Posted on 03/25/2015 12:56:56 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
"Duck Dynasty's" Phil Robertson has come under fire once again, this time for a speech he made about a hypothetical atheist family at an annual prayer breakfast in Florida on Friday.
Robertson described a graphic scenario while sharing his thoughts on those who do not believe in God.
"Two guys break into an atheist's home," Robertson began. "He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'
"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.'
"If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right.'"
Many took to Twitter to voice their disapproval once recordings of Robertson's speech made their way onto the Internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What if they took his manhood in the name of God ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395265/there-worst-sin-evil-gods-name-dennis-prager
There may not be an objective right and wrong, but I believe there is an objective reality. Either a god or gods do exist, or not.
Since my philosophy says that, in the absence of clear evidence for its existence, God does not exist, I don’t believe in God’s existence. I believe that is the objective truth, although I could be wrong.
If it is true, there is no basis for a god-given morality. That follows entirely logically from the premise. My beliefs are entirely self-consistent, even if they aren’t consistent sometimes with what I feel, or would like to believe.
Now, you might say, if there is no objective morality, why is it important to me that I try to believe only in things that true? Well, it just is. It’s subjective. Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else believes, there is an objective reality that belief doesn’t affect. I can’t prove it, but it seems like a reasonable starting point. After all, if we don’t assume an objective reality, there is pretty much no underpinning for any system of beliefs.
Said the atheist collection of molecules.
But how do you know? Your belief seems to hang on subjective truth.
Machete don’t Text and Phil don’t Tweet.
Hypothetical, just like Obama’s Sons.
Smart people are atheists. Smart people manage to avoid being caught.
I like Phil, but this is silly. Not believing in god is not the same thing as believing there’s nothing wrong with cutting of someone’s head.
I don’t know. It’s an assumption, backed up by not having encountered any evidence to the contrary. It seems the most reasonable explanation for the universe we see.
It could be that there is no objective reality. If so, none of my conjecture or belief makes any difference - it would be impossible to know anything.
Do you not believe in an objective reality that exists outside (at least human’s) our minds ability to perceive it?
Only if there is objective truth. Otherwise, everything is subjective.
“Smart people are atheists. Smart people manage to avoid being caught.”
That’s certainly one possible interpretation.
It could also be a class thing - atheism is more concentrated among the middle and upper classes who are also underrepresented (as a percentage of society) in prison.
Or...who knows?
To follow up: you expect me to believe in an objective reality outside of my ability to perceive it, yet you reject God because He is outside your ability to perceive Him.
Just to be clear, do you mean this?:
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And second is like it: iYou shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 jOn these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
So one doesn’t even have to believe in Christ at all according to you to get to heaven since he’s not mentioned at all in these commandments.
I suggest some more studying of context.
Would that more prominent conservatives were willing to unapologetically speak the truth.
Good Lord, did you forget He's the one GIVING the command?! Or do you think He's not? Or, perhaps, do you think He was kidding when He said that these were His "greatest" commandments? Perhaps He didn't really mean that - perhaps you don't have to hold these commandments superior to ALL His other teachings? And interpret ALL His other teachings in SUPPORT of these?
I suggest some more studying of context.
Context? I suggest you look up the words "command." It's on the other side of the dictionary from the word "optional." THAT is your "context." Jesus called it His "greatest" comandment precisely BECAUSE He was giving everyone context. Yet what do people do? They invoke "context" to DENY this COMMAND of context, in order to use other teachings to DE-contextualize the Greatest Commandment as somehow NOT the greatest.
That's not Biblical scholoarship - that's hypocrisy. And it's also why EACH HALF of Christianity tells the OTHER half of Christianity it's going to hell.
We all bet our lives with how we live them. Believe what you want. But personally, I don't want to die and meet Jesus and have Him look at me and ask, "what, exactly, was the part of my "greatest" commandment that you didn't GET?".
I hear you, my FRiend.
Do you recall that stuff about the Good Shepherd who goes out into the wilderness to find the one lost sheep? The Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep?
Good Lord, did you forget He’s the one GIVING the command?!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jesus was asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law”? NOT, “What is YOUR greatest command”?
Very simple question. Do you think THE MAN that asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment THOUGHT that Jesus was referring to himself as ‘the Lord your God’, when Jesus gave this reply:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
And if the answer is ‘no’, then we’re back to my original comment:
So one doesn’t even have to believe in Christ at all according to you to get to heaven since he’s not mentioned at all in these commandments.
Your mention of Dostoevsky reminds me of the famous scene in Brothers Karamazov wherein Christ is brought before the Spanish Inquisition. He is interviewed and condemned by the infamous Torquemada because his message of compassion and love of enemy was incompatible w/ the higher goals of the "church".
What this says to me is that the true message of Christ should not be subordinated to a "higher" purpose, if fact, Christ himself is the only purpose and the only path. And His path is compassion and truth.
Casting our opponents in a false light doesn't help our cause; it only hinders the truth. And while Dostoevsky and Nietzche were correct that w/o God all is permitted we must acknowledge that the vast majority of atheists do not view morality that way.
I believe the truth of Christ is accessible and eternal. That to me is the stronger debating point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.