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

a reply to: StalkerSolent

The Pagans managed perfectly well with having a moral compass before the religious nuts spread the word of Christ!

Pagan morality is also expressed in the Threefold Law, which states that whatever one does to another person, animal, item, living being of any sort, non-living item of any sort or an action or intense thought will return with triple force to you.

Sounds like KARAMA to me and was around along time before Jesus and the bible took over the Western World!

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: flammadraco

that was what caused all the problems in europe our ancestors came here to escape.

Hmmmm lets not talk about what your ancestors did once they got to the states though as it was very un Christian of them!

a reply to: flammadraco

this is true, but how does that relate to each person as an individual? like , when you go in a court of law, your entire religion doesn't go with you, nor your race or gender. they handle each case, based on the individual.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

yep, was being serious about that. like the posts where you were discussing transcendent morality. and if morality is objective, how could also be not objective at the same time.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: flammadraco

this is true, but how does that relate to each person as an individual? like , when you go in a court of law, your entire religion doesn't go with you, nor your race or gender. they handle each case, based on the individual.

Thank be to god that is the case in the Western World, however in the Middle East they have Religious Courts "Sharia Courts" and folk are treated by the law in accordance to religious texts.

In the states, you have folk wanting to marry their same sex partner but religious senators and governors are using their religious beliefs to stop this law from being enacted. The world would be a great place if all religious folk were like you but unfortunately they are not. We have people in positions of power that use their own religious beliefs to dictate to their constituents despite the fact if their constituents are religious or not.

In response to your previous point, religion is already in the US and UK court system as you have to swear on a bible before giving evidence. That being said, the best way for humanity to evolve is for governments around the world to become secular and for religious folk to keep their faith at home and places of worship only. By the end of this century Religion will die out due to the number of people already leaving the church and returning to god! And plonkers like the one in the OP is the reason that people will want to distance themselves from organised religion!

a reply to: flammadraco

you mean they won't be allowed to vote their consciences?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

So how do you know that dignity is natural and not something that was created by humans to help them interact better with other humans? Your link takes me to a wikipedia page on just dignity, not natural dignity. I want to know what natural dignity is; not just dignity.

I don't. But I also don't know if anything exists outside of my own consciousness. I *believe* that dignity is natural because it meshes well with my other beliefs and observations.

Fair enough.

I didn't write the Wiki page, but "natural" here is an adjective; I'm pretty sure you can drop it without substantially affecting my meaning. I used the word natural to distinguish between the idea that dignity is assigned by other humans, as you suggested, and the idea that humans ought to be treated as if they have dignity and worth regardless of human constructs.

Well dropping the adjective makes it vaguer. I guess TECHNICALLY you can describe the idea of natural dignity with the description of regular dignity, but I kind of see that as using a set to describe a subset (ex: using the description of canines to describe wolves).

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Anyway, I'll go back to what I said before. You can't argue that there is no objective moral standard but that other standards are wrong. Well, I guess you can, but you can also argue that 2+2 = 5.

In reality, there may or may not be an objective moral standard. It's an issue of disagreement. But you can't consistently have it both ways.

I'm not having it "both ways"! Either there is an objective moral stand that applies to everyone all the time, or there isn't.

There is no objective moral standard, and all the examples of moral standards that you've provided are subjective, not wrong. They're subjective because they don't apply to everyone all the time.

Do you understand the difference?

The 10 Commandments require the worship of a God. Do you think that worship is a question of morality? The 10 Commandments say not to kill, but then the following commandments command its adherents to kill. Property rights are the spoils of war, and belong to the victors. Not my idea of "objective morality". The whole concept of Capitalism is illegal under the 10 Commandments.

The God of the Bible was not the god of everyone. There were other nations who worshipped other gods. The "God was Israel" was their exclusive God. Jesus, supposedly, came through the God of Israel for the people of Israel. He didn't "come" for gentiles or "Samaritan dogs". He came for "his sheep" not for those whose "father is Satan", or those whom are among the "goats" and "tares". Christianity is NOT inclusive, or objective.

If you look at the history of Western thought, you'll find that Christianity played an important part in both developing objective moral standards and in pushing for things like the freedom of the slaves.

The Bible clearly condones slavery, and Christian used the Bible to justify slavery until they no longer could. Christianity is riddled with corruption and so full of contradictions that if you twist your head just right, Jesus gives you permission to do just about anything, in his name! But, one thing that Christianity doesn't give us is a consistent set of "objective moral standards" that are alway true for everyone all the time!

You can't say that there is no objective moral standard and then condemn the Bible. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways

You can't say that the Bible provides an "objective moral standard", when the morals proposed are considered immoral by today's standards. At best, the Bible provides a subjective set of morals that work sometimes for some people.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: flammadraco

this is true, but how does that relate to each person as an individual? like , when you go in a court of law, your entire religion doesn't go with you, nor your race or gender. they handle each case, based on the individual.

Thank be to god that is the case in the Western World, however in the Middle East they have Religious Courts "Sharia Courts" and folk are treated by the law in accordance to religious texts.

In the states, you have folk wanting to marry their same sex partner but religious senators and governors are using their religious beliefs to stop this law from being enacted. The world would be a great place if all religious folk were like you but unfortunately they are not. We have people in positions of power that use their own religious beliefs to dictate to their constituents despite the fact if their constituents are religious or not.

In response to your previous point, religion is already in the US and UK court system as you have to swear on a bible before giving evidence. That being said, the best way for humanity to evolve is for governments around the world to become secular and for religious folk to keep their faith at home and places of worship only. By the end of this century Religion will die out due to the number of people already leaving the church and returning to god! And plonkers like the one in the OP is the reason that people will want to distance themselves from organised religion!

Marriage is a Christian sacrament - and act of God. It is not a secular ceremony, it is a religious ceremony. The same-sex marriage debate is not about religious people in power keeping secular people down, it is about secular people in power keeping religious people down by dictating to them how they may practice their religion, which is unconstitutional. The state has no business defining marriage, which is a religious ceremony. Christian pastors have every right (literally it's a constitutional right) to refuse to marry homosexuals if these pastors believe in biblical marriage.

Personally I don't think this world has a century left, but for as long as it exists there will be true believers. Unfortunately before this world ends, we will see exactly how bad an ungodly society can get, as was prophesied in the book of Revelation. We are already starting to see it now.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

believe it or not, that same thing happens to christians from other christians and people of other world views, as well. people are hard on each other, if you haven't noticed

Oh, believe me I've noticed given the life I've lived. No question there.

My point though was specifically about the hypocrisy of some Christians.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Marriage is a Christian sacrament

That's fine. Christians can keep their sacramental rites. They just can't use their beliefs to deny the same rights afforded married couples in the secular world because of their personal ideas about their own "sacred" marriages.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Marriage is a Christian sacrament - and act of God. It is not a secular ceremony, it is a religious ceremony. The same-sex marriage debate is not about religious people in power keeping secular people down, it is about secular people in power keeping religious people down by dictating to them how they may practice their religion, which is unconstitutional. The state has no business defining marriage, which is a religious ceremony. Christian pastors have every right (literally it's a constitutional right) to refuse to marry homosexuals if these pastors believe in biblical marriage.

No it isn't. Marriage predates Christianity. History of Marriage

Besides it was the RELIGIOUS that made marriage into a government issued privilege, but now that it has been pointed out that the government has to be fair to everyone, you religious types want to withhold it. Such anti-democratic appeals. I hope you aren't an admirer of the Constitution, because you don't appear to know how it works.

Personally I don't think this world has a century left, but for as long as it exists there will be true believers. Unfortunately before this world ends, we will see exactly how bad an ungodly society can get, as was prophesied in the book of Revelation. We are already starting to see it now.

The world is going to continue to exist for 1.75 billion years. Humans may not make it to that point (probably won't actually). Though the book of revelation won't happen. Not a single prophecy in that book is even close to aligning. One someone doom prophesier comes in and says "this and this points to this and that in the book of revelation," they always conveniently ignore all the other prophecies that come before that one that haven't come true yet. It's and exercise in ridiculousness. Though it DOES give you Christians an unhealthy attitude towards fixing the problems with society. After all why, attempt to fix things if you believe god is going to blow everything up within your life time? Disgusting belief...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: peskyhumans

Marriage is a Christian sacrament

That's fine. Christians can keep their sacramental rites. They just can't use their beliefs to deny the same rights afforded married couples in the secular world because of their personal ideas about their own "sacred" marriages.

No sure what you mean by "married couples in the secular world" because that's what traditional married Christian couples are and they already have rights. Marriage is a Christian sacrament and nothing else. If you meant homosexual couples getting legal rights as a couple then they should have made civil unions the only way to get rights as a legal couple and made Christians get a civil union in addition to their marriage. The vast majority of fundamentalist Christians would have been happy with that. It would have been constitutional and would not have interfered with the practice of the Christian faith. But that's not what the liberal left are doing, and that's why the fundamentalists are up in arms about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Other faiths have wedding ceremonies yes. Wedding ceremonies may have even predated Christianity. However only Christianity has the sacrament of marriage, which is an act of the God of Abraham. Calling a pagan wedding ceremony "marriage" is incorrect terminology probably the result of mistranslation through the centuries. The church has existed for about two thousand years and the sacrament of marriage has been integral to the lives of Christians for that entire time. Consider how many languages have been put into use and discarded through this time? Consider that languages are living things that change through common use. It's no wonder that pagan weddings get compared to marriage and have been compared to them for hundreds of years, but they are not the same.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Marriage is a Christian sacrament and nothing else.

Yes, "something else"!

Non Christians get married everyday and I haven't heard a peep out of Christians complaining about them stealing a sacred rite away from them!

It would have been constitutional and would not have interfered with the practice of the Christian faith.

Yes, it's unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment! Non-Christians getting married has nothing to do with, and doesn't interfere in the least with, Christians practicing their own faith.

I don't care what gets fundamental Christians' panties in a wad. Not my problem.

a reply to: peskyhumans

However only Christianity has the sacrament of marriage, which is an act of the God of Abraham.

How do you figure that?

Please cite a biblical law concerning the rites of marriage, or how a Christian wedding is to be preformed, what promises or oaths are to be made and by whom, etc.

Thanks, in advance.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Well now marriage is owned by the state. Y'all gave it to them and to piggy back off of your statement that languages are living things that change through common use, it looks like YOUR definition of marriage is outdated.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: flammadraco

you mean they won't be allowed to vote their consciences?

Not if their consciences is dictated by two thousand year old scripture, then no. In the same way I would not want someone in power who used "Moby Dick" as a source for their conscience.

a reply to: windword

Jesus defined marriage in Matthew Chapter 19.

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he [a]departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.

2 And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.

3 ¶ Then came unto him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying to him, Is it lawful for a man to [c]put away his wife upon every occasion?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and [d]cleave unto his wife, and they which were [e]two, shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. Let not man therefore put asunder that, which God hath coupled together.

I added underlines for emphasis. Also in the event that you argue this isn't biblical law - in the Christian faith Jesus' word is law. If you don't believe in what Jesus tells you to do you are not Christian.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Marriage is a Christian sacrament - and act of God. It is not a secular ceremony, it is a religious ceremony

Wrong..... Marriage was around along time before Jesus and Christianity came to the World. Pagan's, Romans, Greeks and even the American Indians used marriage before Christians decided it was theirs for keeps. And better still same sex marriage was OK in the early Christian Churches until 364AD.

The same-sex marriage debate is not about religious people in power keeping secular people down, it is about secular people in power keeping religious people down by dictating to them how they may practice their religion

Wrong..... Its about secular people wanting to be treated with equal rights and for religious folks to mind their own business and realise that the founding Fathers in the USA wanted religion and state to be kept separate. Have a look at what one of the founding fathers had to say about Christianity

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"- Thomas Jefferson

That being said, perhaps religious folk should keep their noses out of society and just keep their religious beliefs to their homes and places of worship, we'd all get along a lot better!

The state has no business defining marriage, which is a religious ceremony.

Yes it has as Marriage does not belong to any religious group!

Christian pastors have every right (literally it's a constitutional right) to refuse to marry homosexuals if these pastors believe in biblical marriage.

Actually agree with your point here, but how many LGBT folk want to get married in a church that thinks they are an abomination?

as was prophesied in the book of Revelatio

Only if you believe in a book written by Shepherds who believed the World was Flat and the Sun was Magic, however I don't and as such I think its a ludicrous notion what you are insinuating. Christians have been DOOM PORN fanatics for 2 thousand years, and the World is still here despite what your book states! every generation of Christians believe they are living in the End of Times.