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

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Try again! There is Slavery in the New Testament as well. Children were still being sold into slavery in the first century.

The New Testament is a historical record...of course it contains slavery...

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

That's a parable, you know, an allegorical tale

Priests still owned slaves:

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

These were not Christian priests...

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

Yup, slavery was pretty much widespread in the culture of the day.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having bothered to taken it:

Jesus didn't come to reform the horrors of slavery, or of the Roman totalitarian system of government. He was interested in reforming men's souls. As philosophers have long noted, being a slave to one's appetites is the worst fate of all.

To be clear: I don't think that the Bible condemns slavery. I believe that the Bible is a book that is interested in one's soul, not the political situation or system of government or institutions of a particular people. Rather, it's concerned with spiritual subject matter. But the recognition of spiritual truths contained in the Bible (like the equality of all men before God) spurred historical developments for the better, like the abolition of slavery and less tyrannical systems of government. Make sense?

a reply to: windword

you don't even have to go the level of society -- in your heart, as a friend, a mom, dad, brother, sister, son, co-worker, boss, and so on, you know you would not condemn someone to eternal torment for displeasing you. a psychiatrist can easily identify one of the old testament big wigs as being cruel and uncaring. my theory is that there's 2 gods in the old testament, one of which is jesus before he came as a human, and the other is the dude that is so impossible to deal with, even jesus warns people about him. these are 2 different guys. how they both ended up in the old testament, is a very long story, but they are.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That's pretty important.

Why? Christian immediately started preaching their gods were demons and demonized pagan morality.

Likely depends on who you asked. Wasn't it Socrates who asked the famous question "is something good because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of it because it is good?"

Socrates didn't believe that perfection could exist in an earthly form. Ergo, no Jesus.

It has no effect on my morality whether or not Socrates believe in the existence of god and pondered the source of "good". I don't know if Socrates' belief in god prevented him from raping and murdering, or condoning rape and murder, or not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, I'm not suggesting morality doesn't exist. I'm saying it doesn't come from the Bible or from a "creator god". I'm suggesting that, according to my personal moral compass, derived from empathy, those rules violate my personal, subjective moral standard, and are therefore immoral according to my viewpoint, and, many of them are either illegal or considered immoral in today's society's mores. If these morals don't apply to everyone, then they aren't objective.

And if they aren't objective, they don't apply to everyone, so why does it matter that they violate your personal, subjective moral standard? Oh no! It violates some people's personal, subjective moral standards for women to dress in anything remotely revealing (of the top of their heads) outside of the home. And their point of view is just as valid as yours, is it not?

It says "Thou Shall Not Kill".

Depends on the translation. It's pretty clear in the original language and in context that it means "murder."

Christians fighting against Christians! Who would've thunk it! Why did it take Jesus and his army 1900 years to end slavery in Christian territories?

Which army is this? It sounds cool...

Jesus didn't teach of an all inclusive god.

If you cut out large bits of the New Testament, sure

Round and round we go! On the basis that the Bible presents no objective moral standard that is true for everyone all the time! One must rely on their own moral compass when wading through the "advice" given in the Bible.

I'm not certain why you persist in saying the Bible presents no objective moral standard (ever) when it pretty clearly does, at some points, present standards that are both moral and seem to be standards

[originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Why? Christian immediately started preaching their gods were demons and demonized pagan morality.

Because, it sets up a standard outside the individual. (I get the impression that the Greeks believed in an objective morality outside of the gods, but there's a lot of different "pagans" out there...)

a reply to: StalkerSolent

And if they aren't objective, they don't apply to everyone, so why does it matter that they violate your personal, subjective moral standard?

I won't align myself with or condone something that violates my personal, subjective moral compass.

Oh no! It violates some people's personal, subjective moral standards for women to dress in anything remotely revealing (of the top of their heads) outside of the home. And their point of view is just as valid as yours, is it not?

As long as it's agreeable to all those affected or involved, I don't care about other people's personal morality. It's just as valid as my own.

Depends on the translation. It's pretty clear in the original language and in context that it means "murder."

So what? Stoning a woman because she didn't bleed on her wedding night is still murder. Attacking a city "because God told you to" is NO reason to go in and murder, rape and steal.

If you cut out large bits of the New Testament, sure

Well, I was trying to stick with the words that are credited to Jesus, while he was supposedly alive, not what interpretations are mused by others.

I'm not certain why you persist in saying the Bible presents no objective moral standard (ever) when it pretty clearly does, at some points, present standards that are both moral and seem to be standards

You, nor anyone I've ever asked for that matter, have given me no examples of an "objective moral standard" within the pages of the bible. By morality, I mean a standard of conduct that reflects an individual's values of what is right and wrong, in any given situation.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Because, it sets up a standard outside the individual.

Not really. People were at the mercy of the whims and quarrels of the gods. They may or may not favor an individual, for whatever reason. They were quite capricious and unpredictable.

originally posted by: windword

As long as it's agreeable to all those affected or involved, I don't care about other people's personal morality. It's just as valid as my own.

So basically it's never wrong to punish people for their immoral actions?

So what? Stoning a woman because she didn't bleed on her wedding night is still murder. Attacking a city "because God told you to" is NO reason to go in and murder, rape and steal.

So what? "Murder" isn't objectively wrong, according to you, so no biggie, right?

Well, I was trying to stick with the words that are credited to Jesus, while he was supposedly alive, not what interpretations are mused by others.

Ah, OK.

You, nor anyone I've ever asked for that matter, have given me no examples of an "objective moral standard" within the pages of the bible. By morality, I mean a standard of conduct that reflects an individual's values of what is right and wrong, in any given situation.

Really? That's interesting.

a reply to: windword

Yup. Like I said, I get the impression the Greeks had a TMO outside of the gods.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

So basically it's never wrong to punish people for their immoral actions?

"Never" and "always" are objective terms and have no place in subjective situations.

So what? "Murder" isn't objectively wrong, according to you, so no biggie, right?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Eternal damnation, for example, doesn't fit the crime of 80 years of non-belief.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

"Never" and "always" are objective terms and have no place in subjective situations.

You might say one should always never use "always" and "never," am I right?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Eternal damnation, for example, doesn't fit the crime of 80 years of non-belief.

But you have no criterion besides your subjective feeling that anything *is* a crime...or what punishment fits it. As far as I can tell, according to you, there should be no punishment, unless people are agreeable to it...right? You said,

As long as it's agreeable to all those affected or involved, I don't care about other people's personal morality. It's just as valid as my own.

Presumably, someone wouldn't kill someone unless it was OK with their personal morality. So if that conflicted with the personal morality of everyone else, and they wanted to kill the killer, you would not be OK with the killer (because he didn't get agreement) but you also wouldn't be OK with his punishment (because the group didn't get his agreement.) Or am I missing something here?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

You might say one should always never use "always" and "never," am I right?

No one shouldn't say that at all, because it is possible to speak objectively. For instance, "I will never spontaneously fly into space because that violates the laws of gravity." See. That is a perfectly valid use of the word never.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

But you have no criterion besides your subjective feeling that anything *is* a crime...or what punishment fits it. As far as I can tell, according to you, there should be no punishment, unless people are agreeable to it...right?

Right.

Presumably, someone wouldn't kill someone unless it was OK with their personal morality. So if that conflicted with the personal morality of everyone else, and they wanted to kill the killer, you would not be OK with the killer (because he didn't get agreement) but you also wouldn't be OK with his punishment (because the group didn't get his agreement.) Or am I missing something here?

If the killer violated the social mores and was convicted and sentenced to death, I have no problem with the death penalty being moral. However, I can't say that, in his heart, the killer wasn't responding to something that he thought deserved the death penalty, and was therefore moral, in his view. Perhaps he killed his sister's rapist. I don't know.

People who refuse to get along socially should be corrected, so that society can run smoothly as possible. Societies that run smoothly (as possible) allow for person growth, even spiritual growth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

You might say one should always never use "always" and "never," am I right?

No one shouldn't say that at all, because it is possible to speak objectively. For instance, "I will never spontaneously fly into space because that violates the laws of gravity." See. That is a perfectly valid use of the word never.

Ah, yes, I don't hold to that belief. But apparently windword does

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Me: But you have no criterion besides your subjective feeling that anything *is* a crime...or what punishment fits it. As far as I can tell, according to you, there should be no punishment, unless people are agreeable to it...right?

You: Right.

So people must agree to their own punishment?

If the killer violated the social mores and was convicted and sentenced to death, I have no problem with the death penalty being moral. However, I can't say that, in his heart, the killer wasn't responding to something that he thought deserved the death penalty, and was therefore moral, in his view. Perhaps he killed his sister's rapist. I don't know.

But what if he wanted to kill people for the heck of it? Why shouldn't he? Especially if he can get away with it.

People who refuse to get along socially should be corrected, so that society can run smoothly as possible.

Agreed! To the gulags they must go!

Societies that run smoothly (as possible) allow for person growth, even spiritual growth.

How are you even defining "smoothly" here?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

So people must agree to their own punishment?

Well, sort of. We all agree to abide by the laws of our society, or even if don't agree with them, we're aware of the consequences of breaking them.

But what if he wanted to kill people for the heck of it? Why shouldn't he? Especially if he can get away with it.

People get away with crimes all the time. There isn't anything to stop them, other than there own sense of morality. There are only measure we can take to deter them, like punishments or promises of hell fire forever. We can't force morality, we can only enforce laws.

How are you even defining "smoothly" here?

Predictably, and in such a way that groups can coexist and individuals can survive and, hopefully, thrive.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Well, sort of. We all agree to abide by the laws of our society, or even if don't agree with them, we're aware of the consequences of breaking them.

I never agreed to that.

People get away with crimes all the time. There isn't anything to stop them, other than there own sense of morality. There are only measure we can take to deter them, like punishments or promises of hell fire forever. We can't force morality, we can only enforce laws.

Yup. But why would we want to, if there's no objective morality? Unless it helps us oppress people more effectively *cue Marxist interpretation of history*

Predictably,

Good luck with that...

and in such a way that groups can coexist and individuals can survive and, hopefully, thrive.

So, we should try to accommodate groups like ISIS instead of wiping them out (because if we wipe them out, we are not furthering any of the three ends of society you set up.)

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I never agreed to that.

Do you have a driver's license, a car, a home, a job, pay taxes? Then, yes you did.

So, we should try to accommodate groups like ISIS instead of wiping them out (because if we wipe them out, we are not furthering any of the three ends of society you set up.)

I don't see God or Jesus stopping them? How's that super transcendental morality standard doing? Not good, not good at all!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Do you have a driver's license, a car, a home, a job, pay taxes? Then, yes you did.

I never had to sign anything that said I had to abide by the laws of this country.
And if I did, I don't see why I should honor my word, in your view.

I don't see God or Jesus stopping them? How's that super transcendental morality standard doing? Not good, not good at all!

Eh, the "transcendental moral standard" is the thing going "Geez, these people are horrible, we really should do something about them" instead of going "welp, those people over their paid taxes to the new ISIS government, so they agreed to be executed if they decide to leave Islam."

a reply to: StalkerSolent

This is problem with you "Objective Moral Standard" types, is everything has to be black and white for you, when in reality, which you emphasized earlier, very little in life, if anything is black or white, it's all shades of grey.

There are no majestic road signs from God, written in stone, or magic formulas to tell us how to make it unscathed through life. We're all on our own when it comes to our choices and decisions, but reality has consequences.

Atheists, agnostics and non-religious folk aren't on the verge of murdering you, raping your mother or eating your babies because we don't believe in God and "his" disapproving retribution. Mankind doesn't need a god or gods to employ empathy when deciding what is right and what is wrong for any given situation. Wisdom is something that's earned through trial and error, over time. It's not something that is magically bestowed only on people who believe in God and Jesus.