney” is a stronger word than I had thought.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
The view of Turretin (in the vein of standard reformed theology and other divines of the past) regarding the nature of a lie has been called “silly” “stupid” “absurd” and “ridiculous”, I’ve been told to go to a school with a picket sign, asked if I wanted a demonstration of why the sky is blue, accused ad nauseum of logical fallacies with out any willingness to demonstrate and support the accusations in any meaningful way, the list goes on. Hardly very high quality counter points.
Tom you said “Most of what I have said having gone ignored.” I’ve attempted to respond meticulously to everything you’ve said. I’m going to respectfully withdraw from this thread, but please feel free to PM me with anything you think I’ve ignored I’m more than happy to try and address each thing specifically in private because I don’t know if anyone wants this thread getting any longer.
Tom you said “Most of what I have said having gone ignored.” I’ve attempted to respond meticulously to everything you’ve said. I’m going to respectfully withdraw from this thread, but please feel free to PM me with anything you think I’ve ignored I’m more than happy to try and address each thing specifically in private because I don’t know if anyone wants this thread getting any longer.
The Apostle Paul also used rhetorical arguments of a similar sort. This is a legit debate strategy.
Turretin is not infallible. You need not believe all that the people of that age believed. A whole lot of "witches" were burned during the Reformation as well. Should we accept all they believed uncritically?
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Agreed. I’ll add that the line of reasoning would also require me to discipline my daughters as liars every time they play pretend princess, act as “mommy & daddy” over a tea party, or use there baby dolls a pretend real babies. Just seems nonsensical.
Last edited:
It seems nonsensical because it is nonsensical.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
sorry but did you not have to study Turretin in your divinity course? Can you really so brashly say that his expertly defended view of the implications of the 9th commandment is nonsensical simply because of the possibility that little children might have to be discouraged from playing pretend?
Plus, exceptions to a rule don’t negate the rule. The Bible tells us that there are certain ways of thinking and speaking that are childish and to be expected of children, but are to be put away in maturity, so I don’t think we can class childish play together with the acting of mature adults.
Just seems so crass to dismiss historic and carefully developed reformed theological interpretation as nonsensical.
1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Yes, I have read the entirety of Turretin on the ninth commandment (it is very short), and I agree with him wholeheartedly. What I do not agree with is the asserted implications of your interpretation of Turretin, which you seem to be equating with the words of Turretin himself.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
That’s good. A few people here didn’t like Turretin’s point that a lie consists in contrariety between the mind and the tongue, but I’m glad you agree wholeheartedly with him.
I will quote from the Larger Catechism here for any reader interested to consider and apply these words to the subject in question:
144. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;
And also it forbids,
“speaking untruth,”
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Do you have small children? Likely 90 % of my kids recreation time is them playing pretend. They often hold pretend church services as well because of our willingness and duty as parents to make sure their butts are in the pews for called Public Worship and our Family Worship.
This seems normal for most kids, even the supposed “weirdo” homeschool kids like my own. The reason it matters is because if doctrinal propositions, not laid out clearly in scripture, seem to have nonsensical and impossible practical applications then it is highly likely the proposition (being All Acting is Lying) is not only wrong but even harmful in adding to the Word of God man-made traditions, which Christ spent a considerable amount of time rebuking.
If you are a parent you should also know that youth is not to be despised and often (very often), God uses our children to help us grow in faith and even show/remind us of things we need to know.
Again, for curiosity, do you have kids?
Last edited:
Again, I agree with everything you have quoted, I just do not agree with your interpretation of its implications. This is not a matter of being “willing to consider and apply.” I do apply—every day—just not in the way you do. I would encourage you to really consider how often you equate your own interpretation of things with the things themselves.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
Did someone disagree with Turretin? I think most of us were more perplexed by your application.
If you can provide evidence that Turretin and Aquinas really meant their discourses on lying to be applied to fiction and dramatic performance, I would be interested to see it. But it seems an unnatural straining of the quotes I read that you shared to be taken as such.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
Well I’ve been racking my brain to try and see how an actor is doing what’s required there, particularly this:
from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth
As far as I can discern, an actor isn’t doing that. I’m not seeing any other way to interpret or apply this
None of my specific examples have been addressed. A big one (for me, at least) was how we understand history, and another was bedtime stories.
Simple: I disagree with you that acting is necessarily speaking untruth. I have not been convinced that you have demonstrated definitively that it is. And continuing to beg that question is, in your own oft repeated words, “unhelpful.” Again, I agree with what you’ve quoted, but I disagree with your interpretation and corresponding application of it.
I will add my voice to those who agree with Turretin, but do not see him saying what you are saying:
“A lie is not true.
Fiction is not true.
Therefore, fiction is a lie.”
Is that what Turretin says in the passages you have posted? From what I have read of Turretin, I’d expect a little more, er, distinguishing.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
In tiling, when removing a broken tile in order to replace it with a new one manually with a hammer and chisel, you often had to hammer and chip away at the old tile because it was really stuck in there, before finally clearing it away and being able to adhere and fit the new one, and the process of hammering out a well-set tile could produce quite a mess and noise, but in the end you were able to arrive at a nice clean and slick result with the fault repaired.
The quote doesn’t talk about untruth, it says that we are to speak the truth, and only the truth, from the heart, freely and clearly.
You’re the one who is assuming that an actor is speaking the truth without demonstrating that he is. I have just as much a right as you do to say I have not been convinced definitely that he is.
You also haven’t given any alternative way of interpreting that clause or applying it to acting. So I’m left with only my way, unless you can please show and offer me an alternative?
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven’t read the views of godly men of the past concerning acting, per se, falling into the category of violating the 9th commandment. But just reading Turretin here, it appears he’s setting forth three objects or intentions people (and can’t you then say, a movie or a play?) have in telling a falsehood: pernicious, jocose, and officious (and he briefly defines those). I can see where a play or a film could fall into those categories, if it promotes any falsehood with an object to injure, amuse, or benefit by means of promoting that/those falsehoods. Taking that definition (and it really does have a broad application), I can see where a lot of films and plays fall into that category and would meet the definition of a lie and a violation of the 9th commandment.
I don’t see how to conclude from the passage from Turretin that an actor is necessarily lying, that to act a role or play a part is necessarily a lie. A lie and violation of the 9th commandment could be found, though, in any false ideas and facts promoted in any way, by the words and actions of an actor or overall story-line, by the play or movie.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
I didn’t ignore you comment on history, was addressed in my response there. But let’s do one thing at a time each person is pulling the thread in a different direction.
I don’t think your interpretation holds up to much scrutiny (lack of precision, equivocation, etc.) but it is where your application is concerned that things really start to fall to pieces.
Interpret however you like. Now you just have to deal with the consequences of your interpretation. No movies, no fairy tales, no bedtime stories, no history (or only arbitrarily approved history)… Provided you’re willing to do the work to sort this all out, you’ve got quite a big job ahead of you.
Friend, it appears to me we are at the impasse stage of dialogue—the phase where we enter into a “uh-huh, nuh-uh, uh-huh, nuh-uh” type of interaction. You have said you are unconvinced; I have said the same. You have said your arguments are not being addressed; I have said the same. You have your opinion on this matter; I have mine. I believe it is best if we just leave it at that. This is very obviously not productive. I have other much more important matters to attend to.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
I have a simple yes or no question for you that will sort all of that out for you:
When an actor is acting out his role, is he from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth?
It’s a simple yes or no answer.
From that response (on page 2, I think), I gather that you have not grasped the implications of your position when it comes to history.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
We’re at the stage where I’ve offered an interpretation of the clause in question, you’ve rejected it, but you haven’t offered any alternative. It would be more productive if you could offer one, if such exists. I believe the reason you’re reluctant to offer one is because there isn’t one.
Maybe I haven’t. But as far as acting is concerned, a simple yes or no to this question will go a long way to clearing things up:
When an actor is acting out his role, is he from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth?
That doesn’t sort any of this out at all.
Equivocation.
Well, that’s all from me. Stimulating discussion. Much appreciated, ladies and gentlemen, of all sides.
Special thanks to @alexmacarie! Seriously, I appreciate your sincerity and doggedness. It must be a little tiring responding to everyone like this.
Special thanks to @alexmacarie! Seriously, I appreciate your sincerity and doggedness. It must be a little tiring responding to everyone like this.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
You must be joking.. this has to be trolling right? I get the strong impression that is what is going on here
Yeah a bit tiring.. I don’t understand how I can be equivocating when I’m asking you a really simple and clear, unambiguous yes or no question..
Equivocation is defined as “the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.”
Yeah a bit tiring.. I don’t understand how I can be equivocating when I’m asking you a really simple and clear, unambiguous yes or no question..
Equivocation is defined as “the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.”
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status