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

[PRmerger]

This is a keeper! I asked if those passages were literal where God is quoted as saying that slaves were property. You said in the post you quoted that the people thought of slaves as property. Let me put these arguments side-by-side to demonstrate the problem:

Me: God says slaves are property. Are those passages literally true?
You: Yes, it’s literally true that the people of that time said that slaves were property.

Umm…I never emphasized that “the people of the time” said that slaves were property.

Read my response again, Mike.

I agreed with you that slaves were viewed as property. Literally.

So perhaps you might want to recant this here:

You said it’s not literal,

Just like, I presume, you want to recant this:

Mike_from_NJ:

I’m not sure what the level of education people get today from Catholic education, but if it’s anything like the CCD classes I had 30 years ago then it isn’t much. We never had to learn the 10 commandments, the Hail Mary, or any of the terms you listed. Heck, it wasn’t until well after my confirmation did I know that Catholicism was a subset of christianity (I’d always thought the terms were completely interchangable). We did draw and sing songs a lot though.

 

[PRmerger]

The turth hurts.

You know what also hurts?
Reading a funny typo when someone is trying to be a wee bit snarky.

Actually, it doesn’t hurt. It makes me SOL*.

What I would do is point to those items to which the young earther was ignoring and ask to explain how such items align with his or her hypothesis. Most imporantly I would ask that person to back up his or her assertions. Young earthers have a long history of ignoring evidence contrary to their position

Egg-zactly.

So when young earthers tell you: “I know the modus operandi of evolution apologists is to ignore those things that counter the desired narrative” you can just dismiss this as a ridiculous argument, yeah?

*SOL = my very own made up internet acronym for Snicker Out Loud.

 

[PRmerger]

It talks very specifically about how to acquire slaves and how God and Church give the thumbs-up in doing so. That’s what we’re discussing here.

It might be helpful if wherever you read “slaves” think “indentured servants”.

And I ask again, when these slavers took people as well as goods and lands, what was the response of the Church? It wasn’t a denouncement of such acts.

I agree with you that the Church could have been more vocal in its opposition.

It was mostly a point that this CAF user that you quoted may not have thoroughly read Dum Diversas if he’s got the wrong country.

Spain was the ruling country at that time, Mike.

Another example of the text says that but it reeeeeeally means this.

LOL!

Well, yeah, Mike.

Do you think that ancient texts and language are static?
Do you think that you should use your white, male, 21st century, New Jersey lenses to read this text:

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/code-of-hammurabi-250x150.jpg

You do know that indentured servitude was a real thing right. It was a way to trade service to pay off a debt. What is the debt that a non-Christian owes when an Iberian comes upon them? It wasn’t to make up for a crime, because the only crime committed was assuming that they were dealing with compassionate people.

Yep. The people were not compassionate. I don’t disagree with you there.

Where were the Israelites when God spoke to them and gave them the rules in Exodus 20 through 24? They were in the desert having escaped Egypt. This was the perfect starting point to tell the Hebrews what was right and what was wrong. But you seem to be saying (and I’ve heard apologists say this) that God told them to do slavery the right way because he couldn’t have them just not enslave people from the get go. In that speech in Exodus God give a whole bunch of laws to his people that left no room for deviation and were completely unique to them. Yet God can’t tell his people to not own people. To not sell your daughters into slavery. To not blackmail your Hebrew slaves to serve forever by holding their families hostage. Most importantly to not beat them and certain to not hit them so hard that they die a day later.

Yes, sir. That’s correct.

Imagine trying to explain to your 5 year old not to move when he’s getting 5 shots.

He’s just not going to get it.
Even if you give him all the explanations regarding complement factor, immunoglobulins, antigenic drift and antigenic shift…

he aint’ going to hold still.

Now, maybe when he’s 16 he will…

Hmmmm…

#timeandplace
#growinunderstanding
#don’ttreata5yroldlikea16yrold

 

[PRmerger]

No matter how many capital letters you use this most certainly is an endorsement of slavery.

Unless, by “slavery” you mean “indentured servitude”.

Possessing another person is slavery, period.

Sure. Treating them as if they were not human is slavery. And always wrong. In all places and in all cultures.

The Church never taught that slavery as described above is wrong.

And to call it “a good thing” is a disgusting mockery of the most basic human will.

I agree.

 

[PRmerger]

What?! It is exactly what God says. Show us how one is to interpret “'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.” to say they are not to be put to death. Back up your assertion.

This is what God has said regarding homosexuality:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.–CCC 2359

Capital punishment is reserved only for those cases for whom there is no other means of protecting society.

What if the Church and God disagree, who wins?

Well, that’s as nonsensical a question as, “What if geometry and math disagree, who wins?”

I’m not sure how you deal with toddlers, but if you’re trying to analogize death with a spanking then maybe I don’t want to know.

I’m not sure you understand how analogies work, Mike.

Let’s take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

No one could fail to see this as a proper analogy.

What you are doing is saying, “How dare you equate a magnificent Christmas tree with a fleshy piece of cartilage! A Christmas tree is NOT the same as an earlobe!”

This demonstrates an inability to think in the abstract.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s no coincidence that those passages I keep bringing up aren’t read in either the daily or Sunday masses. They are incredibly embarrassing.

Well, that’s funny.

Why didn’t the Church just exclude them all together?

She was, after all, responsible for putting together these books.

What’s your answer to this, Mike?

 

[PRmerger]

This old gag?

This reminds me of the response from people who deny we landed on the moon.

They say that the flag couldn’t have blown in space.

We respond with this: youtube.com/watch?v=rtkIs0RkrAc

They say, “This old gag?”

We say:

 

[PRmerger]

I know backing up your assertions is not your strong suit but I’d be very interested to see you show evidence of demons.

You’ve made quite a few unsubstantiated assertions yourself, so let’s not go there and just continue this dialogue in charity.

And, believe me, friend, you don’t want me to get into listing what you’re lacking in strong suits, so…

#howaboutyoujuststopwiththeaccusationsthatmakemerollmyeyes

And, I think it’s appropriate for me to bring this up, given the above quasi-snarky comment you made.

It simply begs for this:

Mike_from_NJ:

I’m not sure what the level of education people get today from Catholic education, but if it’s anything like the CCD classes I had 30 years ago then it isn’t much. We never had to learn the 10 commandments, the Hail Mary, or any of the terms you listed. Heck, it wasn’t until well after my confirmation did I know that Catholicism was a subset of christianity (I’d always thought the terms were completely interchangable). We did draw and sing songs a lot though.

What was it again about not backing up assertions?

Who was it that said you were uninformed about Catholicism?

Oh, right. It was me.

You denied it. What was it you said again?

Oh, right. It was this:

I’m quite well versed in Catholicism. I grew up in it. .

And yet, here you are backing ME up, in my assertion.

Mike_from_NJ:

I’m not sure what the level of education people get today from Catholic education, but if it’s anything like the CCD classes I had 30 years ago then it isn’t much. We never had to learn the 10 commandments, the Hail Mary, or any of the terms you listed. Heck, it wasn’t until well after my confirmation did I know that Catholicism was a subset of christianity (I’d always thought the terms were completely interchangable). We did draw and sing songs a lot though.

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve been down this road.

Yes. And it’s a very good road, too.

I love to bring it up because it does indeed point to the incongruity of the atheist’s position.

Without God, you cannot tell someone else that he is wrong.

It’s as absurd as telling someone else that he shouldn’t like turnips.

It’s simply a matter of preference to say that rape is wrong.

As a species develops some pass on their genes and some don’t. The ones who have traits that benefit the group living together have a better chance of being passed on then ones that harm said group. Eventually those positive traits are so ingrained in us that they form our morals.

Yeah.

Sounds like an argument for “we should be clean because it’s good for you and good for me and good for society”.

Except no one is ever *obligated *to be clean.

You have no explanation for why we ought to do some things and avoid other things.

 

[PRmerger]

It was really just an aside to show what kind of silliness can come from the side that thinks that non-believers lack truth.

Still not getting the point about the Bible making a reference to unicorns.

Non believers do lack truth. Although they do have some truth.

Absolutely correct. There are some things that by their nature or how they are defined we can not disprove them. I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman a few months back regarding whether the brain can function without the soul. He gave a diagram that (was supposed to have) shown how the soul interacts with the mind and body. All of this was neither provable nor unprovable. I responded back to him proposing that if the soul interacts with the body that it does so by first sending a signal to the moon and then back to the body. My proposal was also neither provable nor unprovable. He said that there was no reason to add this extra part regarding the moon, and I told him that we have equally no reason to this extra part called the soul.

Sure. Some things are neither provable nor unprovable.

However, it’s interesting that you bring this up because it segues quite nicely to this point: you believe in something that’s neither provable nor unprovable–that is, the existence of the human mind.

In short, while we can never rule out demons we have no evidence of their existence.

Well, then, I suppose that makes you an agnostic on the existence of demons.

But it’s not a coincidence as we understand more about how the body works and how the mind works that we see less claims of things like demonic presence.

Sure.

And bringing it back to the sub-topic at hand, a doctor had already found that the girl in the exorcism story was anorexic. The priest (seemingly holding a hammer and everything looking like nails) descends upon the family to tell them that their girl is possessed.

You’re still going with the “the most immoral thing a Believer did was to restrain someone!”

Really?

 

[frobert]

You’re still going with the “the most immoral thing a Believer did was to restrain someone!”

Really?

He was not immoral because he is a Believer but was immoral because he preformed an exorcism that he was incompetent to preform, similarly a doctor who preforms a procedure that he is not competent to preform is immoral.

Check out the 2 links I included in a previous post that deal with the ethics of exorcism.

Have a good evening.

 

[PRmerger]

He was not immoral because he is a Believer but was immoral because he preformed an exorcism that he was incompetent to preform, similarly a doctor who preforms a procedure that he is not competent to preform is immoral.

Check out the 2 links I included in a previous post that deal with the ethics of exorcism.

Have a good evening.

Well, then, this is something which both Believers and Non Believers can be guilty of.

The point of this line of discussion was to offer some sort of immoral behavior that a Believer would do because he was a Believer.

So far, the only thing that has been offered was: a Believer restrained someone against her will.

That’s a pretty lame example of immoral behavior.

Especially since it’s not even an example of an absolute. Sometimes it’s actually MORAL to restrain someone.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

What gap in knowledge has EVER been filled by a supernatural reason as opposed to a natural one. None.

Ummm…how about the big one?

Where did the universe come from?
And who made it?

How can something that begins to exist come from nothing?

The answer can only be provided by…

wait for it…
wait for it…

a…

supernatural reason.

 

[frobert]

Well, then, this is something which both Believers and Non Believers can be guilty of.

The point of this line of discussion was to offer some sort of immoral behavior that a Believer would do because he was a Believer.

So far, the only thing that has been offered was: a Believer restrained someone against her will.

That’s a pretty lame example of immoral behavior.

Especially since it’s not even an example of an absolute. Sometimes it’s actually MORAL to restrain someone.

QED.

To make your point you are ignoring the much more significant issues surrounding exorcism, namely gross incompetence.

To begin with the explosion of alleged demonic possessions can be largely explained as a cultural phenomena. The majority of the symptoms of possession can be explained by sensitivity to suggestibility, i.e. emotional characteristic where ideas or attitudes of others are accepted without criticism and an understanding of hypnotic phenomena.

In this morning news

Vatican to train army of exorcists to deal with rising number of ‘demonic possessions’ (let’s make more incompetent believers)

Doctors, teachers and psychologists being trained to cope with rising tide
The Exorcist film left cinema audiences green more than 40 years ago
Experts are teaching ordinary Catholics how to recognise possession (let's encourage suggestibility) 
Course aims to help would-be exorcists distinguish demonic possession from psychological or medical conditions

Exorcism is back! Meet the mavericks who will teach you how to cure demonic possession

This spring, a new school for exorcists opened in Illinois. The Pope Leo XIII Institute for the “education & training of priests in the holy ministry of exorcism and deliverance” was launched at the Mundelein Seminary in February — when the first cohort of trainees arrived for a 10-day seminar. For just $1,500 (plus $960 room and board; check and credit card accepted; donations welcome and tax-deductible), priests received instruction from some top exorcists — using a curriculum that was reportedly pre-approved by a committee of credentialed bishops.

… this all crazy talk — we should take pause, and consider the effect that a push for exorcisms might have on vulnerable Catholics: the mentally ill, the developmentally impaired and the psychologically traumatized.

Read the whole article its an eye opener.

 

[PRmerger]

To make your point you are ignoring the much more significant issues surrounding exorcism, namely gross incompetence.

If he was incompetent, then he shouldn’t have been performing an exorcism.

 

[frobert]

If he was incompetent, then he shouldn’t have been performing an exorcism.

Absolutely. Ethics aside, if you read my previous post and read the linked articles you may get some insight into how the church turns out ?competent exorcists.

Do-it-yourself exorcism schools, some aligned with actual Vatican guidelines, are on the rise. Is it really 2014?

Is there an 800 lb elephant in the room?

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely. Ethics aside, if you read my previous post and read the linked articles you may get some insight into how the church turns out ?competent exorcists.

Do-it-yourself exorcism schools, some aligned with actual Vatican guidelines, are on the rise. Is it really 2014?

Is there an 800 lb elephant in the room?

I don’t think anyone is arguing for the rights of incompetent exorcists here, robert.

 

[frobert]

I don’t think anyone is arguing for the rights of incompetent exorcists here, robert.

You added a variable that no one suggested “rights” which my posts did not at all imply about the right to be incompetent. The post did critique how the church may or may not be creating competent exorcists.

For the record, we all have the “right” to be incompetent but when we knowing act on our incompetence and others are effected it is unethical.

 

[PRmerger]

You added a variable that no one suggested “rights” which my posts did not at all imply about the right to be incompetent. The post did critique how the church may or may not be creating competent exorcists.

For the record, we all have the “right” to be incompetent but when we knowing act on our incompetence and others are effected it is unethical.

If the Church is creating incompetent exorcists, robert, she should stop doing so.

No one here is positing that incompetent exorcists ought to be given the right to perform.

 

[PRmerger]

You added a variable that no one suggested “rights” which my posts did not at all imply about the right to be incompetent. The post did critique how the church may or may not be creating competent exorcists.

For the record, we all have the “right” to be incompetent but when we knowing act on our incompetence and others are effected it is unethical.

I remain bemused by your position here.

It’s as if you went to a cruciverbalist forum and argued: Will Shortz is giving online certificates for the NYTimes Crossword editors. And you don’t even have to have completed 5th grade! This is bad!

Is there anyone on that forum who’s going to disagree with that?

What, exactly, is your point in repeating the position that there was an (allegedly) incompetent exorcist in the Church?