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

[PRmerger]

This is now the third time that you have asked my response on something that I’ve already given a response to.

Sorry. I get that it’s frustrating to repeat.

You also should get that folks are busy and often come back after 3 or 4 pages of dialogue have passed.

I said that giving a kid his MMR booster takes a few seconds.

You do know that kids typically get more than one shot, right?

And if your kids is a fighter, it takes more than 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.

Yeah, well sometimes it takes hours, Mike. Hours. In order to get an IV in.

Most imporatantly it’s a few seconds and not the hours and sometimes days that exorcisms can take.

Nope.

And it sounds like you’re not actually opposed to the restraining, but how long it takes to restrain?

Is that correct?

Is 5 minutes ok but 15 minutes wrong?

What’s the moral amount of restraining?

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.

I don’t understand how this is a case of immorality by a believer.

And I think you actually don’t think it’s a case of immorality, either.

Unless you’re still wanting to argue that restraining someone is immoral, (but only if it’s “x” number of minutes)?

Really?

 

[frobert]

I don’t understand how this is a case of immorality by a believer.

And I think you actually don’t think it’s a case of immorality, either.

Unless you’re still wanting to argue that restraining someone is immoral, (but only if it’s “x” number of minutes)?

The morality can be derived from the conditions that lead to restraining someone and way and time in which someone is being restrained. Which brings up the questions of how is an exorcism is authorized by the CC and what training must the exorcist have. I realize I am coming in late to this fascinating topic and have not read the numerous pages of comments.

 

[PRmerger]

The morality can be derived from the conditions that lead to restraining someone and way and time in which someone is being restrained.

So I must ask you, then, robert, would you not restrain your child when he’s getting immunized, or needing an IV?

 

[frobert]

So I must ask you, then, robert, would you not restrain your child when he’s getting immunized, or needing an IV?

I thought you would know me better by now. I would take my child’s doctor’s advice and be under his/her supervision. I would have confidence in his training, education and experience because I would have checked all those things out as I do with any medical professional I hire. If the doctor asked me to do something that he/she was not qualified for I would consider that immoral.

Wouldn’t you ask the same things about a priest’s knowledge and experience with demons if you were going to have your child go through an exorcism. Caveat emptor

BTW my post was an opinion derived from my understanding of virtue ethics and how I would determine the morality of an action such as restraining a minor.

Now how about answering my question? Not that I expect you to.

 

[PRmerger]

I sense that you’re trying to go the Ravi Zacharias route with his “If there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver”.

Well, yeah. That’s the logical conclusion.

If that is where you’re going, don’t bother. Our sense of right and wrong developed naturally (not through any guided process) and has developed into how we interact with ourselves and each other in both a concious and subconcious way.

Then that means there’s no obligation to acting morally.

It is no more beneficial to stay away from bad actions than it is to staying away from spicy foods.

It’s a preference.

 

[PRmerger]

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).

Not sure what your point is that the Bible mentions unicorns?

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.

Again, this is begging the question.

The fact that we tried to fill in some answers with demons does NOT mean: therefore demons don’t exist.

Anymore than the attempt to fill in answers for “Why did the Jews not get sick with the plague” with “because they kept strict dietary and hygienic restrictions” means that it wasn’t, in fact, true.

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.

Well, sure. Some things that were attributed to demons were not actually caused by demons.

But be careful you don’t fall into the Science of the Gaps error. “Science is going to explain in the future all the things we can’t understand now” is a very, er…*.religious *paradigm.

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.

I probably could but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Your point is that someone who was a believer acted immorally because of his beliefs…and I’m still not seeing this. What, exactly, was the immoral behavior?

The restraining thing—well, I’m a bit incredulous that we’re even attempting to have a discussion about the immorality of this…but if that’s where you want to go, I’ll entertain the “Believers who restrain people acted immorally” route.

 

[PRmerger]

You said that the people I pointed out were following their “own vile agendas”.

Yep.

Who is to say that some of the better examples of humanity assocaited with the Church weren’t off on their own agendas?

Well, since the agendas of the “better examples of humanity” matches quite nicely with what the Church’s agenda is, it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they were following Christian ethos, right?

It’s like looking at a smoker and saying, “How can you say that he followed his own agenda and didn’t follow what the doctor prescribed?”

Umm…because he *didn’t *follow what the doctor prescribed.

#prettyobvious

And then looking at someone who’s dieted and exercised her way out of her hypertension and saying “How can you say that she didn’t follow her own agenda to get healthy?”

Ummm…because it’s written here in her chart:

 

[PRmerger]

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

That’s not what God says.

God gave us the Church: He who hears you hears Me.

The OT punishments were similar to God dealing with toddlers with a spanking. Today, He disciplines us differently.

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.

Well, you’ve made quite a few assumptions about Catholicism that are quite uninformed (lately, the fact that we get our morality from the Bible. That belongs in a fundamentalist forum, NOT in a Catholic forum. We don’t view the Bible as our moral handbook.)

I’ve shown you acts by popes and Councils that endorsed slavery despite your protests that they’ve done no such thing.

Yeah. I’ll get to that later.

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.

Because we look to the Church to interpret the Bible.

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

I doubt you could articulate a single Catholic apologia for the existence of God with any expertise.

My prediction is you are going to say: Catholicism says that you should believe in God based on faith alone. And questioning one’s belief is a sin in your Church.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Of course “assumptions” are to be avoided, generally.

However, is it possible for someone to leave the Church because he wasn’t properly catechized?

Yes?

And when someone, an ex-Catholic, demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Catholicism, is it logical to conclude his abysmal knowledge is due to a lack of education in the faith?

Yes?

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought you would know me better by now.

Ummm…know you? I wouldn’t know you if you were sitting next to me in a doctor’s office.

What I know about you could be summarized pretty much with: you were once suspended here on the CAFs, you have a predilection for nonsequiturs, and you are a member of the UCC.

I would take my child’s doctor’s advice and be under his/her supervision. I would have confidence in his training, education and experience because I would have checked all those things out as I do with any medical professional I hire. If the doctor asked me to do something that he/she was not qualified for I would consider that immoral.

Wouldn’t you ask the same things about a priest’s knowledge and experience with demons if you were going to have your child go through an exorcism. Caveat emptor

BTW my post was an opinion derived from my understanding of virtue ethics and how I would determine the morality of an action such as restraining a minor

Can you please answer the rather straightforward question: would you restrain your child to have an IV inserted in her? Or to allow her to be immunized?

Doctors can tell you to do something, but when you do it, you agree to its morality. The blame falls on you, then, for doing something you know is immoral.

Now how about answering my question? Not that I expect you to.

Careful…robert. Careful.

It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Beyond what I’ve already given? Sure!

Council of Gangra

(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.)

This reference, like the references to slavery in the NT, concerns feudal slavery. Not racial slavery.

Slavery in NT times was quite a different animal than the barbaric slavery of the 19th century.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Amen to the above!

You see the above statement as something objectionable?

 

[PRmerger]

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 rest of the quotes you cite are rather benign statements addressing how slaves should be treated–and it seems that the Church is arguing rather eloquently that they be treated as HUMAN BEINGS with rights.

There is NO ENDORSEMENT, EVER, by the Church that slavery, referring to the savage and brutal system we endured in the 17th-19th centuries in the US, was a good thing.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, it should be discounted because you are using your 21st century lenses here.

Perpetual servitude was a feudal reference, not a reference to the barbaric and savage system we think of today when we think of slavery.

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.

Probably not at that time. But certainly later she did.

A throwaway line?

Yep.

In legal documents there are no such things as “throwaway lines”

LOL! Of course there are.

I guarantee you that every single page in something like this has a line or two that any lawyer would dismiss.

http://54.209.205.166/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/file-stack-3751.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

Is this where you want to hang your hat?

Well, I am not required to “hang my hat” on any one single argument here, Mike. There are numerous pegs useful to me.

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.

I think it’s quite trenchant that it doesn’t mention buying and selling and human trafficking. For isn’t that what we’re discussing here?

Not feudalism, taking goods and lands (which are, of course, the bailiwick of the political realm), and the invasion of countries.

 

[PRmerger]

The Portuguese are not the same as the Spanish as my Portuguese friend would surely tell him.

I don’t think anyone was proposing that they were.

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?

No, but, of course, that’s not what the pope said.

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.

Ok.

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.

You have to look at the universe of discourse. And when we see the audience, we see to whom this text is directed.

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.

I understand that.

And this is, again, a reference to indentured servitude, not racial slavery.

So as I’ve shown again, the Church supported slavery by word and by deed.

Servitude. Indentured servitude. Feudalism.

NOT racial slavery.

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

He is dealing with the Israelites as we would deal with toddlers. Using harsher language until the time when reason and persuasion can be utilized.

You said it’s not literal, and I asked if you could provide a reading of those passages that:

I didn’t say that.

In fact, I said just the opposite.

 

[PRmerger]

I know the modus operandi of apologists is to ignore those things that counter the desired narrative,

I find this to be a peculiar comment.

Imagine if you were in dialogue with a 6000 year old earther. She presents arguments which ostensibly support her position. You refute them.

Then she responds with, “I know the modus operandi of evolution apolotists is to ignore those things that counter the desired narrative”…you would respond, how?

Most likely you’d say: I ignore data which is irrelevant, wrong or fictional.

Right?

 

[frobert]

Can you please answer the rather straightforward question: would you restrain your child to have an IV inserted in her? Or to allow her to be immunized?

You are conflating two separate issues.

1. Restraining a child: I answered that in detail for a medical procedure. You have not answered my questions from my original post about restraining a child when it involves exorcisms and about the competence of the exorcist.
2. Immunizations: If I somehow gave you the impression that I would not allow a child to be immunized I apologize. Let me assure you I have faith in the medical profession when it tells us it is in the best interests of the the child to immunized against threats of disease.

Doctors can tell you to do something, but when you do it, you agree to its morality.

Yes, after due diligence on my part, I would assume a competent physician is ethically practicing his/her profession as long as there are no indications to the contrary.

The blame falls on you, then, for doing something you know is immoral.

I am not sure if you are accusing me of believing that restraining a child for a medical procedure is immoral or that it is moral and acting contrary to what I believe or know. Either way it’s just an assumption on your part.

 

[PRmerger]

You are conflating two separate issues.

1. Restraining a child: I answered that in detail for a medical procedure.

This is a rather curious standard for immorality.

“It’s ok to restrain a child for a medical procedure but not for a religious one.”

Why is it ok for a doctor to order you to do this, but not a priest?

How weird!

And inconsistent!​

 

[PRmerger]

You have not answered my questions from my original post about restraining a child when it involves exorcisms and about the competence of the exorcist.
​

You mean these questions: “Which brings up the questions of how is an exorcism is authorized by the CC and what training must the exorcist have”?

Look it up on Google.

​