‘Duck Dynasty’ star fantasizes about atheist family’s brutal rape and murder to make point about God’s law

You are right. You didn't imply it. You said it. Why did you say it?

Please, please, please understand that I'm not being rude here but what you just said was gibberish. I don't have a clue what comes after this life. Let me be very clear, NOT A FUCKING CLUE. Guess what? Neither do you. The hard truth is that Jesus in the way you think he existed (I don't know how you think he existed I'm just assuming you follow suite of almost every other christian) probably didn't. You tell me not to let flawed humans tell me what is right yet you spout off to read the bible. LOL and you can't even understand why that is fucked beyond belief. The bible was written by men. By arrogant, greedy men. Again, I don't know what happens when this journey ends...noone alive does. It's an element of fear to most people when thinking about it. Death is scary. Our fears are why we seek god. We want to know that everything is going to be ok and we trick ourselves into "knowing" that when we die we see jesus or god or our moms or dads. I think death has got to be a glorious experience and I welcome it whenever it comes to get me. Without fear, without regret. I am not afraid of it. Maybe that's why I have opened my mind and have thought about things in a different light instead of letting flawed humans influence me. And, yea, I think christians are flawed humans. Same with a self proclaimed atheist who claims absolutely nothing happens. He doesn't know shit. He knows as much as the christian, he's just tricking himself into thinking he knows what comes next. Religion is dangerous and counterproductive to the real truth. Again...not being rude. Just putting my thoughts out there.

I didn't say it.

You are almost stating what I said just in a different fashion. You are fighting yourself here friend. Jesus did exist there is no doubt about that do some research. Your belief in God is more about this life than whatever come afterwards. Your correct I did say YOU read the bible and every other book you can on this topic and come to your own conclusion. Yes all humans are flawed no disputing that point. I feel like you are at a point in your life that you need some positive direction. When you say you welcome death, this is a telling statement. You are the exact type of person that once you make up you mind in what you belive can change people's life's for the better. Don't let any one fool you into believing anything different friend. Again believing in God and choosing to live you life in a way to help build people up in this life is what it is all about. If there is anything after this would it not just be a bonus for all of us, it's a win win situation. I'm not attempting to tell you to be a Christian, if you take the time to research all the religions out there I would almost guarantee thats where you will land like millions of other people out there. You are different unique you are choosing to find your own path in this life and that is rare. Take your time and in the end God will guide you to the path he has had laid out for you since the beginning. You are again correct religion can be dangerous and counterproductive but it can also be life giving and enable you too live a life you would not be able to live otherwise. You are in the right place to learn all you will need to come to your own conclusions I wish you well and God bless you and yours friend!

Having an emotional sense of right and wrong, is different than having a philosophic basis for ethics and morals.

In philosophic thought, nihilism has always been the consequence of tearing down accepted moral and ethical value. That's what Nietzsche was doing in Beyond Good and Evil, seeing the result of tearing down and replacing the Christian God of Western Civilization and replacing it with science. You heard of the term, "Death of God." That's what it means.

Nietzsche correctly predicted perhaps the bloodiest century in human history, the 20th Century, driven by atheistic Communism, and Hitlerian Supermen.

In this sense, as an atheist, you can say rape is wrong, but have to elaborate some particular philosophic theory to make your argument, on the other hand, someone can just as easily determine rape is good or beyond any concept of good and evil, and give some philosophic elaboration of that belief.

So in the end, you have "might makes right," the strong survive, he who has the gold makes the rules, without any transcendent standard, ie, God, to appeal the injustice of rape or murder, or genocide.

You are the OP (Original Poster). At that time, you could have changed the wording in the title. Or alternatively, you could have put in your post that you don't believe it.

As it is right now, you are backing away from it and disowning it. Like a politician.

I want to argue with you but I'm not going to. But let me say this...Just because I don't believe in god in the sense that is pushed down our throats absolutely DOES NOT mean that I don't know right from wrong. Hypothetically, say it was proven beyond any doubt that there is no god (I know that it can't be proven either way...hypothetically) would a switch turn in your mind and would you go start killing children and raping old ladies? Fuck no you wouldn't because you're not a psychopath (I'm assuming of course). You knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with god talking to you. Again...this is my opinion. I guess I kinda argued even though I said I wasn't going to. My bad. Good day.

Who determines the 'transcendent standard' exactly? What about when individuals adopt this from external sources, such as writings from the hands of men about a deity which condoned such behavior in certain contextual situations? Do we need to revisit some of the passages of the Old Testament concerning the 'ravaging' of the women of raided villages and taking virgins as 'spoils of war'? Is not then that 'transcendental standard' being used to justify what otherwise should be viewed as immoral and unjustifiable behavior? What about when a dogma teaches that you can do pretty much anything and be forgiven after the fact as well as bypass any 'afterlife consequences' - just as long as you genuinely feel sorry about what you did and promise to hold onto certain theological beliefs? Can this ideology not also serve to lesson one's internal constraints through the belief that one has the power to negate the 'spiritual' consequences of such behavior through later conscious choice/action?




In this scenario you presented, the person in question lacks true moral INTEGRITY because his sense of 'right and wrong' is derived from a fear of punishment, and therefore his motivation to act a certain way comes from a desire to avoid unfavorable consequences and 'obedience' - not from an understanding of WHY stealing is wrong. A person who operates with integrity and internally-derived moral/ethical awareness does not steal because he/she understands why it is not right to take someone else's property, and he/she can employ the virtue of empathy to understand what those actions would feel like if he/she were on the receiving end of such behavior. Therefore the thought of stealing would create a sense of internal strife within the individual. It's not about fear of punishment from a higher power, it's about employing awareness and wisdom to truly comprehend the nature of a particular course of action and the potential harm it will cause another (i.e. the victim). Of course not everyone operates with the same degree of Awareness, so for some individuals, - externalized 'rules' and fears of punishment may be necessary to regulate their behavior... But you really should make the distinction when discussing this concept of 'transcendent values' relating to a 'God', as clearly some individuals only find restraint through fear of being punished - which is a very superficial sense of morality and concerning on some levels because it implies the temptation to engage in certain behavior is still present and needs to be actively suppressed by way of fear of being punished...

What a fucking retard

Without accepted transcendent values, your morals are a personal choice.

Lets say you believe stealing is morally wrong. Then you find yourself tempted to steal a large sum of money, where there is zero chance of getting caught, and you are in a situation where you need money.

Now lets say you steal the money. From your point of view, was it wrong to steal the money, or instead, is it only wrong to steal if you can get caught?

Or better, has your personal idea of right and wrong changed? After all, its your choice what you believe is right or wrong. Might as well believe something which is consistent with your behavior.

The person with transcendent values, ie, God is in a different situation. If he steals the money, he believes he will suffer for that act, regardless if he gets caught and regardless of how he attempts to rationalize the stealing.

Except if he accepts Jesus as his personal best buddy. Then he can sin, like ted Haggard, a Christian and head of one of the largest churches in America, who cheated on his wife with a male hooker, after preaching relentlessly against homosexuality, who then went on to ask his buddy Jesus for forgiveness and then all was okay. Or a pious priest that rapes children. Or that Bob Coy pastor who had a porn addiction and affairs with multiple women. How does being a Christian make you a good person again?

I guess born again just means sin and ask to be forgiven. Who cares about nasty sins like pride, greed, envy, gluttony, hating people and looking at everyone as lesser beings and so on. Christians are sick fucks. They say they love an evil god who tortures most of the world forever. Yeah, that just shows you how shallow and evil they really are. No wonder they love these Robertson freak.

"Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson delivered a bizarre speech in which he created a hypothetical scenario about an atheist being forced to watch his "little atheist daughters" get raped and then having his penis hacked off and shown to him.

Read more: [link to www.rawstory.com]

Well put. A little assertive but let's be honest...assertiveness is sometimes necessary. Again...good post.

Thanks, I am sorry. I didn't mean to lump all Christians together. Most of them pay no attention to their beliefs...just go with the flow. I am basically talking about these militant Christians, like this dumb fuck backwoods hillbilly who made a fortune selling duck calls....what the fuck is wrong with America...really? How the hell did that happen? Who gave this idiot a TV show? Why?

I was speaking truthfully about those kind of militant Christians who actually need a god who killed babies in the Bible, all the firstborn in Egypt, etc. to tell them right from wrong? LOL...glad they have the Babble cause no telling the shit they would do without the fear that their bad ass god would cut off their genitals and hang them up to dry.

What a fucking weirdo. Religion, in my opinion, is absolutely in fucking sane. I'm not an atheist by any means and I never try to sway a persons belief system. But for me it's very clear that religion, all of them...the big ones anyhow, are a control method. To assume a white guy, 6ft something, lived 2000 years ago and was the literal son of the creator of the universe is a possibility, sure, but in my years of experience and searching I have come to believe that it's complete and total bull shit. Then for some fucking religitard, who is praised for absolutely nothing, uses god as an excuse to justify tormenting a family that doesn't share his beliefs. Sure it's hypothetical at this point but where is the line? Human beings seriously need to pull their shit together and put our differences aside...we could really change everything that way. Again, my opinion.

I was speaking truthfully about those kind of militant Christians who actually need a god who killed babies in the Bible, all the firstborn in Egypt, etc. to tell them right from wrong? LOL...glad they have the Babble cause no telling the shit they would do without the fear that their bad ass god would cut off their genitals and hang them up to dry.

God Is Good and God Is Just - just because you don't understand how that is, it won't allow for an excuse when you stand before Him!

Jesus Is offering you eternal peace and blessing - most, because of pride and arrogance, will refuse His offering...and then spend eternity with a regret that is beyond human imagination!

You still have time left - choose wisely!

Now there lays the paradox, doesn't it?

That's not what he was saying!

Phil was pointing out the absurdity of mayhem without eternal judgment!

Depends on the foundational premise one operates from!

I was noting "that guy" didn't understand!

No paradox whatsoever if one enters into a *living* relationship with The Most High God!

Sigh, that's not even what the earliest scriptures in Greek and Hebrew said.... It's only gross misunderstanding rooted in much later Latin & English mistranslations that altered the meaning of what was communicated in those original languages...

Try reading through this in its entirety so you will see this is so:
[link to tentmaker.org]

If you want to 'choose wisely', you will cease promoting misunderstanding and stop issuing veiled threats rooted in fear and a desire to secure ideological conformity...

-Eternal punishment for a finite life experiences is a carnal-minded conceptualization, and violates the principle of 'reaping what you sow'. The concept was a scare tactic created for the purposes of psychological manipulation and behavioral modification of a populace, and it was found in pagan philosophy before Christianity adopted it centuries after its foundation... Universal Reconciliation was a predominant doctrine/belief in the earliest centuries and they could not arrive at that understanding if the scriptures stipulated 'eternal condemnation' - which they didn't...

-You cannot 'spend Eternity' anywhere, as you cannot enter into Eternity and begin experiencing it as if it's something that has a specific onset and beginning. Either Eternity exists right now and always has, or it doesn't exist at all.... You cannot selectively start experiencing Eternity - as by definition it means "no beginning and no end".... Any conceptualization of Eternity that stipulates that it begins or starts at a certain time is actually violating the very principle of the concept itself and is therefore flawed.

Hmmm....your semantics (respectfully noting) seem to lead away from the message - Jesus said:

Matt 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

We all exist for eternity - just a matter of where! Eternal "life" or eternal "death". Death does not presuppose "without" consciousness.

Who determines the 'transcendent standard' exactly? What about when individuals adopt this from external sources, such as writings from the hands of men about a deity which condoned such behavior in certain contextual situations? Do we need to revisit some of the passages of the Old Testament concerning the 'ravaging' of the women of raided villages and taking virgins as 'spoils of war'? Is not then that 'transcendental standard' being used to justify what otherwise should be viewed as immoral and unjustifiable behavior?

Of course. That is one reason Jesus should be consider a reformer of Judaism, or the religions of the Hebrews, or Israelites. Simply put, the God of love taught by Jesus is very different from the war god of the Old Testament.

Further, this radical dichotomy has been a thorn in the side, and only a partially reconciled contradiction inherent in Christianity from its inception, notably, Gnostic Christians, and later various Christian sects like the Cathers of France.

If you are interested in a modern day exposition of this by theologian, Joseph P Farrell, I'll post a video about his book, Yahweh, The Two Faced God.






What about when a dogma teaches that you can do pretty much anything and be forgiven after the fact as well as bypass any 'afterlife consequences' - just as long as you genuinely feel sorry about what you did and promise to hold onto certain theological beliefs? Can this ideology not also serve to lesson one's internal constraints through the belief that one has the power to negate the 'spiritual' consequences of such behavior through later conscious choice/action?


We are talking about things which could take hundred of pages of debate and discussion. The simple answer is yes and no. For some like a Catholic Mafioso, he may feel he can kill with impunity, for a dedicated Orthodox Priest in a Russian Monastery, who prays nearly every waking hour, not so much.

Its a mistake to assume all Christians are the same and Christian dogma and doctrine is monolithic. Its not. There are many variations and sub variations and sub-variations of Christianity.

That is because Christianity gives great intellectual liberty to the Christian, and gives great weight to personal revelation between the believer and the Holy Spirit, rather than and always obedience to dogma and the priest class.

As I see it, the working principle here is the Atonement value of the resurrection which defeated death, and sin.

The value of the principle is better shown in an extreme example of guilt, rather than ethic or morals.

For example, If someone had done something that in his own eyes was unforgivable, say killing his child, or being the cause of his child's death by negligence.

The mental state of that person overcome by guilt, would be for all purposes hell. (In the sense, mental torment is often worse than physical torment.)

In Christianity, the healing of that state, would be the healing power of Christ through the Atonement established by the resurrection.

What that means, is that the slightest seed of belief in the forgiveness of his sins by Christ, the grain of mustard seed if you will, will trigger the entire force of the universe to heal the man's mind of guilt and sin, and thereby release him from the hell of guilt.

That's of course, is a Christian experience. And can be demonstrated by experience not by logical.





In this scenario you presented, the person in question lacks true moral INTEGRITY because his sense of 'right and wrong' is derived from a fear of punishment, and therefore his motivation to act a certain way comes from a desire to avoid unfavorable consequences and 'obedience' - not from an understanding of WHY stealing is wrong. A person who operates with integrity and internally-derived moral/ethical awareness does not steal because he/she understands why it is not right to take someone else's property, and he/she can employ the virtue of empathy to understand what those actions would feel like if he/she were on the receiving end of such behavior. Therefore the thought of stealing would create a sense of internal strife within the individual. It's not about fear of punishment from a higher power, it's about employing awareness and wisdom to truly comprehend the nature of a particular course of action and the potential harm it will cause another (i.e. the victim). Of course not everyone operates with the same degree of Awareness, so for some individuals, - externalized 'rules' and fears of punishment may be necessary to regulate their behavior... But you really should make the distinction when discussing this concept of 'transcendent values' relating to a 'God', as clearly some individuals only find restraint through fear of being punished - which is a very superficial sense of morality and concerning on some levels because it implies the temptation to engage in certain behavior is still present and needs to be actively suppressed by way of fear of being punished...