'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

[Brendan]

This is as good a place as any to ask if you can answer the flip side of the types of questions you’re asking me:

1. What does one do when a deity is said to have committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from believing such an entity is deciding what is right and wrong how can one speak out against that deity’s immoral actions?
2. What does one do when a religious group has committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from a deity and the religious group in question is said to be the proper point of interpretation for that deity’s wishes how can one speak out against that group’s immoral actions?

I’ll answer both together, and that would be none, if one is using one’s deity as the summa bonum. That becomes the objective standard of good. An external one, which is more than can be said for an atheist philosophy

Several times now I’ve explained how a non-religious basis for morality can be derived by several principles, most importantly taking into account the wants and needs of others. Your response is to give an example of a worldview that is the exact opposite, then somehow claimed that this negates the basis that I described.

Yes, and as I agreed that you can develop A system.

A person can also develop a moral system based on skin color as well. Such a person would conceive of racial lynching as a moral good.

You would claim that it is not, that such an action is immoral, because it violates the standard that you have chosen to define morality.

But all you can really say is that it is your personal morality that is violated, that your personal moral system, based on criteria that you personally hold to be valuable are being violated.

And for the other person, concepts of racial equality are morally repugnant, and that to would be their personal moral system.

Neither could be said to be ‘better’ as that means that it would be closer to an objective, external standard. Neither one of you have such an external standard, only internal preferences.

 

[PRmerger]

Come on, let’s not be obtuse now.

Careful, Mike. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, …but you are getting quite close to breaking the forum rules, so I’d just be more judicious about how you’re presenting your arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s more than just a good thing. Making sure kids eat a healthy breakfast is a good thing, but if it doesn’t happen society doesn’t weaken. If we allow murder it impacts us to the core. We have imperatives within ourselves and from others in our circle to prevent murder from occurring.

Right. They are imperatives. Obligations. Moral laws which we must obey or we act immorally.

And what you have described as the source of our moral imperatives is…a feeble explanation.

Evolution, society, genetics can NEVER be a source for imperatives. They can explain why we act in a certain way, but never why we must act in a certain way.

They explain they why but not the why not.

Leviticus 20:13 (a direct quote from God): “'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Yep. It’s pretty clear that homosexuality is an abomination, similar to bestiality.

I’m quite well versed in Catholicism. I grew up in it. I’ve also been on this board for a few years picking up more than a few things.

I doubt you could provide apologia for some very basic Catholic tenets, Mike.

The Church did an abysmal job in the past providing nourishing catechesis for her members.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Who cares if the species lasts?

Morality is predicated on how members of a species act and how such acts impact themselves and others. Without the species there is longer anything to measure how a member of that species acts.

What’s “immoral” about a species going kaput?

As I’ve already described what we call moral derives from our need to survive and to propagate the species. Many of things that are subconcious to us can be traced back to sociocultural evolution, No magic trees or talking snakes needed.

There’s nothing immoral about a species going kaput if that species doesn’t have a hand in it. If a meteor came down today and wiped out humanity then there was nothing immoral about it. If a mad scientist were to wipe out humanity then that would be immoral.

Your position takes it for granted that such should be the moral barometer.

And you take it for granted that morals MUST come from some alleged higher power. That’s how you define it and you won’t accept any other definition that doesn’t include this unnecessary extra layer that you have added.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yeah. I can see how being a Believer could have impaired this priest’s morality.

Kind of.

Actually, as I’m typing this I have to say now: no, being a Believer did not impede the priest’s morality. He simply was mistaken. But not immoral.

Would he have tied a young girl down and induced enough trauma that she claims she tried to commit suicide have occurred without this notion of demons existing?

Well, that’s begging the question, isn’t it, Mike?

You assume that demons don’t exist.

But what if they do? Then your premise is worthless, right?

That same faith convinced him he had an obligation to tie down a young girl to perform

I wouldn’t call it begging the question so much as speaking based on what we know. If I were to compare something futile to a unicorn hunt would I be begging the question that unicorns don’t exist? We haven’t and can’t show definitively that unicorns don’t exist or did not exist (despite the Bible thrice mentioning them).

Back in the day we as a people were left with far more questions than answers. In order to gain some solace we tried to fill in some of those question with answers – including demons. How does one explain epileptic seizures without knowing what epilepsy is? Demons. How come some are born with deformities? Demons. Why did one farmer’s crops grow while another’s withered? Demons.

But now we live in the 21st century. While we by no means have all the answers, many of the things once often ascribed to demons have far more tangible explanations. Even on things that we can’t fully explain we know that the chance of a mundane explanation is great.

I can point to times where a person was mistakenly put through an exorcism when the actual ailment (if there was one) was not supernatural. Surely you can show things the other way around where a person was thought to have a normal ailment but it was concluded that the problem was a demon.

What, again, is the immoral act the priest did? Tying her down?

If that’s immoral, do you oppose holding your children down to immunize them? Or to have an IV started on them if they were dehydrated?

How long do you think it takes for a doctor to immunize a child or start an IV? From what I’ve read about exorcisms they last for many hours, sometimes days since it’s imperative that the ritual be completed lest the demon possess the exorcist. It was to the point where the girl claimed to have tried to commit suicide due to the exorcisms. We have rules to how long and in what manner we restrain prisoners because of how cruel it can be. Take a young girl and keep her immobile for many hours and then do that thirteen times over and it’s a little more traumatic then a kid getting his MMR booster.

Well, yeah.

You see a problem with folks saying, “We distance ourself from Judas, but we embrace Maximilian Kolbe”?

I certainly don’t.

At any rate, Georges Lamaitre is often brought up in response to the gaga lala objection that the Church opposes science. We like to say, “Really? Well, what about the guy who can claim the Big Bang to his discoveries? And the guy, a monk, who has a whole law of genetic inheritance named after him? Or the Catholic nun who has a whole set of polynomials named after her? Bam! Catholicism embraces science!”

You said that the people I pointed out were following their “own vile agendas”. Who is to say that some of the better examples of humanity assocaited with the Church weren’t off on their own agendas? How do we keep this from falling into No True Scotsman, especially when some of those who people can claim were on their “own vile agendas” were popes and bishops? As I mentioned way early in the thread sometimes silence speaks volumes. The story of Sanal Edamaruku pits a man who told the truth against the Archbishop of Mumbai. In the past three years have we heard anything from Rome demanding that the archbishop do what is right? If the Archbishop is on his “own vial agenda” then the Church by its silence appears to agree with it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’ll answer both together, and that would be none, if one is using one’s deity as the summa bonum. That becomes the objective standard of good. An external one, which is more than can be said for an atheist philosophy

So now when you look at the various immoral acts commited by both the deity you believe in and the church you follow, how can you claim to have a moral foundation superior to one that, while by no means perfect, can assess each moral quandry on its merits and without the impenetrable roadblock that can come with faith?

Yes, and as I agreed that you can develop A system.
A person can also develop a moral system based on skin color as well. Such a person would conceive of racial lynching as a moral good.

YET AGAIN you try to introduce a straw man of a philosophy completely opposite to the one I’ve presented and then tear it down as a way to try and tear down mine. I will repeat, a truly moral philosophy takes into consideration the wants and needs of others and doesn’t dehumanize or otherwise downgrade those wants and needs by default as less important than one’s own wants and needs. The idea of the ubermensch doesn’t do that. The idea of a racially based morality doesn’t do that. Believing that Waldensians and Cathars can be killed because they differ from the Church doesn’t do that. If you want to discredit what I say then use things I actually say.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Right. They are imperatives. Obligations. Moral laws which we must obey or we act immorally.

And what you have described as the source of our moral imperatives is…a feeble explanation.

Evolution, society, genetics can NEVER be a source for imperatives. They can explain why we act in a certain way, but never why we must act in a certain way.

They explain they why but not the why not.

What you call a feeble explanation I call an explanation that is cogent and features elements that we can be sure exist. You say musts have to come from some higher power. I say musts are when an act is always justified no matter what other factors are considered. Must nots are when an act is never justified no matter what other factors are considered.

Yep. It’s pretty clear that homosexuality is an abomination, similar to bestiality.

Would you agree with God here that those performing homosexual acts should be put to death?

I doubt you could provide apologia for some very basic Catholic tenets, Mike.

I note your doubt, but I question whether it comes from anything I’ve said in this thread. I’ve properly identified the portion of the Catechism that indicates that the Bible is divinely inspired as well as the four forms that it can be interpreted. I’ve shown you acts by popes and Councils that endorsed slavery despite your protests that they’ve done no such thing.

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how Exodus 21:21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, in which God is quoted as saying that slaves as property, can be interpreted to mean that God does not say slaves are property.

All that considered I would say I’ve demonstrated a greater understanding of Catholicism.

The Church did an abysmal job in the past providing nourishing catechesis for her members.

With the growth of Catholic radio, television, and internet that problem (such as it exists) will become less and less as time goes on. Far and away the most important is internet – but that is a two way sword. With websites like CAF misconceptions about what Catholics do and do not believe can be corrected, but it also can shine a light on those things past and present that Catholics may not wish to see or hear.

One of things Catholic apologists need to be careful about is not assuming that if a person is or was a practicing Catholic and disagrees with the Church that the reason is poor catechesis. The same type of argument could be made for someone who left Islam and detractors claim that person was not taught it properly.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you post a link to the full text in English please?

MikefromNJ, could you please address the above? You seem to have read a papal document that I could only find in Latin.

Thanks.

 

[Brendan]

. I will repeat, a** truly moral philosophy takes into consideration the wants and needs of others** and doesn’t dehumanize or otherwise downgrade those wants and needs by default as less important than one’s own wants and needs. The idea of the ubermensch doesn’t do that. The idea of a racially based morality doesn’t do that. Believing that Waldensians and Cathars can be killed because they differ from the Church doesn’t do that. If you want to discredit what I say then use things I actually say.

Yes, and my point is that is your OPINION, that is how YOU choose to define what is ‘truly moral’

But you have nothing to base it on, other that what you personally would like to see in a moral system, a view of how YOU would like society to operate.

Others have different views. How do you justify your position, except for your own personal opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and my point is that is your OPINION, that is how YOU choose to define what is ‘truly moral’

But you have nothing to base it on, other that what you personally would like to see in a moral system, a view of how YOU would like society to operate.

Others have different views. How do you justify your position, except for your own personal opinion.

Egg-zactly.

What Mike is describing is something akin to cleanliness.

We have learned over the years that it is generally better to be clean than dirty. Cleanliness is healthier. It makes us more attractive to other people. People who are clean live longer than people who are dirty. People who are clean are happier than people who are dirty.

Similarly, we have learned over thee years that it is generally better to be moral than immoral. Being moral makes us healthier. It makes us more attractive to other people. People who are moral live longer than people who are immoral. People who are moral are happier than people who are immoral.

But there is no imperative that we MUST be clean. It’s just nicer to be clean.

And it follows that there is no imperative that we MUST do the right thing. It’s just nicer to do that.

No one tells another adult: you MUST be clean.

Mike, you can’t tell folks: you must not rape someone. All you can say is, “It’s better not to rape but if you want to, well, I guess you have your reasons.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

MikefromNJ, could you please address the above? You seem to have read a papal document that I could only find in Latin.

Thanks.

I gave you the link in one of my posts on April 1st, but here it is again:

English translation of Dum Diversas

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you the link in one of my posts on April 1st, but here it is again:

English translation of Dum Diversas

Ah. Very good, then.

I will respond later.

Any comments on the texts I gave from popes opposing slavery?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ah. Very good, then.

I will respond later.

Any comments on the texts I gave from popes opposing slavery?

My responses as to those two texts from popes opposing (a portion of) slavery are in post 75. You should also check out post 74 where I list 10 Church Councils that spelled out Church-approved slavery.

*Edited because I seemingly forgot how to conjugate verbs. *

 

[PRmerger]

My responses as to those two texts from popes opposing (a portion of) slavery are in post 75. You should also check out post 74 where I list 10 Church Councils that spelled out Church-approved slavery.

*Edited because I seemingly forgot how to conjugate verbs. *

I need the text, please, specifically where the Church approves of slavery.

Still need to read the text of Dum Diversas. Getting to that today is the plan.

Also, are you opposed to holding your child down to receive an immunization or an IV?

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you the link in one of my posts on April 1st, but here it is again:

English translation of Dum Diversas

Here’s a pretty simple and straight forward response, Mike, actually from the text of your own source:

“Much has been made of this phrase “perpetual servitude”, though since the Bull comes in the late medieval period and not in the early modern period, I am not sure the phrase “perpetual servitude” should be interpreted in the same light it would be if the Bull was written in, say, 1650. I think we need to see it in a more “feudal” sense than a colonial one.”

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s a pretty simple and straight forward response, Mike, actually from the text of your own source:

“Much has been made of this phrase “perpetual servitude”, though since the Bull comes in the late medieval period and not in the early modern period, I am not sure the phrase “perpetual servitude” should be interpreted in the same light it would be if the Bull was written in, say, 1650. I think we need to see it in a more “feudal” sense than a colonial one.”

And more from the very same source you cited (bold mine):

The main intention of the bull is to defend Christendom by declaring war on the Saracens. This is of course already what Innocent III and other popes ordered, and Nicholas clearly states that this is a defensive and just war against people who are trying to destroy Catholic civilisation: “fidem ipsam defendere”. The only real difficulty is the very brief and throwaway line about perpetual servitude.

So when the Holy Father writes “illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi”, is this actually slavery? I think it might just mean submission and servitude to the royal authority of Afonso and his successors. There’s no mention of selling, buying or trade in slaves, and the Bull only ever really mentions conquering and subduing the Mohammedans. It seems to just be a repetition of this command: “Christi inimicos Sarracenos videlicet subjugare”. So servitus=state of subjection, not slavery or the slave trade.

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you the link in one of my posts on April 1st, but here it is again:

English translation of Dum Diversas

Also, here’s something you might find helpful from a previous thread on Dum Diversas by CentralFLJames:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418725

The call by Pope Nicholas V (who authored this bull) was to rally Christendom to come to the aid of its members and confront Islam (the Saracens and pagan mercenaries they gained by conquering W. African pagan countries) head on. But he failed to get the European Kings to help and that is why Byzantine fell. This bull was directed to the Spanish only and was an authorization to engage the conquering Muslims and make war with them to stop their encroachment and aggression and conversion of Pagan Africa into homage by providing a quota of men of war - mercenaries . It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definate voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This is a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families.

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society as we still do to this very day here in the USA.

Bottom Line - Dum Diversas was a real papal bull but it in no way is a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity. It was all issued at a time when the Church was trying hard to rally Christendom out of its apathy to help defend our eastern Christian brothers from being defeated.

James

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I need the text, please, specifically where the Church approves of slavery.

Beyond what I’ve already given? Sure!

Council of Gangra

“If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”

“Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under pretence of religion.”

(The link above goes to page 5 where the first quote is at the bottom. This second quote is at the top of page 6.)

Council of Carthage (via the Catholic Encyclopedia)

Canon 129. (Greek cxxx.)

That slaves and freedmen and all infamous persons ought not to bring accusation

To all it seemed good that no slaves or freedmen, properly so called, be admitted to accusation nor any of those who by the public laws are debarred from bringing accusation in criminal proceedings. This also is the case with all those who have the stain of infamy, that is actors, and persons subject to turpitudes, also heretics, or heathen, or Jews; but even all those to whom the right of bringing accusation is denied, are not forbidden to bring accusation in their own suits.

4th Council of Orleans

1. If descendants of slaves (of the Church), after any length of time, are met with again at the place to which their ancestors belonged, they must be demanded back by the bishop, and remain in those relations which are indicated by the departed (forefathers). If a layman, from covetousness, opposes this (retains descendants of Church slaves for himself), he must be excommunicated.

Fourth Council of Toledo

It’s a little too much to quote but the page gives us several insights:

1. Jews are not allowed to own slaves because “for it is not right that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Anti-Christ.” (Bonus anti-semitism!!)
2. If a slave is freed by the Church that person is bound to serve the Chruch for the rest of his life because the Church is unending. It’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Church was going to get every drop of effort from a person whether as a slave or a freed man.
3. "Concerning the slaves of the Church, it is allowed to make them priests and deacons in parishes; " Note that it specifically denotes slaves of the Church, as in the Church owned slaves.
4. When freed slaves die all of their goods belong to the Church. Again it’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Chruch was going to get every last possession the person had whether by enslaving them or freeing them.
5. Freed slaves are not allowed to accuse or testify against the Church. Note there are no exceptions if the Church needs to be accused or testified against.

Synod of Melfi

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties were promulgated later on against the wives and concubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189, can. xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connection with a subdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized as slaves by the over-lord. Hefele (Concilienge-schichte, V, 195) sees in this first trace of the principle that the marriages of the clerics are ipso facto invalid.

Also, are you opposed to holding your child down to receive an immunization or an IV?

This is now the third time that you have asked my response on something that I’ve already given a response to. I said that giving a kid his MMR booster takes a few seconds. I’ve never seen any one having to be held down to get an immunization or an IV outside of an episode of Quincy. Most imporatantly it’s a few seconds and not the hours and sometimes days that exorcisms can take.

I’ll ask again, show me an instance where a person’s problem was thought to have a sickness and later it turned out to be a demon. I can list numerous examples of the opposite.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here’s a pretty simple and straight forward response, Mike, actually from the text of your own source:

“Much has been made of this phrase “perpetual servitude”, though since the Bull comes in the late medieval period and not in the early modern period, I am not sure the phrase “perpetual servitude” should be interpreted in the same light it would be if the Bull was written in, say, 1650. I think we need to see it in a more “feudal” sense than a colonial one.”

I know the modus operandi of apologists is to ignore those things that counter the desired narrative, but there is no reason to discount the intended meaning of the phrase of perpetual servitude. When people were being put into perpetual servitude did the Church ever stand up and say, “No, you’ve got it all wrong!”? Of course not.

And more from the very same source you cited (bold mine):

The main intention of the bull is to defend Christendom by declaring war on the Saracens.

This is of course already what Innocent III and other popes ordered, and Nicholas clearly states that this is a defensive and just war against people who are trying to destroy Catholic civilisation: “fidem ipsam defendere”. The only real difficulty is the very brief and throwaway line about perpetual servitude.

A throwaway line? In legal documents there are no such things as “throwaway lines” and brevity does not indicate that it is of less importance. How many words make up the three-fifths compromise in the U.S. Constitution? Six. In fact, a “throwaway line” is at the heart of a major Supreme Court decision coming this summer. See a summary here.

So when the Holy Father writes “illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi”, is this actually slavery? I think it might just mean submission and servitude to the royal authority of Afonso and his successors. There’s no mention of selling, buying or trade in slaves, and the Bull only ever really mentions conquering and subduing the Mohammedans. It seems to just be a repetition of this command: “Christi inimicos Sarracenos videlicet subjugare”. So servitus=state of subjection, not slavery or the slave trade.

Is this where you want to hang your hat? Do you want to say that the papal bull allows the Spanish to take the freedom, the goods, the lands, the everything of any non-Christian anywhere at any time and because they don’t specifically mention that those people can be bought and sold that this isn’t slavery? Note that it doesn’t say they can’t be bought or sold just that it doesn’t mention it beyond perpetual servitude. It’s such a weird place to split hairs when it’s all so abominable.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Also, here’s something you might find helpful from a previous thread on Dum Diversas by CentralFLJames:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418725

This user isn’t here to defend himself but I’ll look at what he wrote.

The call by Pope Nicholas V (who authored this bull) was to rally Christendom to come to the aid of its members and confront Islam (the Saracens and pagan mercenaries they gained by conquering W. African pagan countries) head on. But he failed to get the European Kings to help and that is why Byzantine fell. This bull was directed to the Spanish only

The Portuguese are not the same as the Spanish as my Portuguese friend would surely tell him. Besides are we to cheer that the pope only told one king (in that particular papal bull) that he can enslave people practically at will?

On top of that let’s look at the part of Dum Diversas again as to what is being allowed and to whom:

to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ

The targets are not the Saracens. It’s not just those in alignment with the Saracens. It’s anybody who is not a christian, period.

and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places

It’s not limited by place. It doesn’t say lands held by the Saracens or lands held by those aligned with the Saracens. It’s all lands and all goods of all non-believers.

and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ,

Note how it mentions a second time who the targets are. This was not a mistake. If you are an infidel you are within the rights of the Portuguese and the Church to be subjugated for no reason other than your beliefs.

also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.

Look at how there is no endpoint timewise that these rights granted by the Church end. So long as there is a King of Portugal there is the right to enslave non-Christians. Thank goodness for that religious morality.

Back to the quote by that CAF member:

… Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom.

Were the people in the New World terrorizing the Portuguese? What kind of crimes were they doing against Christendom? What response did the Church give other than twice backing down to Iberian kings after suggesting to limit (not eliminate) slavery?

So as I’ve shown again, the Church supported slavery by word and by deed. If you can, I’d like you to respond to my request to back up andassertion you made earlier that we can’t read into the Bible to say that when God twice says slaves are property that he means they are property. You said it’s not literal, and I asked if you could provide a reading of those passages that:

1. shows that a non-literal passage can mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning. Do you know what such a grammatical term is called? Sarcasm.
2. shows that it makes sense for a non-literal passage to be smack dab in the middle of very literal rules and regulations.
3. shows that a non-literal reading makes more sense than a literal one.
4. shows God in a positive non-slavery-endorsing light if read in a non-literal context.