# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Can a Christian support torture?

## Christian Liberty

Note: This thread is primarily for those who consider themselves to be Christians.  Those who don't believe in Christianity in any form (in other words, they do not consider themselves to be Christians) are welcome to comment, but will likely not understand the dilemma as to them "Christian" may not have an absolute meaning.

I have several friends who have responded to the whole CIA torture bit, not by denying that torture occurred, but by saying "torture is justified if it saves American lives."

I spent some time last night reading about torture... so I'm more sensetive to its horror than usual, but...

Is it even possible for a saved person to say torture is OK?

Poll coming:

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *Christian*
> 
> *Christianity*
> 
> Is it even possible for *a saved person*


I think that these are technical terms of art which for you have some very special, technical definitions.  These definitions are hard for the rest of us to understand and they exclude most of us.  Including, most emphatically, myself.

But I would say that _I_ do not support institutional torture.  And I do not believe that a true *follower of Jesus* could support institutional torture.  A correct understanding of the teachings would preclude that, in my opinion.  But, others have other interpretations and disagree with mine.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think that these are technical terms of art which for you have some very special, technical definitions.  These definitions are hard for the rest of us to understand and they exclude most of us.  Including, most emphatically, myself.
> 
> But I would say that _I_ do not support institutional torture.  And I do not believe that a true *follower of Jesus* could support institutional torture.  A correct understanding of the teachings would preclude that, in my opinion.  But, others have other interpretations and disagree with mine.


Valid point.  I'd appreciate any language that would make this conversation easier to understand.  Let me put it this way.  From a Biblical perspective, would we say that someone who says "torture is morally OK" is still going to heaven?  Mind you, when I ask that question, I am not assuming that "believing torture is wrong" is some kind of work someone has to perform to be saved.  Rather, I am asking if someone who has been saved by Christ could possibly think torture is OK.

----------


## William Tell

> Note: This thread is primarily for those who consider themselves to be Christians.  Those who don't believe in Christianity in any form (in other words, they do not consider themselves to be Christians) are welcome to comment, but will likely not understand the dilemma as to them "Christian" may not have an absolute meaning.
> 
> I have several friends who have responded to the whole CIA torture bit, not by denying that torture occurred, but by saying "torture is justified if it saves American lives."
> 
> I spent some time last night reading about torture... so I'm more sensetive to its horror than usual, but...
> 
> Is it even possible for a saved person to say torture is OK?
> 
> Poll coming:


I really hate polls like this. Do I think torture is Christian? *NO!* it is barbaric, and cowardly in my opinion. It is also treasonous and unpatriotic as it violates the Constitution. But... I think it is less bad for a person to voice support for immoral things than it is to _do_ immoral things.

So, FF, do you think that a Christian can ever sin?  I mean, the Bible says if we love him we will keep his commandments, do you take that to mean that any sin means we are not Christian? Obviously we are not _supposed_ to, and sin is not something that is _acceptable_ in Christianity. But I don't turn around and say someone is not a Christian at all because he did some particular sin. Now, when an entire life is centered around things that seem the opposite of Christianity... I think the actions of someone like George Bush or Barack Obama tell us who's will they do.

----------


## William Tell

And I really am ticked off today, seeing all these "conservatives" on Twitter who say they love the 2nd amendment. Posting stuff in support of actions which are forbidden in the 8th amendment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I really hate polls like this. Do I think torture is Christian? *NO!* it is barbaric, and cowardly in my opinion. It is also treasonous and unpatriotic as it violates the Constitution. But... I think it is less bad for a person to voice support for immoral things than it is to _do_ immoral things.
> 
> So, FF, do you think that a Christian can ever sin?  I mean, the Bible says if we love him we will keep his commandments, do you take that to mean that any sin means we are not Christian? Obviously we are not _supposed_ to, and sin is not something that is _acceptable_ in Christianity. But I don't turn around and say someone is not a Christian at all because he did some particular sin. Now, when an entire life is centered around things that seem the opposite of Christianity... I think the actions of someone like George Bush or Barack Obama tell us who's will they do.


Oh, Christians can sin, and yes, that can include giving in to the pressure and torturing someone in a life or death situation.  Heck, David committed murder for literally no good reason, yet he repented, and he was saved.

But... I don't know... torture just strikes me as the most obviously immoral thing anyone can support...  Its like justifying a lifetime of adultery, only worse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And I really am ticked off today, seeing all these "conservatives" on Twitter who say they love the 2nd amendment. Posting stuff in support of actions which are forbidden in the 8th amendment.


Same here.  BTW: I didn't actually answer my own question.  I am not convinced "yes" is the wrong answer.  But I do think its a question that needs to be thought through more.  1 Corinthians 5 says that those who "call themselves a believer" and yet engage in various immoral acts should be shunned... where's the line?

----------


## William Tell

> Oh, Christians can sin, and yes, that can include giving in to the pressure and torturing someone in a life or death situation.  Heck, David committed murder for literally no good reason, yet he repented, and he was saved.
> 
> But... I don't know... torture just strikes me as the most obviously immoral thing anyone can support...  Its like justifying a lifetime of adultery, only worse.


So, is it worse to "support" torture through a post on Twitter, or actually commit adultery? Or any 'lesser' sin for that matter.
And like I said, I hate torture too.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*WWJD?


**"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, is it worse to "support" torture through a post on Twitter, or actually commit adultery?


Good point.  Counterpoint: Is it worse to spend an ENTIRE LIFETIME supporting torture and never repent, vs committing adultery one time and then repenting.

BTW: I know the difficulties with categorizing sins.  And, I'm still trying to learn here to.  I post this thread in search of answers, not to preach them.




> Or any 'lesser' sin for that matter.


Every sin, on principle, separates us from God.  But we're supposed to deal with different sins in different ways.

1 Corinthians 5 gives us a list of sins which a person who does not repent from should excommunicate from the church.  Do we not follow this command because "we all sin"?  While I believe every sin is enough to separate us from God, I do believe there are certain sins that a believer will not be characterized by.




> And like I said, I hate torture too.


I know.  I'm glad.

----------


## otherone

> *WWJD?
> 
> 
> **"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## William Tell

> Good point.  Counterpoint: Is it worse to spend an ENTIRE LIFETIME supporting torture and never repent, vs committing adultery one time and then repenting.


I think without question committing adultery is worse than voicing support for torture in a way that does not effect policy. We are not talking about actually torturing here.

Adultery is listed in the 10 commandments, and if you commit it and repent, you will still have ruined the marriage of 2 other people. The fact that you repent and God forgives you, does not undo the harm you have caused.

Supporting torture when you have no effect on policy is not that important in my opinion. Its not like we are talking about Dick Cheney here, we are talking about nobodies. Now, if they vote for Dick Cheney, that is obviously not a good thing. But torture is not something most of us come into contact with personally.

I certainly think its good to oppose torture, and talk about such important issues with believers. I just would not call someone a non Christian just because he has an opinion on an issue that he will never have an effect on.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Maybe in the Afterlife

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think without question committing adultery is worse than voicing support for torture in a way that does not effect policy. We are not talking about actually torturing here.
> 
> Adultery is listed in the 10 commandments, and if you commit it and repent, you will still have ruined the marriage of 2 other people. The fact that you repent and God forgives you, does not undo the harm you have caused.
> 
> Supporting torture when you have no effect on policy is not that important in my opinion. Its not like we are talking about Dick Cheney here, we are talking about nobodies. Now, if they vote for Dick Cheney, that is obviously not a good thing. But torture is not something most of us come into contact with personally.
> 
> I certainly think its good to oppose torture, and talk about such important issues with believers. I just would not call someone a non Christian just because he has an opinion on an issue that he will never have an effect on.


What if somebody said adultery was OK but didn't do it?

----------


## staerker

Let me know when y'all have quantified every sin in a spreadsheet, and ordered them with respect to repulsiveness.

----------


## William Tell

> What if somebody said adultery was OK but didn't do it?


Then he would be wrong, but would not have committed adultery.

----------


## William Tell

> Let me know when y'all have quantified every sin in a spreadsheet, and ordered them with respect to repulsiveness.


That's funny.

----------


## William Tell

> Then he would be wrong, but would not have committed adultery.


Its a bad example anyway, since the Bible is so clear on adultery.

----------


## Crashland

The question is not whether a true Christian can support torture -- the question is whether a true Christian can decide to choose between two evils (the lesser). I voted Yes, but being here on RPF I would imagine the response would be disproportionately "no", at least disproportionally compared to the general population. Many libertarians don't like choosing between two evils :-P

----------


## HVACTech

> That's funny.


mebbe we need a poll to measure support for torture on RPF's? 
I have not seen any.
unless of course, voting is an act of torture.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then he would be wrong, but would not have committed adultery.


Would you at least question whether the guy who says that is Christian?

----------


## specsaregood

> mebbe we need a poll to measure support for torture on RPF's? 
> I have not seen any.
> unless of course, voting is an act of torture.


If you do, then you need to be careful to define torture.  many of the pro-kill maniacs are arguing that what the CIA did wasn't torture and that they too against torture.

in the breitbart thing they are arguing that it is only torture if you only want to inflict pain, as long as you have a goal of extracting information then its all good.

----------


## Crashland

> If you do, then you need to be careful to define torture.  many of the pro-kill maniacs are arguing that what the CIA did wasn't torture and that they too against torture.
> 
> in the breitbart thing they are arguing that it is only torture if you only want to inflict pain, as long as you have a goal of extracting information then its all good.


I don't understand how these people think like that. If they are going to try and justify it, by all means make the argument, but to try and weasel around calling it for what it is, is intellectually dishonest. And it's an insult to any of our own soldier POWs who have been subject to "enhanced interrogation" in other countries, to tell them it's not torture.

----------


## HVACTech

> If you do, then you need to be careful to define torture.  many of the pro-kill maniacs are arguing that what the CIA did wasn't torture and that they too against torture.
> 
> in the breitbart thing they are arguing that it is only torture if you only want to inflict pain, as long as you have a goal of extracting information then its all good.


it is my understanding, that polluting the local language is a propaganda tactic.
it confuses people when they cannot communicate. 
wrangling over the exact meaning of the words used. gives power. 
is this "torture" ?




no.

----------


## mosquitobite

I argued with a guy from my church earlier today and said how can a nation that professes to be a so-called Christian nation tolerate such barbarism?  How is it we would condemn an Arab for these acts and yet look the other way when it is our own?  How do we chant that they are savages and yet have such a disconnect from our own savagery?  

No tax dollars for abortion, but by golly it's ok to fund crimes against humanity!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I argued with a guy from my church earlier today and said how can a nation that professes to be a so-called Christian nation tolerate such barbarism?  How is it we would condemn an Arab for these acts and yet look the other way when it is our own?  How do we chant that they are savages and yet have such a disconnect from our own savagery?  
> 
> No tax dollars for abortion, but by golly it's ok to fund crimes against humanity!


I refused to even debate this one with people at my school.  I'm too angry to debate this right now.  Not with its supporters.  I'd rather discuss with people who agree this is barbaric on what the right way of dealing with the people who support it is.

From the CNN page:




> A glimpse of these techniques details how the CIA employed sleep deprivation to wear down victims: It "involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours,usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads."
> Other techniques included "rectal rehydration," "ice water 'baths,'" and threatening detainees with threats to harm detainees' families, including threats to "sexually abuse the mother of a detainee," according to the summary of the report.
> *Related:**'This is not America'*
> Other psychological tactics involved keeping detainees in pitch-black rooms "with loud noise or music and only a bucket to use for human waste."
> And the rooms were cold -- freezing.
> One detainee, "who had been held partially nude and chained to a concrete floor" died in Nov. 2002 from suspected hypothermia.
> CIA detainees who underwent these interrogation tactics were later found to experience "hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia and attempts at self-harm and self-mutilation."
> Medical personnel were sidelined and their concerns quieted when it came to coercive interrogations -- which the report says took precedent.
> The waterboardings of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed became, according to the report,"a series of near-drownings." Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times.
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politi...epage-t&page=0

I cannot fathom how a decent person could be OK with this whether Christian or not...

----------


## Dr.3D

> Let me know when y'all have quantified every sin in a spreadsheet, and ordered them with respect to repulsiveness.


They are all equally wrong to a just God.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Can a Christian support torture?*


I do not believe so.

it is possible for someone professing to be a Christian to do so,, many have.

I am not the final judge. And it is my consolation that there is one.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They are all equally wrong to a just God.


So you are saying that somebody who steals a pack of bubble gum is in the same moral category as someone who engages in brutal torture?

That's insane, and its not Biblical.  This is part of why SOME crimes in the OT were punished by death, but not all.

----------


## donnay

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Romans 12:20 - Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Luke 6:27 - But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Matthew 5:9 - Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

----------


## Crashland

> They are all equally wrong to a just God.





> So you are saying that somebody who steals a pack of bubble gum is in the same moral category as someone who engages in brutal torture?
> 
> That's insane, and its not Biblical.  This is part of why SOME crimes in the OT were punished by death, but not all.


The biblical understanding is that the wages of sin is death. But that  concept is eternal punishment and is fundamentally different from how we would think about carrying out earthly punishments (up to and including, capital punishment)

----------


## Crashland

I believe that for almost any act, if not every act, there exists a situation in which it could potentially be justified. If Christianity allows for taking justified actions, then for any X, I don't see how it would be possible to claim "true Christians can never do X"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The biblical understanding is that the wages of sin is death. But that  concept is eternal punishment and is fundamentally different from how we would think about carrying out earthly punishments (up to and including, capital punishment)


I agree.  Even in Hell, though, the Bible talks about differing levels of punishment based on knowledge.

----------


## otherone

> The question is not whether a true Christian can support torture -- the question is whether a true Christian can decide to choose between two evils (the lesser). I voted Yes, but being here on RPF I would imagine the response would be disproportionately "no", at least disproportionally compared to the general population. Many libertarians don't like choosing between two evils :-P





> I believe that for almost any act, if not every act, there exists a situation in which it could potentially be justified. If Christianity allows for taking justified actions, then for any X, I don't see how it would be possible to claim "true Christians can never do X"


The reality is that sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. The tragedy is believing that this somehow makes the lesser evil righteous.

----------


## Dr.3D

Yeah right, some things are more wrong than others?

What kind of scale can measure those differences in wrong?   

If the person stealing the pack up gum knew it was wrong, then it's the same as if he murdered somebody.   He knew it was wrong.    

There is right and there is wrong.   

Are we able to balance wrong with right?   Can we do something wrong and then do something of equal value that is right and come to a balance again?

----------


## Crashland

> What kind of scale can measure those differences in wrong?


You can always measure it in monetary damage, or bruise and broken bone count.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You can always measure it in monetary damage, or bruise and broken bone count.


If it were only this easy to measure wrong.

And if reparation is paid the sin was never committed?   I only know of ONE who would be qualified to pay that debt and He did.

----------


## Crashland

> If it were only this easy to measure wrong.
> 
> And if reparation is paid the sin was never committed?   I only know of ONE who would be qualified to pay that debt and He did.


That's great, but you're missing the point. We're making a distinction here between eternal punishment and earthly punishment. It is entirely appropriate to measure earthly debts incurred for earthly repayment.

----------


## euphemia

I can't really answer this question.  I do not like the idea of cruelty to a person or animal and could not personally do anything that resembles torture.

What the government does to defend and protect the Constitution might require extraordinary measures.  There has always been a lot of trickery and cloak-and-dagger stuff done on behalf of a nation.  I wouldn't say the Bible condemns all of it.  Treacherous people have to be dealt with treacherously.

I think the government is the agent that should prevent me from having to take part in personally repulsive activities.  That would include killing preborn babies and snatching healthy infants from their homes.  The government forces me to be a party to that.

I would love it if the US closed ranks, defended the borders and left the rest of the world alone.  They don't do that, and they don't leave me alone.  I'm not sure what I think. 

That's probably not helpful.

----------


## Working Poor

I don't see how anyone could "support" torture especially those who claim to be in touch with the love of God.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's great, but you're missing the point. We're making a distinction here between eternal punishment and earthly punishment. It is entirely appropriate to measure earthly debts incurred for earthly repayment.


So what repayment is appropriate for someone who was tortured?

----------


## William Tell

> Would you at least question whether the guy who says that is Christian?


If he's familiar with the 10 commandments and still disagrees with one, then yeah. Because that doesn't even make sense.

But if he calls himself a Christian, I would love to hear his reasoning out.

----------


## Crashland

> So what repayment is appropriate for someone who was tortured?


Probably life in prison or capital punishment. That's not really a repayment, but it is an appropriate consequence. What were we talking about?

----------


## Brett85

I believe that torture should be illegal for our government to do, but it isn't immoral in every situation.  For example, if someone kidnapped your kid, and you came across someone who knew the location of your kid, you would want to do everything possible to find the location of your kid.  You would have a responsibility as a parent to do protect the life of your child.  As far as our government is concerned, I think that any civilized nation has to have laws against torture.  But certain situations could arise where torture wouldn't be immoral, and in those situations jury nullification could likely come into play.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe that torture should be illegal for our government to do, but it isn't immoral in every situation.  For example, if someone kidnapped your kid, and you came across someone who knew the location of your kid, you would want to do everything possible to find the location of your kid.  You would have a responsibility as a parent to do protect the life of your child.  As far as our government is concerned, I think that any civilized nation has to have laws against torture.  But certain situations could arise where torture wouldn't be immoral, and in those situations jury nullification could likely come into play.


I'd at least consider nullifying in those situations to, but that doesn't mean its actually moral.

----------


## Crashland

> If he's familiar with the 10 commandments and still disagrees with one, then yeah. Because that doesn't even make sense.
> 
> But if he calls himself a Christian, I would love to hear his reasoning out.


In the old testament, the 10 commandments are totally breakable if God tells you to. Re: killing, stealing, raping...

----------


## William Tell

The other problem is that torture is ineffective. Start cutting on someone and he will tell you anything to get you to stop the pain for the moment.

----------


## Brett85

> I'd at least consider nullifying in those situations to, but that doesn't mean its actually moral.


Can you cite a verse in the Bible that says that torture is always immoral?

----------


## Crashland

> I'd at least consider nullifying in those situations to, but that doesn't mean its actually moral.


I would disagree there, but it's a minor point, just a matter of terminology I'm sure

----------


## Brett85

I mean, I oppose what the CIA did.  I think it's despicable to break someone's legs and make them stand up for hours or days.  But I just don't think I can agree that torture is immoral in every single situation.  If that makes some people consider me to be a non Christian, so be it.

----------


## otherone

> I think the government is the agent that should prevent me from having to take part in personally repulsive activities.  That would include killing preborn babies and snatching healthy infants from their homes.  The government forces me to be a party to that.


_People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf._

George Orwell (ish)

----------


## anaconda

Only the kind where they put your testicles into a vice. Everything else is wrong.

----------


## mosquitobite

Torture was a way of life has always been a part of human life.  The crucifixion itself was torture.

Slavery in the bible was allowed.  We now don't use that as a an authority to own others.  

That doesn't make it moral.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can you cite a verse in the Bible that says that torture is always immoral?





> I mean, I oppose what the CIA did.  I think it's despicable to break someone's legs and make them stand up for hours or days.


Would you agree that that's immoral?

The Bible may not directly address the topic, but Biblical principles seem to.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and so forth.  Inflicting that level of pain on someone is brutal, inhumane, and anti-Christian, period.  

Do I understand why one would compromise on their morals in "ticking time bomb" situations?  Sure.  But that doesn't change the nature of what it is, a moral compromise.  There is NO excuse for ever institutionalizing such a thing.





> But I just don't think I can agree that torture is immoral in every single situation.  If that makes some people consider me to be a non Christian, so be it.


I'm not going to say that.  You clearly have a heartfelt reaction to the idea of torture (based on what you posted.)  I think that's a sign of decency.  I've noticed that some people do not have that revulsion...

----------


## Brett85

I agree that torture is immoral in general.  I'm just not sure if I can make that an absolute statement.  During the Bush administration, we had an actual torture program where it was institutionalized, and I don't agree with that.  I still struggle with the ticking time bomb scenarios though.  They may not have ever actually happened, and it may not ever happen, but I struggle with the idea that torturing a terrorist is more immoral than allowing millions of Americans to die.  I'm not arguing that it should be legal.  I think we have to have laws against torture.  But on the question of morality I just don't see it as completely black and white.

----------


## Southron

Sure, Christians can support torture.  It doesn't make it right.

I have yet to hear a good defence of torture from a Christian though.  It usually comes down to 'the ends justify the means.'

----------


## otherone

> I agree that torture is immoral in general.  I'm just not sure if I can make that an absolute statement.  During the Bush administration, we had an actual torture program where it was institutionalized, and I don't agree with that.  I still struggle with the ticking time bomb scenarios though.  They may not have ever actually happened, and it may not ever happen, but I struggle with the idea that torturing a terrorist is more immoral than allowing millions of Americans to die.  I'm not arguing that it should be legal.  I think we have to have laws against torture.  But on the question of morality I just don't see it as completely black and white.


Necessity does not imbue morality.
The reality is that sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. The tragedy is believing that this makes the lesser evil righteous.

----------


## Brett85

> Necessity does not imbue morality.
> The reality is that *sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils.* The tragedy is believing that this makes the lesser evil righteous.


That's basically what I was trying to say.

----------


## otherone

> That's basically what I was trying to say.





> I think we have to have laws against torture. But on the question of morality I just don't see it as completely black and white.


How is choosing evil a gray area?

----------


## Brett85

> How is choosing evil a gray area?


It's a gray area if you have to choose between two evils.  We aren't discussing a situation where you have to choose between good and evil.

----------


## phill4paul

One star. $#@!ty poll options.

----------


## staerker

> It's a gray area if you have to choose between two evils.  We aren't discussing a situation where you have to choose between good and evil.


What about 'inaction?'

----------


## otherone

> It's a gray area if you have to choose between two evils.  We aren't discussing a situation where you have to choose between good and evil.



The choice might be gray; but the immorality isn't.  Both choices are immoral.

----------


## Brett85

> What about 'inaction?'


In the example I gave, inaction would be one of the two evil options.  Inaction would likely mean that your kid that was kidnapped would die.

----------


## presence

> Can you cite a verse in the Bible that says that torture is always immoral?


*Luke 23:34*

----------


## otherone



----------


## Brett85

> *Luke 23:34*


I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this, but I guess its kind of pointless to discuss how much we should tolerate torture supporters if we can't even agree, unambiguously, that torture supporters are, you know, wrong...

I hate humanity...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> One star. $#@!ty poll options.


If Christianity is false then the question is pretty much pointless since the definition of "Christian" would be purely subjective  at that point.

----------


## Brett85

If someone breaks into your home, and you kill that person, would that be an example of breaking Jesus' command of not loving your neighbor?  Does loving your neighbor mean having a policy of never using violence against anyone under any circumstances?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If someone breaks into your home, and you kill that person, would that be an example of breaking Jesus' command of not loving your neighbor?  Does loving your neighbor mean having a policy of never using violence against anyone under any circumstances?


No, but there's a MASSIVE difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even engaging in Biblically mandated capital punishment, and deliberately causing another human being to SUFFER.

I can see how the former could be debated.  Not so much the latter...

----------


## Brett85

> No, but there's a MASSIVE difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even engaging in Biblically mandated capital punishment, and deliberately causing another human being to SUFFER.
> 
> I can see how the former could be debated.  Not so much the latter...


So taking someone's life isn't as bad as causing injuries to someone that will eventually heal?

----------


## Crashland

> The choice might be gray; but the immorality isn't.  Both choices are immoral.


The least evil choice IS the moral choice. I think it is in fact, moral. But again, we're just arguing about words.

----------


## Brett85

And the example I gave was an example of torture in defense of others, when a child was abducted, and information was needed to prevent the child from being killed.

----------


## William Tell

> And the example I gave was an example of torture in self defense of others, when a child was abducted, and information was needed to prevent the child from being killed.


TV sitcoms have done their jobs by making us think of these scenarios.

----------


## Crashland

> No, but there's a MASSIVE difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even engaging in Biblically mandated capital punishment, and deliberately causing another human being to SUFFER.
> 
> I can see how the former could be debated.  Not so much the latter...


Are you claiming that there does not exist ANY situation in which it would be the correct choice to deliberately cause another human being to suffer?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So taking someone's life isn't as bad as causing injuries to someone that will eventually heal?


That's a horrible way of looking at it, IMO.  We're not talking about a punch to the face.  We're talking about extreme, agonizing pain.

If I cut off all ten of your fingers and toes, then both hands and feet, then both arms and legs as punishment, would that be OK?  Are you suggesting that if one says capital punishment is OK, that should be OK to?  After all, its just "injury" we're talking about, right?

Even with animals, who we kill for food, we recongize its horrible to TORTURE them.  Some here even think it should be a criminal offense, or say they would personally kill a human to stop them from doing it.

Are we really now going to equivocate when we're talking about suffering to humans?

Actually, this should be even more obvious to you as an annhilationist.  You don't even think God will torture anyone for more than a day as punishment for their sins against him.  So basically, you're saying there might be a circumstance where its moral to inflict a punishment harsher (or at least lengthier) than what God will inflict in Hell...

----------


## Brett85

I don't personally believe that anyone's political positions ever disqualify them from being a Christian.  Even as terrible as I think it is to support legal abortion, I don't even say that people who hold that position and claim to be Christians aren't Christians.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you claiming that there does not exist ANY situation in which it would be the correct choice to deliberately cause another human being to suffer?


Yes, assuming we're defining our terms the same way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't personally believe that anyone's political positions ever disqualify them from being a Christian.  Even as terrible as I think it is to support legal abortion, I don't even say that people who hold that position and claim to be Christians aren't Christians.


I think this is worse than "legal" abortion actually.  Its one thing to say the government shouldn't prohibit whatever, but to say its actually moral?

What if somebody said the Holocaust was fine?  Meh?

----------


## Brett85

> That's a horrible way of looking at it, IMO.  We're not talking about a punch to the face.  We're talking about extreme, agonizing pain.
> 
> If I cut off all ten of your fingers and toes, then both hands and feet, then both arms and legs as punishment, would that be OK?  Are you suggesting that if one says capital punishment is OK, that should be OK to?  After all, its just "injury" we're talking about, right?
> 
> Even with animals, who we kill for food, we recongize its horrible to TORTURE them.  Some here even think it should be a criminal offense, or say they would personally kill a human to stop them from doing it.
> 
> Are we really now going to equivocate when we're talking about suffering to humans?
> 
> Actually, this should be even more obvious to you as an annhilationist.  You don't even think God will torture anyone for more than a day as punishment for their sins against him.  So basically, you're saying there might be a circumstance where its moral to inflict a punishment harsher (or at least lengthier) than what God will inflict in Hell...


I don't know how you define "moral."  I've said that I could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.  I don't consider it to be a good thing.  I've said that as a civilized society, we have to have laws against torture.  I support those laws.  But this is simply a theoretical discussion over whether it's immoral to ever use torture.  I guess it just depends on how you define it.  I think you could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Let's define torture...

----------


## Brett85

> I think this is worse than "legal" abortion actually.  Its one thing to say the government shouldn't prohibit whatever, but to say its actually moral?
> 
> What if somebody said the Holocaust was fine?  Meh?


It's not worse than abortion.  Abortion is always done against an innocent person.  These cases of torture were likely done against really bad people, though probably not always.  (Not defending it, but I just don't think it's as bad as abortion)  There also isn't a situation when abortion is done for a reason to protect others and save the lives of others, except for when the life of the mother is in danger, and I think that abortion should be legal in that particular situation.

----------


## William Tell

*Torture Is Not a Partisan Issue . . . George Washington – Who Was Neither a Democrat or Republican – Forbid All Torture*

                                               Posted on June 3, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog 
                                               Those trying to make torture into a partisan issue should look to the founding father of our country: George Washington.
 Washington was president before political parties even _existed_.
 As Scott Horton wrote in 2007:_“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous  as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring  him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the  crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be  disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by  such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their  country.”_ – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775…
 After the battle [of Trenton, New Jersey on December 26, 1776.], the  Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire’s German  mercenaries through what they called the “gauntlet.” General Washington  discovered this and intervened. As … explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:
_“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to  complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their  treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’  he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse  than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this  approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to  demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”_
 In the _worst_ of times – when foreign troops literally  occupied American soil, torturing and murdering American patriots – and  few believed that the cause of the revolution could ultimately win  against the might of the British Empire, the first Commander in Chief of  the U.S.A. set the precedent that this society is to lead even our  enemies by “benignant sympathy of [our] example.” To win the war against  the occupying army of Redcoats, the American revolutionaries needed  right on their side.
 And it worked. Many of the German Hessians in fact joined the  revolutionaries in their fight against the English and stayed here in  America to be free when the war was won.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/...l-torture.html

----------


## Brett85

> Actually, this should be even more obvious to you as an annhilationist.  You don't even think God will torture anyone for more than a day as punishment for their sins against him.  So basically, you're saying there might be a circumstance where its moral to inflict a punishment harsher (or at least lengthier) than what God will inflict in Hell...


Well, I could say the opposite about your position.  You don't see any moral problem at all with the idea of people being tortured for all eternity, but you think that temporary torture for the purpose of getting information to stop terrorist attacks is the worst thing anyone can possible do.  

Again, I support laws against torture, see torture as being immoral 99% of the time, and view it as being an evil choice even in the situations where it may have to be used.  So I'm not taking the same position as the Fox News people are.  I come down somewhere in the middle on this.

----------


## presence

> I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this, but I guess its kind of pointless to discuss how much we should tolerate torture supporters if we can't even agree, unambiguously, that torture supporters are, you know, wrong...
> 
> I hate humanity...


_blessed are the barren women_

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, I could say the opposite about your position.  You don't see any moral problem at all with the idea of people being tortured for all eternity, but you think that temporary torture for the purpose of getting information to stop terrorist attacks is the worst thing anyone can possible do.  
> 
> Again, I support laws against torture, see torture as being immoral 99% of the time, and view it as being an evil choice even in the situations where it may have to be used.  So I'm not taking the same position as the Fox News people are.  I come down somewhere in the middle on this.


I just don't think I have a right to tell God himself that he's being immoral.  I don't like the idea of eternal torment either.  But, God knows best.  Unlike neocons, I utterly refuse to replace "God" with "The CIA" in that sentence.

----------


## presence

> Let's define torture...


Shoving crunchy peanut butter up someone's ass to encourage them to give answers to questions they know nothing about?

----------


## Brett85

I just don't see how you can say that torture is immoral in every single situation anymore than you can say that all violence is immoral in every single situation.  If you say that in order to follow Jesus' teachings, you have to follow a policy of non violence and never use violence in any situation, then that's at least a consistent position.  But it's not consistent to say that if someone is holding a gun to your child's head, it's not immoral to kill that person, but if someone kidnaps your kid, it's completely immoral to use force to get information about where your child is.  That's a completely inconsistent position.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not worse than abortion.  Abortion is always done against an innocent person.  These cases of torture were likely done against really bad people, though probably not always.  (Not defending it, but I just don't think it's as bad as abortion)  There also isn't a situation when abortion is done for a reason to protect others and save the lives of others, except for when the life of the mother is in danger, and I think that abortion should be legal in that particular situation.


I didn't say it was worse than abortion.  I said it was worse than "legal" abortion.

Not wanting the government to prohibit something is different than saying you'd actually do it.  No, I'm not in favor of keeping abortion legal.  But still...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just don't see how you can say that torture is immoral in every single situation anymore than you can say that all violence is immoral in every single situation.  If you say that in order to follow Jesus' teachings, you have to follow a policy of non violence and never use violence in any situation, then that's at least a consistent position.  But it's not consistent to say that if someone is holding a gun to your child's head, it's not immoral to kill that person, but if someone kidnaps your kid, it's completely immoral to use force to get information about where your child is.  That's a completely inconsistent position.


Ron Paul is always against torture but not killing.  Have you ever wondered why?

Torture is inherently barbaric and repulsive.

----------


## Crashland

> I just don't see how you can say that torture is immoral in every single situation anymore than you can say that all violence is immoral in every single situation.  If you say that in order to follow Jesus' teachings, you have to follow a policy of non violence and never use violence in any situation, then that's at least a consistent position.  But it's not consistent to say that if someone is holding a gun to your child's head, it's not immoral to kill that person, but if someone kidnaps your kid, it's completely immoral to use force to get information about where your child is.  That's a completely inconsistent position.


Agreed. If we are going to define "torture", I do not consider the situation or motive at all in the definition. When I refer to torture, I just mean deliberately causing another human being to suffer greatly, for ANY REASON. There are some potential reasons which would make torture an acceptable course of action. Saying, well if it was justified then it's not torture, defeats the purpose of the conversation.

----------


## Brett85

> Ron Paul is always against torture but not killing.  Have you ever wondered why?
> 
> Torture is inherently barbaric and repulsive.


I don't believe that position is consistent.  I'm against killing unless it's done in self defense or defense of others.  I'm against torture unless it's done in defense of others in extraordinary situations.  To me, that seems like a more consistent position.

----------


## Brett85

Duplicate post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't believe that position is consistent.  I'm against killing unless it's done in self defense or defense of others.  I'm against torture unless it's done in defense of others in extraordinary situations.  To me, that seems like a more consistent position.


Why only extraordinary situations then?  Also, why are you opposed to it being legal then?  You wouldn't make self-defense immoral.  You seem inconsistent to.

----------


## Brett85

> Why only extraordinary situations then?  Also, why are you opposed to it being legal then?  You wouldn't make self-defense immoral.  You seem inconsistent to.


I would only do it in extraordinary situations because of the real possibility of torturing in innocent person, and I would have laws against it for the same reason.

----------


## Crashland

> Why only extraordinary situations then?  Also, why are you opposed to it being legal then?  You wouldn't make self-defense immoral.  You seem inconsistent to.


Because in ordinary situations, there are plenty of other options short of torture that can be used in defense of others. When there are no other options, that would be an extraordinary situation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would only do it in extraordinary situations because of the real possibility of torturing in innocent person, and I would have laws against it for the same reason.


By contrast its far more difficult to kill "the wrong guy" when someone has a gun pointed at you.

Even if the person is "guilty" though, torture is still a monstrous thing to do and I'm convinced that its immoral.

----------


## Crashland

> By contrast its far more difficult to kill "the wrong guy" when someone has a gun pointed at you.
> 
> Even if the person is "guilty" though, torture is still a monstrous thing to do and I'm convinced that its immoral.


I don't think torture is ever justified as a punishment. It is only justified if it is the only option in the defense of others, or if an even greater amount of torture to even more people would occur if you fail to torture the one person. For any great evil you can think of, there is always an even greater evil. And if you pit the two up against each other in a choice, then the lesser of the evils is always justified, and in my opinion, moral (although still repulsive)

----------


## Brett85

I believe that torture is always immoral if it's being done for the sake of vindictiveness, if it's being done simply for the sake of punishing people.  I don't necessarily believe it's immoral in every single situation in which it's used to get information.  An example of torture being done simply for the sake of vindictiveness was in Abu Graib, when we tortured people simply for the sake of humiliating them.

----------


## presence

> I would only do it in extraordinary situations because of the real possibility of torturing in innocent person, and I would have laws against it for the same reason.


Can we at least agree that rectal infusions of extra chunky skippy is not even applicable in extraordinary situations?   Like... even for the missing children and such.

----------


## Brett85

> Can we at least agree that rectal infusions of extra chunky skippy is not even applicable in extraordinary situations?   Like... even for the missing children and such.


Yeah, I don't really think that would be any more successful in getting information than less intrusive means anyway.  I've also said that I'm opposed to the CIA torture program and what happened.  I simply brought up a theoretical argument and disagreed with the idea that using torture is immoral in every single situation.

----------


## presence

glad to be back on the liberty coalition path

----------


## Crashland

Suppose you are captured by some really sick evil people in some god-forsaken part of the earth, and they want to mess with your head. They put you in front of 2 people and tell you that if you torture person A, then they will let person B go free and they will let you go free, but if you do not torture person A, then they will torture both person A and B and will keep you captive. Let's say the first few times they give you this choice with fresh people each time, you manage to keep your "moral" high ground and you refuse to torture person A. But every time you watch as they torture both people. Do you not think that it would be the correct choice at least one time, to torture person A in order to see if they really do let you and person B go, or if any kind of better outcome can be achieved than what keeps happening?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical, but if you are going to claim that it is a black-and-white issue and that torture is ALWAYS immoral, all I have to do is provide ONE counter-example where it would not be the case, in order to invalidate your claim.

----------


## euphemia

As I said before, I would not put myself in a position that would force me to personally be cruel to a person or animal.  I think the government is an entity that has limited license to do things that an individual would not be allowed to do.  This is why the government may take a life after due process, as an act of justice.  I would not be allowed to independently decide whether that same person deserves to live or die.  It is a justice issue.  I am not called to exact justice, although I am called to love justice and mercy.  

It's a conflict in me.  I am not the government and the government is not me.  We represent each other in some cases, but we are not the same.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Suppose you are captured by some really sick evil people in some god-forsaken part of the earth, and they want to mess with you head. They put you in front of 2 people and tell you that if you torture person A, then they will let person B go free and they will let you go free, but if you do not torture person A, then they will torture both person A and B and will keep you captive. Let's say the first few times they give you this choice with fresh people each time, you manage to keep your "moral" high ground and you refuse to torture person A. But every time you watch as they torture both people. Do you not think that it would be the correct choice at least one time, to torture person A in order to see if they really do let you and person B go, or if any kind of better outcome can be achieved than what keeps happening?
> 
> It's a ridiculous hypothetical, but if you are going to claim that it is a black-and-white issue and that torture is ALWAYS immoral, all I have to do is provide ONE counter-example where it would not be the case, in order to invalidate your claim.


I wouldn't do it, at least not on moral principle.  Would I snap?  Maybe.  But it would be wrong.



> As I said before, I would not put myself in a position that would force me to personally be cruel to a person or animal.  I think the government is an entity that has limited license to do things that an individual would not be allowed to do.  This is why the government may take a life after due process, as an act of justice.  I would not be allowed to independently decide whether that same person deserves to live or die.  It is a justice issue.  I am not called to exact justice, although I am called to love justice and mercy.  
> 
> It's a conflict in me.  I am not the government and the government is not me.  We represent each other in some cases, but we are not the same.


I suppose this is where minarchists and ancaps break.  But, even for minarchists, I do not see how torture has anything to do with upholding justice.

----------


## Brett85

> I suppose this is where minarchists and ancaps break.  But, even for minarchists, I do not see how torture has anything to do with upholding justice.


I haven't seen anyone argue that torture should be institutionalized in government by having it be legal and giving the CIA free reign to just do whatever they want to prisoners.  A few of us have just argued that your pure idealism when it comes to the morality of some of these issues isn't realistic in the real world.

----------


## Crashland

> I wouldn't do it, at least not on moral principle.  Would I snap?  Maybe.  But it would be wrong.


Interesting. We just have a plain old disagreement then. I'll grant that your position is consistent, unless TC can think up an even more twisted scenario that might make you reconsider.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I haven't seen anyone argue that torture should be institutionalized in government by having it be legal and giving the CIA free reign to just do whatever they want to prisoners.  A few of us have just argued that your pure idealism when it comes to the morality of some of these issues isn't realistic in the real world.


This thread wasn't motivated by anyone on this website...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Laurence Vance:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance172.html

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I have several friends who have responded to the whole CIA torture bit, not by denying that torture occurred, but by saying "torture is justified if it saves American lives."


Ask them if "torture of Americans is justified if it saves non-American lives" ... or perhaps more to the point, ask them if "torture of Christian Americans is justified if it saves non-American Muslim lives" ...

ETA: Then sit back and watch them twitch and splutter about how "THAT'S DIFFERENT!!" ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ask them if "torture of Americans is justified if it saves non-American lives" ... or perhaps more to the point, ask them if "torture of Christian Americans is justified if it saves non-American Muslim lives" ...


These people are more or less nationalists, and they'd say that since Israel was nationalistic, Romans 13 is in the Bible, and there's nothing SPECIFIC in the Bible that tells them not to be nationalists, they have a moral right to be.  Of course, I think they expect that Middle Eastern countries will be nationalistic to, even if they don't like it.

Keep in mind that most of these debates are more or less, at least in theory, occurring under Biblical parameters, since I'm in a mostly Christian environment ATM.  

I really didn't want to debate them, for what it was worth.  I got dragged into one and I was pretty emotional, which probably lost me some respect.  To me this really just strikes me as being as simple as "torture is barbaric and repulsive, either you know it when you see it or you don't."  There are numerous Biblical principles that can fairly easily be applied to the situation, but nothing that manipulation won't get you out of if you really want to justify torture, doubly so if you border on the sociopathic...

----------


## otherone

> The least evil choice IS the moral choice. I think it is in fact, moral. But again, we're just arguing about words.


The internet is one big argument about words.

Choosing evil is never moral.  Your government has deceived you.
With practice, evil is regarded as good.
This is why war will always be tolerated.

----------


## otherone

> There are numerous Biblical principles that can fairly easily be applied to the situation, but nothing that manipulation won't get you out of if you really want to justify torture, doubly so if you border on the sociopathic...


No one can serve two masters:

_The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.  I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects [participants] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects [participants] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
_

-Stanley Milgram

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't believe that position is consistent.  I'm against killing unless it's done in self defense or defense of others.  I'm against torture unless it's done in defense of others in extraordinary situations.  To me, that seems like a more consistent position.


Torture in defense?

How is torture ever defensive?
It is known to be a piss poor tool for intelligence gathering,, both ineffective and inaccurate.

It serves no purpose but the pleasure of the practitioner.

----------


## Brett85

> Torture in defense?
> 
> How is torture ever defensive?
> It is known to be a piss poor tool for intelligence gathering,, both ineffective and inaccurate.
> 
> It serves no purpose but the pleasure of the practitioner.


Consider the example that I've brought up several times in this thread, about a man using torture using against someone who knows where his kid is that's been kidnapped.  As an even more extreme example, look at the example that Crashland gave.

----------


## euphemia

Government forces citizens to be complicit in everything they do.  If it could stick to its own responsibilities and do what it is in place to do, we might not be having these discussions.  It is because we have an intrusive govenrment, forcing us by taxation to participate in things we find morally repulsive.  I pay for abortion.  I pay for injustice.  I pay for unnecessary war.

I'm not supporting any of that.  I am forced to participate via taxation.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Ron Paul is always against torture but not killing.  Have you ever wondered why?
> 
> Torture is inherently barbaric and repulsive.


Agree.  A true, saved Christian would not fear death.  (I honestly DO NOT!)  

There are far worse things than death!

If you were to ask me "would you rather?" and detail the torture outlined in this report or death.  I know exactly which one I'd choose.

----------


## presence

> Consider the example that I've brought up several times in this thread, about a man using torture using against someone who knows where his kid is that's been kidnapped.  As an even more extreme example, look at the example that Crashland gave.


1) you're making the assumption that you have the guilty party.
2) you're making the assumption that this party has knowledge that you certainly cannot authoritively presume he has.
3) you're making assumptions about the effectiveness of torture to get this information assuming you have the right party and assuming the party even has the info you want.
4) you're making the assumption that by torturing you're going to get at the truth of the matter faster than you otherwise could by less despotic investigative means; which now have less resources.
5) you're making the assumption that confession reveiled under torture will be true and won't send you off on wild goose chase.
6) you're making the assumption that the blowback induced by the torture, including the rammifications of the psychological impact on the torturer, won't be worse than the missing child at hand.
7) you're assuming that torturing will produce a confession faster than bargaining with your captive.

= ASS^7





Just because it feels good to beat up the guy that you think has info on your missing child doesn't make it your duty.

----------


## Brett85

You can make up a hypothetical scenario where torture clearly wouldn't be wrong, is all I'm saying.  Just look at the example Crashland gave.  If you're going to say that torture is always wrong, I don't see why you wouldn't say that violence is always wrong.  Violence is torture; when you inflict physical pain on someone, you're torturing them.  It doesn't matter the circumstances.  If someone jumps on you and starts hitting you, and you start hitting that person back and enacting physical pain on them, that's torture.  The definition of torture is inflicting pain on someone.

----------


## Todd

The definition is such:     *inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.*

So 4 forum members voted that a "true" Christian can support torture?   I'd love to hear the reasons.  How about for not believing in Christ?  (Inquisition) or not believing in the Roman Gods?  

"The Passion" is about the Torture of Christ and I would wager that no Christians feel what the Roman's did to him was justified? 

I think it's pretty evident if you support violence against someone for any reason other than defending your own life then you are not following the teachings of Christ.  And even then some would argue it's debatable.

"You will know them by their fruits"......

----------


## Brett85

> I think it's pretty evident if you support violence against someone for any reason other than defending your own life then you are not following the teachings of Christ.  And even then some would argue it's debatable.


What about defending the lives of others?

----------


## Brett85

I'm never going to agree with this idea that you have to have certain political views to be a Christian.  Christian conservatives do that all the time, basically claiming that you have to want the government to ban everything that's a sin in order to be a Christian.  I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.


Correct.  Except that as you draw closer in relationship with the Lord, you see certain things as a sin that he died for, yet you are condoning.  Personally, I think that makes you go against your faith, and thus either your political views are WRONG or your faith is not as true as you believe it to be.  In either case, it needs more depth.

For a Christian there are far worse things to happen in a life than death.  This is why I don't get all bent out of shape over beheadings.  If someone is going to kill me, just do it - and do it quickly.  Unending torture such as hypothermia as a cause of death, from MY perspective is about as Satanic as you can get.  Death is far more merciful.

----------


## Todd

> What about defending the lives of others?


You mean the ticking time bomb fallacy?  Nope.

----------


## Brett85

> Correct.  Except that as you draw closer in relationship with the Lord, you see certain things as a sin that he died for, yet you are condoning.  Personally, I think that makes you go against your faith, and thus either your political views are WRONG or your faith is not as true as you believe it to be.  In either case, it needs more depth.
> 
> For a Christian there are far worse things to happen in a life than death.  This is why I don't get all bent out of shape over beheadings.  If someone is going to kill me, just do it - and do it quickly.  Unending torture such as hypothermia as a cause of death, from MY perspective is about as Satanic as you can get.  Death is far more merciful.


I don't see any particular verse in the Bible that says that torture is wrong in every single situation.  I believe that torture is generally wrong, and we shouldn't do it unless there's a situation in which doing nothing would result in a far greater evil.  I don't support using it on a regular basis and oppose institutionalized torture like what occurred with the CIA during the Bush years.  But if you're going to claim that the Christian religion teaches that torture is a sin in every single circumstance, and that you can't be a Christian if you don't agree with that, then I'm going to have to call you out on that.  Because there's absolutely no verse in the Bible which teaches such a thing.

----------


## Todd

> I'm never going to agree with this idea that you have to have certain political views to be a Christian.  Christian conservatives do that all the time, basically claiming that you have to want the government to ban everything that's a sin in order to be a Christian.  I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.



You will know them by their fruits.   

Ideas define who we are.  If who we say we are is X, then our beliefs, and actions will speak to it.

----------


## presence

> The definition of torture is inflicting pain on someone.


???

not "someone"


Torture is inflicting pain on a *captive.*

----------


## Brett85

> You will know them by their fruits.   
> 
> Ideas define who we are.  If who we say we are is X, then our beliefs, and actions will speak to it.


You don't have to have perfect fruit to be a Christian.  Everyone is a sinner, and Christ died for every sin.  Having bad ideas or bad political views also isn't one of the sins that Paul said indicates lostness.

----------


## otherone

> I don't see any particular verse in the Bible that says that torture is wrong in every single situation.


It doesn't say that microwaving your cat is wrong, either.

----------


## Brett85

> It doesn't say that microwaving your cat is wrong, either.


It does.  There are verses in the Bible which say that it's wrong to abuse animals.

----------


## otherone

> It does.  There are verses in the Bible which say that it's wrong to abuse animals.


Are humans less than animals?
What if the cat knows where your kidnapped kid is?

----------


## Brett85

> Are humans less than animals?
> What if the cat knows where your kidnapped kid is?


I'm pretty sure that a cat can't tell you that.    I believe that torture is always wrong when it's used simply as a means to punish people and inflict pain for the tormenter's satisfaction.  The example you gave with the cat would be a situation where a person tortured a cat simply for the purpose of being sadistic.

----------


## Todd

> It doesn't say that microwaving your cat is wrong, either.


Bravo.  Yep. 

if you say you believe in torture, and say you are a Christian, and say you follow the teachings of Christ, and say you have a relationship with him......and aren't having a little bit of Cognitive dissonance.....then.......

----------


## Todd

> You don't have to have perfect fruit to be a Christian.  Everyone is a sinner, and Christ died for every sin.  Having bad ideas or bad political views also isn't one of the sins that Paul said indicates lostness.


Who said Perfection?  That's you.   

My take is that according to the sermon on the mount is you don't fight evil with evil and then I'd guess the next step is you had better pray for the person to give up the information.    Don't really know where Jesus said to beat them with a phone book or Bible to hide the bruises.  

Bad Political views?  We aren't talking about a mistake vote for Santorum or Romney.  Or voting for the bailouts.  

 We are talking about violence used to coerce another.

----------


## Brett85

> My take is that according to the sermon on the mount is you don't fight evil with evil and then I'd guess the next step is you had better pray for the person to give up the information.    Don't really know where Jesus said to beat them with a phone book or Bible to hide the bruises.


Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.  The Bible is silent on this particular issue.  If what Jesus said when he talked about turning the other cheek is meant to be taken 100% literally, then all violence is immoral, even in self defense.  And I don't see anyone here arguing that all violence is immoral.  So I'm not seeing any consistency at all in what people are arguing.

----------


## Todd

> Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.  The Bible is silent on this particular issue.  If what Jesus said when he talked about turning the other cheek is meant to be taken 100% literally, then all violence is immoral, even in self defense.  And I don't see anyone here arguing that all violence is immoral.  So I'm not seeing any consistency at all in what people are arguing.


Yep.  He said you will know them by their fruits.

----------


## otherone

> Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.  The Bible is silent on this particular issue.


_But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you;
_

----------


## Brett85

> Yep.  He said you will know them by their fruits.


Which of course means "you will know them by their political views."

----------


## Brett85

> _But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you;
> _


Ok, then if you're going to interpret that verse in the way that you seem to be interpreting it, then using any kind of violence against your enemies is always wrong.  It's wrong to use violence against your enemy even when your enemy attacks you and uses force against you.  Is that the position that you're taking?

----------


## otherone

> Ok, then if you're going to interpret that verse in the way that you seem to be interpreting it, then using any kind of violence against your enemies is always wrong.  It's wrong to use violence against your enemy even when your enemy attacks you and uses force against you.  Is that the position that you're taking?


The reality is that sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils.
*The tragedy is believing that this somehow makes the lesser evil righteous*.

----------


## Brett85

> The reality is that sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils.
> *The tragedy is believing that this somehow makes the lesser evil righteous*.


Do you disagree with this?




> The least evil choice IS the moral choice. I think it is in fact, moral. But again, we're just arguing about words.

----------


## otherone

> Do you disagree with this?


That less evil is moral?  No.  Less evil is simply less evil.

----------


## Brett85

> That less evil is moral?  No.  Less evil is simply less evil.


But like Crashland said, we seem to just be arguing about words.  You don't seem to be denying that torture can sometimes be a lesser evil.

----------


## Todd

> Which of course means "you will know them by their political views."


See post 138 and 135.  


Then get some lemonade and take a break from building that strawman.

----------


## Brett85

> See post 138 and 135.  
> 
> 
> Then get some lemonade and take a break from building that strawman.


We're indeed talking about political views.  We're not talking about someone who actively goes out and uses torture themselves.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.


He reportedly taught to love your neighbor as yourself.  And went on to explain that all people -- even despised enemies such as Samaritans -- were to be considered neighbors.  It is hard to reconcile the loving of your neighbor with the torturing of your neighbor.  You may have the somersaults in you to do it.  But as for me, I do not think it's possible.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think without question committing adultery is worse than voicing support for torture in a way that does not effect policy. We are not talking about actually torturing here.
> 
> Adultery is listed in the 10 commandments, and if you commit it and repent, you will still have ruined the marriage of 2 other people. The fact that you repent and God forgives you, does not undo the harm you have caused.
> 
> Supporting torture when you have no effect on policy is not that important in my opinion. Its not like we are talking about Dick Cheney here, we are talking about nobodies. Now, if they vote for Dick Cheney, that is obviously not a good thing. But torture is not something most of us come into contact with personally.
> 
> I certainly think its good to oppose torture, and talk about such important issues with believers. I just would not call someone a non Christian just because he has an opinion on an issue that he will never have an effect on.


1) Public positions have an effect on public policy because politicians perceive polls.

2) If you torture somebody you have ruined that persons life just as much as if you have committed adultery.  One of the innocent people tortured in our fake war on terror had his genitals sliced with razor blades.  How do you un-ring that bell?

3) The great commandment is "Whatsoever that you would that men do unto you, do you also unto them."  I suppose there may be some Christians who would like to be kidnapped by the CIA and taken to some foreign country where someone was slicing on their balls to try to get information about something they know absolutely nothing about.  But I'm betting that is the exception, not the rule.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm never going to agree with this idea that you have to have certain political views to be a Christian.  Christian conservatives do that all the time, basically claiming that you have to want the government to ban everything that's a sin in order to be a Christian.  I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.


I don't entirely agree with this.  There are a number of political views ("mainstream" and otherwise)and dogmas that are anti-Christian and are adopted by some Christians.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.  The Bible is silent on this particular issue.  If what Jesus said when he talked about turning the other cheek is meant to be taken 100% literally, then all violence is immoral, even in self defense.  And I don't see anyone here arguing that all violence is immoral.  So I'm not seeing any consistency at all in what people are arguing.


Jesus said "Whatsoever you would that men do to you, do you also unto them."  So......you're okay with someone kidnapping you and taking you to a foreign country where your balls are sliced with a razor blade while they ask you about something you know nothing about?  Seriously?    For the record, Jesus never said anything against rape either.  Jesus never addressed the whole "Thou shalt not pee in thy neighbor's coffee cup" commandment.  He's silent on the "Don't burn down thy neighbors house" command.  Jesus never said "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy neighbor's children."  Pedophilia is okay for Christians then?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm never going to agree with this idea that you have to have certain political views to be a Christian.  Christian conservatives do that all the time, basically claiming that you have to want the government to ban everything that's a sin in order to be a Christian.  I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.


Whether or not you support torture has *nothing* to do with your "political beliefs."  Or is their a major political party that has legitimizing torture as one of its party platforms?  One of the basic tenants of Christianity is to love your neighbors, even when your neighbors are your enemies.  That was the point of the "Good Samaritan" parable.  The modern equivalent of a Samaritan would be a fundamentalist Muslim.  Some *innocent* Muslims have been torture at the behest of the U.S. simply because they were seen with a suspected terrorist.  But even further, Jesus said "love your enemies."

----------


## Todd

> We're indeed talking about political views.  We're not talking about someone who actively goes out and uses torture themselves.


Here ya go.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus didn't say anything about this particular issue.  The Bible is silent on this particular issue.  If what Jesus said when he talked about turning the other cheek is meant to be taken 100% literally, then all violence is immoral, even in self defense.  And I don't see anyone here arguing that all violence is immoral.  So I'm not seeing any consistency at all in what people are arguing.


Turning the other cheek is *NOT* incompatible with self defense.  I was slapped was as an adult by a woman.  She happened to be white.  I'm black.  We actually were friends.  I worked in the same department as she did.  She was a secretary.  I was a computer technician.  She was having a meltdown over what she thought was an emergency.  She wanted my help.  I told her that what she wanted was impossible in the time frame she was asking for it.  In frustration she slapped me.  Then she started apologizing profusely and said "Please don't hit me."  I didn't.  What do you think would have happened if I had retaliated in violence?  Turn the other cheek when you are slapped means just that.  A slap is not life threatening.  It is, however, very insulting.  I used to have a bad temper as a child.  Back when I was a child I might have slapped her back.  But when I became a man I put away childish things.  Had she come at me with a knife or a gun I would have taken whatever measures necessary to defend myself.  Some self defense tactics involve hurting the other person.  Some involve merely immobilizing them.  Sometimes the best self defense is to run.  Not macho for sure, but it works.  But slapping someone back who has slapped you is not self defense.  It's retaliation.  In the wake of 9/11 our nation has done all sorts of things that have nothing to do with our security in the name of "fighting terrorism."  It has made us less safe the same way my slapping that woman would have made me less safe.  I would have lost my job.  I could have gotten arrested.  (It doesn't matter that the woman hit me first.  Don't believe me?  Ask Ray Rice!)  I might have ended up with a criminal record.  And lets say if her husband had wanted revenge for me hitting his wife?  (Yes she was married although that didn't stop her from flirting with me other times.)  Wouldn't that have made me even *less* safe?  I would likely *really* have to hurt him and that would put me in danger of a rape cage.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here ya go.


Thank you for your attempt at injecting logic into the discussion.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## jmdrake

> Ok, then if you're going to interpret that verse in the way that you seem to be interpreting it, then using any kind of violence against your enemies is always wrong.  It's wrong to use violence against your enemy even when your enemy attacks you and uses force against you.  Is that the position that you're taking?


Ah.  So you are taking the Obama view of Biblical interpretation.  Argue the extreme position so you can claim the Bible has no relevance on the subject....until you are ready to use the Bible to back up your position as Obama did with immigration.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I don't see any particular verse in the Bible that says that torture is wrong in every single situation.  I believe that torture is generally wrong, and we shouldn't do it unless there's a situation in which doing nothing would result in a far greater evil.  I don't support using it on a regular basis and oppose institutionalized torture like what occurred with the CIA during the Bush years.  But if you're going to claim that the Christian religion teaches that torture is a sin in every single circumstance, and that you can't be a Christian if you don't agree with that, then I'm going to have to call you out on that.  Because there's absolutely no verse in the Bible which teaches such a thing.


So in order to be against something, the Bible must explicitly speak against it?

What about the verses in the Bible that condone things?  Things like slavery?  Things we now find abhorrent as human beings, yet God allows.  Were the Southerners more Christian than the North?

----------


## William Tell

> Were the Southerners more Christian than the North?


Yes, and both Union and Confederate states had slave owners.

----------


## Todd

_For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he_

BTW:    I do struggle with the cognitive dissonance that says that harming anyone EVEN in defense might be completely against the teachings of Christ.  Alot of us have had to wrestle with our past beliefs that even attempting to save our lives or another by ending the aggressors life might be against Jesus teachings.   I still lean toward protecting myself and my family, but it doesn't mean that I am going to justify it as scripturally so.   

But the bottom line is that Jesus is absolutely not silent on these things.  Not specific on the subject? Yes.  But clearly gave guidelines in scripture.

----------


## Brett85

> He reportedly taught to love your neighbor as yourself.  And went on to explain that all people -- even despised enemies such as Samaritans -- were to be considered neighbors.  It is hard to reconcile the loving of your neighbor with the torturing of your neighbor.  You may have the somersaults in you to do it.  But as for me, I do not think it's possible.


I know, but if you're going to be consistent, then you should oppose all violence in all situations.  Otherwise, it's hypocritical to say that it's not immoral to kill people in certain situations, but it's entirely immoral to cause physical harm to someone in an extraordinary situation, physical harm that doesn't even last.  That person still has their life.  For the life of me, I don't see how taking someone's life is somehow less immoral that physically harming someone.

----------


## Brett85

Again, I'm not taking the position of the Sean Hannity types that there's no moral problem with torture at all, and that we should have an actual CIA program where we use torture on a regular basis.  I'm simply bringing the issue of ticking time bomb scenarios up and discussing whether or not it would be moral and necessary to break the law in that particular situation.

----------


## otherone

> You don't seem to be denying that torture can sometimes be a lesser _evil_.


... and I got you to admit that torture is evil.
Now you just have to admit that nothing evil can be moral...

----------


## Brett85

> Whether or not you support torture has *nothing* to do with your "political beliefs."  Or is their a major political party that has legitimizing torture as one of its party platforms?  One of the basic tenants of Christianity is to love your neighbors, even when your neighbors are your enemies.  That was the point of the "Good Samaritan" parable.  The modern equivalent of a Samaritan would be a fundamentalist Muslim.  Some *innocent* Muslims have been torture at the behest of the U.S. simply because they were seen with a suspected terrorist.  But even further, Jesus said "love your enemies."


Defending our country is a political issue.  I believe that torture should be off limits for the most part, but if I were President of the United States, I wouldn't just sit back and do nothing if a situation arose where millions of Americans would die if nothing was done.  I would absolutely authorize torture in that situation, and then I would be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision, knowing that torture is illegal.

----------


## jmdrake

> Defending our country is a political issue.  I believe that torture should be off limits for the most part, but if I were President of the United States, I wouldn't just sit back and do nothing if a situation arose where millions of Americans would die if nothing was done.  I would absolutely authorize torture in that situation, and then I would be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision, knowing that torture is illegal.


John Yoo, Bush presidential adviser, said that it is permissible for the president to torture someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to induce the parent to talk.  Would you go along with that?  Why or why not?  Do you think that going along with that would be a sin?  Is there anything that you wouldn't do in the name of national security?  How about gay rape?  Would you put your penis in a man's anus in order to humiliate him to the point of talking?  I mean you personally, not some CIA agent.  Why or why not?

Here is the deal.

1) Innocent people have been tortured.  We know this on record.

2) If you aren't willing to do the deed yourself then you shouldn't support someone else doing it.

3) It's a false choice anyway.  The reason the U.S. is in danger is not because we haven't tortured enough people.  It's because we've pissed too many people off by, among other things, torturing innocent people.

4) If violating human rights was the way to win a war, the Russians wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, I'm not taking the position of the Sean Hannity types that there's no moral problem with torture at all, and that we should have an actual CIA program where we use torture on a regular basis.  I'm simply bringing the issue of ticking time bomb scenarios up and discussing whether or not it would be moral and necessary to break the law in that particular situation.


The best way to stop ticking time bombs is to demand that the FBI quit using real explosives when the have people set off bombs against U.S. targets.

----------


## Brett85

> John Yoo, Bush presidential adviser, said that it is permissible for the president to torture someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to induce the parent to talk.  Would you go along with that?  Why or why not?  Do you think that going along with that would be a sin?  Is there anything that you wouldn't do in the name of national security?  How about gay rape?  Would you put your penis in a man's anus in order to humiliate him to the point of talking?  I mean you personally, not some CIA agent.  Why or why not?


I don't think I could do any of that personally.  I'm a very non violent person.  I've never even been in a fight before.  This is a theoretical, political discussion we're having here.  I wouldn't support crushing the genitals of a child, and I don't think that would make the terrorist any more likely to talk than using other means.  I would just use force against the actual terrorist to get him to talk, or at the most I might stage a fake execution of the terrorist's family, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually harm them.

----------


## Brett85

> 1) Innocent people have been tortured.  We know this on record.
> 
> 2) If you aren't willing to do the deed yourself then you shouldn't support someone else doing it.
> 
> 3) It's a false choice anyway.  The reason the U.S. is in danger is not because we haven't tortured enough people.  It's because we've pissed too many people off by, among other things, torturing innocent people.
> 
> 4) If violating human rights was the way to win a war, the Russians wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan.


The problem is that people keep misconstruing my positions, either intentionally or unintentionally.  People say that I do the same, and maybe I do at times, but I don't do it intentionally.  But earlier on in this thread I stated that the reason I believe that torture should be illegal is because of the possibility of torturing innocent people.  So I'm absolutely not taking the same position that someone like Sean Hannity is taking.  I'm just saying even though I think torture should be against the law, I don't believe that it's always immoral, and there could be a situation that could arise if I were President where I would authorize torture and would then be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision.

----------


## Brett85

Ironically, I get criticized by conservatives for being way too soft on this and not being in favor of always using torture, of having torture be legal.  I'm too libertarian for conservatives and too conservative for libertarians.

----------


## Todd

> Ironically, I get criticized by conservatives for being way too soft on this and not being in favor of always using torture, of having torture be legal.  I'm too libertarian for conservatives and too conservative for libertarians.


I welcome anyone into this tent who wishes for more freedom and recognizes the bigger picture that the US is in serious trouble.  We just disagree.

----------


## presence

Here's some good seperation of the bull$#@! from the buckwheat:




> *Torture and “Seriousness”*
> 
>                                                                                                                                                      By Daniel Larison • December 10, 2014, 3:06 PM 
>  
> Gage Skidmore / Flickr / CC 
> 
>                                                                            Noah Millman makes a very good observation about why the U.S. created a torture regime:
> 
> Willingness to torture became, first within elite  government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally,  and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of  seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That – *
> ...


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...d-seriousness/


We're such motherfuckin' hardcore nationalists we're willing to cram cruchy peanut butter up some terrorist ass.

----------


## robert68

..

----------


## otherone

Noah Millman makes a very good observation about why the U.S. created a torture regime:




> Willingness to torture became, first within elite government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally, and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That –
> 
> proving one’s seriousness in the fight – was its primary purpose
> 
> from the beginning, in my view. It was only secondarily about extracting intelligence.



_“ Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
― George Orwell, 1984_

----------


## Brett85

Even in the comment section of the Young Americans For Liberty Facebook page, the majority of commentators are defending what the CIA did.  And that's farther than I'm going with what I'm saying, because all I'm saying is that I support it theoretically in extraordinary situations.  But I think that people who post here think that all libertarians have to take the same position on this issue, when in reality people who describe themselves as libertarians have a wide variety of views on this issue.  People here may claim that those people commenting on Facebook aren't actually libertarians, but there's absolutely no division and debate on the Young Americans for Liberty Facebook page when it comes to things like the NSA surveillance program, the war on drugs, foreign intervention, etc.

https://www.facebook.com/yaliberty/p...52557217485197

----------


## Brett85

If you read the comment section on Rand's Facebook page, there's a lot of people who are a lot more extreme and crazy than I am on this.  I've only said that I wouldn't rule out torture in every single hypothetical situation.  But these people are just unhinged.  Over 900 comments already.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/po...52680642421107

----------


## mosquitobite

> If you read the comment section on Rand's Facebook page, there's a lot of people who are a lot more extreme and crazy than I am on this.  I've only said that I wouldn't rule out torture in every single hypothetical situation.  But these people are just unhinged.  Over 900 comments already.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/po...52680642421107


Proof that Hollywood propaganda WORKS.

----------


## Crashland

> ... and I got you to admit that torture is evil.
> Now you just have to admit that nothing evil can be moral...


Again, in my opinion, the least immoral course of action IS ALWAYS moral. Given any situation, there is always a course of action which causes the least amount of unnecessary pain and suffering. How could choosing that course of action be immoral? Claiming that something is immoral implies guilt, and it is only appropriate to assign guilt if there was a better course of action which could have been taken.

----------


## otherone

> Again, in my opinion, the least immoral course of action IS ALWAYS moral.


immorality can be moral?

----------


## Crashland

> immorality can be moral?


Causing the least amount of harm possible, is not immoral, ever.

----------


## otherone

> Causing the least amount of harm possible, is not immoral, ever.





> Given any situation, there is always a course of action which causes the least amount of unnecessary pain and suffering. How could choosing that course of action be immoral? Claiming that something is immoral implies guilt, and it is only appropriate to assign guilt if there was a better course of action which could have been taken.


If the "course of action which causes the least amount of unnecessary pain and suffering" included killing your child, you would not feel guilt?

----------


## Crashland

> If the "course of action which causes the least amount of unnecessary pain and suffering" included killing your child, you would not feel guilt?


Yes, but feeling guilty does not mean that you deserve to be assigned guilt.

----------


## otherone

> Yes, but feeling guilty does not mean that you deserve to be assigned guilt.


Who assigns guilt?

----------


## mosquitobite

Is it moral to create a monster and then release him into society?

Because in the case of an American soldier torturing for information, even bad or no information, he is not saving his own child.

----------


## Crashland

> Who assigns guilt?


You are assigning guilt when you claim that an act is immoral.

----------


## otherone

> You are assigning guilt when you claim that an act is immoral.


me?
HELL NO.
For myself, I don't pretend that when I act immorally that I am justified in doing so.  Maybe if everyone stopped pretending that violence can be "moral" it would end.

_The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.
Philip Zimbardo
_

----------


## pcosmar

> Even in the comment section of the Young Americans For Liberty Facebook page, the majority of commentators are defending what the CIA did.





> If you read the comment section on Rand's Facebook page, there's a lot of people who are a lot more extreme and crazy than I am on this.


I don't need to hear what other people said in an attempt to justify it.

IT IS WRONG.
It should not be done ever..

And there is a wealth of evidence that it is not even useful.
It does not provide any usable intelligence.. it does not prevent or end war.

it serves no purpose but fear and hate.

It should not be*.*

----------


## Crashland

> me?
> HELL NO.
> For myself, I don't pretend that when I act immorally that I am justified in doing so.  Maybe if everyone stopped pretending that violence can be "moral" it would end.
> 
> _The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.
> Philip Zimbardo
> _


Couldn't disagree more. The line between good and evil is entirely permeable by situational forces. It is absolutely the situational forces which make a decision moral or immoral, justified or unjustified. The difference between murder and self-defense is situational. Torture is an extreme form of violence, so the number of situations where it might be justified are few and far between. But in the end it is just another form of violence, and it is not exempt from situational factors.

----------


## ExPatPaki

Torture is wrong no matter who does it for any reason. This is one issue that I can safely say I am consistent on. Torture is never justified, whether its the US gov, Iranian gov, Syrian gov, Israeli gov, Pakistani gov, ISIS doing it. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, doesn't matter who does it for what reason, it's always morally wrong.

I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.


The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...

----------


## Brett85

90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position.  That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct.  And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.

And a very small tent for Christianity as well.

----------


## Crashland

> Torture is wrong no matter who does it for any reason. This is one issue that I can safely say I am consistent on. Torture is never justified, whether its the US gov, Iranian gov, Syrian gov, Israeli gov, Pakistani gov, ISIS doing it. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, doesn't matter who does it for what reason, it's always morally wrong.


For what reason do you consider torture to be exempt from situational justification, as opposed to any other form of violence?




> I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.


No one is defending torture when used in a situation comparable to the torture of Jesus.


I think that torture is not justified in almost all cases. And any of the few cases where it would be justified are incredibly unlikely to occur. Even though it's only a small difference between 99.9% and 100%, I think it is an important point in principle. You shouldn't appeal to incredulity to make a blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act, when the reality is that no action is ever always good or always bad regardless of all possible circumstances.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...


Jesus did it to himself.

----------


## jmdrake

I have not at all mischaracterized your position.  I asked you about the John Yoo hypothetical so that you could clarify it.  And the four points that I made are applicable to *anybody* who accepts torture under *any* circumstances.  I will address your response to the John Yoo hypothetical first.  Your assertion that "I don't think that would make the terrorist any more likely to talk than using other means" is a cop out.  If we are going to go that route, there are many interrogation experts that say torture in general is not an effective way to get information and you are better off gaining the detainees trust.  That said, there are people who willingly go through torture before ever being detained so that they can resist torture.  U.S. special forces do that.  Russian spec ops do that as well.  So if you had a Russian spec ops who wasn't going to give in to water boarding, how far would you go?  Okay, you've put a limit that you wouldn't actually hurt someone's child.  Good.  I assume you think that's immoral?  Well there are others, including myself, who believe torture in general is immoral.  If the end justifies the means then why cut off the means at a certain point?  If you're going to be moral, be moral.  I see you also didn't answer the question I gave regarding gay rape.  I will raise it again.  Would *you* do that if you thought that was the best way to brake a terror suspect down so that he would answer the "ticking time bomb" question you raised?  That's not hurting an innocent person.  I'm asking you if you would do something that you are certain is immoral, since there are people using the silly "Jesus never said don't torture" argument, to meet an end.  

Oh, and "I wouldn't do it personally" is another cop out.  If you think something is wrong to do personally, then you shouldn't be okay with ordering someone else to do it yourself.  You said if you were president you would give that order.  Personally I think the law should be that if a president is going to order or even allow torture, at some point he has to do it himself.  People who believe in the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch or turn on the lethal injection drip.  People who are willing to call the cops on someone should be willing to pick up a gun and handle business themselves if need be.  I have little patience for vicarious violence.

Now back to the four points that I raised.  They are 100% applicable to your position as stated which is as president you would authorize torture for the "ticking time bomb" hypothetical.  First off that hypothetical is itself prejudicial.  Sure they use it all the time on TV, but TV is fake.  On modern propaganda TV the "good" torturer never tortures someone that happens to be innocent.  He's perfect and never makes a mistake.  The bad guy is always so unmistakeably evil that the audience is led to root for his torture.  The torture doesn't begin until the "hero" is at his wits end about some particular piece of intelligence and this is (seemingly) the "only" way to get it.  And the torture always works.  The bad guy never gives the good guy bad information after being tortured.  That is a distorted view or reality.  Accepting that distorted view of reality distorts the entire conversation.  

And that's the fifth problem with accepting torture on any level.  It's the "slippery slope" argument.  You see, if you're going to allow torture *at all* there's no way to put a cap on what is or is not acceptable.  Let's take the so called "stress position" torture.  Somebody hears that and says "What's the big deal?  My gym teacher made us do invisible chair and that caused my thighs to hurt."  What they don't realize is that Jesus Christ was killed by being put in a stress position.  And there was at least one Iraqi general that died from such a crucifixion.  So....where do you draw the line?  And, if you're really going with the fanciful, made for TV "ticking time bomb" scenario, why stop at anything?  Really, once someone has started to torture people, are they really going to say "I know this guy has the information, but he hasn't broken from waterboarding.  But pouring acid into one of his eyes is just going to far."  Further, the universal truth about intelligence is that you don't know what you don't know.  *Every* terror suspect you pick up *might* be the one that has the information about the ticking time bomb!  

You are frustrated because conservatives think you are "too soft" on torture?  Well....they're right.  There is no middle ground on this.  There are some things where there is an acceptable middle ground.  Pharrel Williams caught flack from both sides of the Mike Brown issue when he said Mike Brown was a bully but Darren Wilson should have been indicted.  Pharrel took an acceptable middle ground position.  On the flip side I was having an argument with one of my friends on Facebook who was mad because I had posted an article on how abortion was killing so many black babies.  She said "I'm pro choice and for the rights of the unborn."  Cognitive dissonance?  In this case, if torture is okay in "certain extreme circumstances" then those who wish to torture will simply characterize everything as "ticking time bomb."  How on earth are we going to second guess that?  Will there be a trial and afterwards if it turns out there was never a ticking time bomb or there was a ticking time bomb but we grabbed the wrong person then we'll punish the CIA agent who "screwed up?"  It's bad enough just to look someone up indefinitely who hasn't done anything based on nothing but the fact that he was seen with the wrong person.  (That has happened).  Allowing him to be tortured because he *might* have some evidence that *might* stop some terror attack somewhere is unacceptable.  




> John Yoo, Bush presidential adviser, said that it is permissible for the president to torture someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to induce the parent to talk.  Would you go along with that?  Why or why not?  Do you think that going along with that would be a sin?  Is there anything that you wouldn't do in the name of national security?  How about gay rape?  Would you put your penis in a man's anus in order to humiliate him to the point of talking?  I mean you personally, not some CIA agent.  Why or why not?
> 
> Here is the deal.
> 
> 1) Innocent people have been tortured.  We know this on record.
> 
> 2) If you aren't willing to do the deed yourself then you shouldn't support someone else doing it.
> 
> 3) It's a false choice anyway.  The reason the U.S. is in danger is not because we haven't tortured enough people.  It's because we've pissed too many people off by, among other things, torturing innocent people.
> ...





> I don't think I could do any of that personally.  I'm a very non violent person.  I've never even been in a fight before.  This is a theoretical, political discussion we're having here.  I wouldn't support crushing the genitals of a child, and I don't think that would make the terrorist any more likely to talk than using other means.  I would just use force against the actual terrorist to get him to talk, or at the most I might stage a fake execution of the terrorist's family, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually harm them.





> The problem is that people keep misconstruing my positions, either intentionally or unintentionally.  People say that I do the same, and maybe I do at times, but I don't do it intentionally.  But earlier on in this thread I stated that the reason I believe that torture should be illegal is because of the possibility of torturing innocent people.  So I'm absolutely not taking the same position that someone like Sean Hannity is taking.  I'm just saying even though I think torture should be against the law, I don't believe that it's always immoral, and there could be a situation that could arise if I were President where I would authorize torture and would then be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision.





> Ironically, I get criticized by conservatives for being way too soft on this and not being in favor of always using torture, of having torture be legal.  I'm too libertarian for conservatives and too conservative for libertarians.

----------


## jmdrake

> 90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position.  That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct.  And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.
> 
> And a very small tent for Christianity as well.


Who said Christianity was supposed to be a big tent?

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Luke 18:26,27 Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"  Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

The biggest work of the Christian is to have faith in Jesus.  Do you have the faith in Jesus that if you follow His teachings things will turn out better than if you don't?  Most Christians lack that faith.  Christians tend to take the pagan view that man must solve man's problems on his own.  Christians don't generally believe in an all powerful God that really cares for them, listens to and answers their prayers, and can tell them the location of the "ticking time bomb" to which Hollywood and government propaganda has made them so afraid.  So they put their trust in man instead of God and sacrifice essential liberty for security thus becoming deserving of neither.  Seriously, why dispense with the most fundamental teachings of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and hold so fast and hard to Bible teachings about sex?  And I'm not focused on you hear.  I've seem much worse in the Christian "big tent."  A conservative Christian republican neighbor once was telling me about the book and the movie "sole survivor."  That was about the U.S. special forces in Afghanistan who were trying to capture or kill a Taliban leader.  During the raid a goat farmer and his son stumbled upon them.  And my neighbor said "Of course they couldn't kill them because they would have been crucified by the liberal media when they got back."     Yes, a *Christian* was *complaining* that the "liberal media" wouldn't go along with U.S. special forces killing an innocent child just to keep their mission under wraps.  And the thought never occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't even be in Afghanistan?  Maybe, just maybe, there are better responses to terrorism than starting an endless war that creates more terrorists?  Oh.....but this same Christian is probably fine with African countries that imprison people for being gay, yet will applaud right wing talk show hosts who talk about how barbaric Iran is for it's treatment of gays.  The cognitive dissonance is strong in Christianity.

----------


## jmdrake

> No one is defending torture when used in a situation comparable to the torture of Jesus.


You do understand that at least one Iraqi general was crucified by CIA interrogators right?  Okay, no nails were put in his hands, but that's not how crucifixion killed people.  You died from suffocation as a result of being hung by your arms.

http://www.rense.com/general63/weie.htm
_Iraqi Died While Hung
From Wrists By US
By Seth Hettena
Associated Press Writer
2-17-5

SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture - suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press.


The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that the death had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances under which the man died were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging," the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations._ 




> I think that torture is not justified in almost all cases. And any of the few cases where it would be justified are incredibly unlikely to occur. Even though it's only a small difference between 99.9% and 100%, I think it is an important point in principle. You shouldn't appeal to incredulity to make a blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act, when the reality is that no action is ever always good or always bad regardless of all possible circumstances.


No.  It's incredibly stupid to excuse torture on a situational ethics basis.  Those who wish to torture will merely claim that every scenario is the "ticking time bomb" scenario.  I will ask you the question I asked T.C.  If you thought it would help in the ".1%" of the cases where you believe torture is justified, would you commit an act of male rape?  Would you personally stick your penis in a man's anus repeatedly in order to get information from him?  If the answer to that question is "no because that would be wrong", then you have just taken a "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act" and you can't criticize someone else for making a different "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act."  And besides, it's Christians who have for the past half century been attacking secular humanism for teaching situational ethics in public schools.

----------


## jmdrake

Oh, and I realize some people will say I'm using hyperbole when talking about gay rape as a possible torture-interrogation technique.  We know already that at Gitmo, menstruating prostitutes were brought in because, supposedly, that would make the detainees afraid for their soul.  (See: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6876549/ns.../#.VIrizsl5WbE) Well say if the detainee didn't mind menstruating prostitutes?  After all, the 9/11 hijackers seemed to like strippers and hookers.  (Another reason why I believe the official story is a concoction.)  So if you're trying to break detainees and the female hookers won't work, and if torture is morally acceptable, then bring in the Jeff Gannons.  I mean right wing Christians didn't seem to mind Bush being around a gay prostitute.  So certainly these same Christians, who are morally okay with torture, should be okay with gay rape interrogation right?  In fact some might volunteer to do the deed themselves.

----------


## mosquitobite

> 90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position.  That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct.  And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.
> 
> And a very small tent for Christianity as well.


Which lends itself to FF's common theory, right?  

What, exactly, did Jesus say about how many people would agree with Truth?  How wide is the road?  How well accepted is true Christianity?  Did He not warn we would be mocked & scorned?

----------


## Natural Citizen

I votes "YES"

----------


## Brett85

> Which lends itself to FF's common theory, right?  
> 
> What, exactly, did Jesus say about how many people would agree with Truth?  How wide is the road?  How well accepted is true Christianity?  Did He not warn we would be mocked & scorned?


I think people misinterpret what Jesus said.  If you take what Jesus said literally, all he said was that more people will be destroyed than will make it to heaven.  That is obvious.  That doesn't mean that only an extremely small number of people will make it to heaven, and it certainly doesn't mean that people's thoughts disqualify them from being Christians, that you have to have completely non violent political views in order to be a Christian. What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.

----------


## mosquitobite

> What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.


No, it's about the heart.

----------


## Brett85

> No, it's about the heart.


Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used.  (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation.  But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work.  I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation.  That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)

----------


## Brett85

JMDrake, you make some good points, but your post was extremely long, and I'll try to find a time to respond to it later.

----------


## mosquitobite

Someone who is _able_ to torture, even if they justify it in their minds, is not an innocent being.  Most of us here would not be able to pull off torture, even if our own child was the one who needed to be saved.  (Can't think of that movie with Dakota Fanning and Denzel)  In order to have torture, you have to have someone with a bit of evil in their heart first.  Torture doesn't come out of someone with a full conscience.  I just don't see how it would be possible.  In order to torture, you have to view humanity with different lenses.  I don't see how a Christian can do that.  And if a Christian can't, but yet is willing to let Satan take this "one little piece" in order to put your child in the place of your faith... 

You see, sometimes our own family can be idols.  I trust.  I have faith. 

Considering your family... which would you consider worse for YOUR child?  Being caged and tortured?  Or death?  Which one creates hell for them?

----------


## otherone

> The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...


You think this was a joke, punk?
Jesus could have undermined Rome's authority in Judea... THOUSANDS of lives were in jeopardy.
Torture was moral in this case...it was the lesser of two evils...Pilate even washed his hands...

Now sip some kool-aid and sing along...

----------


## pcosmar

> Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used.  (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation.  But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work.  I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation.  That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)


By "Hypothetical" you mean fictional and fabricated.

It is clear that you have fully bought into the *Fear Mongering* and *Warmongering* propaganda.

Torture has never,, Never, NEVER been a good form of gathering intelligence.
It is used to make the innocent confess things that are not true.

It is immoral on it's face.. Period.

And beyond that.. Terror is a tactic.. not a political philosophy or an organization. And our Government is the primary source of terrorism and has been for decades.

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

----------


## mosquitobite

My email devotion for today:
http://shortdailydevotions.com/devot...st-last-always
When, as Christians, we feel passionate about a particular topic it can be so difficult to remember that we are called by God to LOVE. More than that, we are not to love sometimes, or only when it’s easy, but ALWAYS. Our culture is attracted to strength, and the idea of justice or even vengeance when we feel indignation. We have a perfect example, however, in Jesus. Jesus was the most powerful being on earth, but He was the very picture of perfect love, humility and friendship.

Beloved, remember as you go through this life that you have been called by God to show love to those around; even to those you cannot understand. The next time you feel passionate, don’t let your nature become prideful, argumentative, defensive or harsh. Remember instead the divine example of Christ, the perfect love that has been shown to you, and regard others with love and gentleness.

----------


## Brett85

> By "Hypothetical" you mean fictional and fabricated.
> 
> It is clear that you have fully bought into the *Fear Mongering* and *Warmongering* propaganda.
> 
> Torture has never,, Never, NEVER been a good form of gathering intelligence.
> It is used to make the innocent confess things that are not true.
> 
> It is immoral on it's face.. Period.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing that torture should be used on a regular basis, that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation.  I said that I oppose the CIA torture program that's been revealed.  We're merely having a theoretical discussion about whether torture is ever morally justified in any situation, and I believe that it is.  All other forms of violence are morally acceptable in certain situations, and I don't think it makes sense to say that for some reason, torture is the exception and doesn't depend at all on situational ethics.  I think that all forms of violence, killing, fighting, and torture are absolutely terrible, but I'm not going to say that those things are immoral in every situation.  The morality of those things depends on the situation; it depends on situational ethics.  In my view this issue doesn't have to be black and white, right or wrong.  The only two positions that you can have on this issue doesn't have to either be that there's no moral problem with torture and that it should always be used, or that torture is always immoral and should never be used.  You can be somewhere in between, which is where most Americans are.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think people misinterpret what Jesus said.  If you take what Jesus said literally, all he said was that more people will be destroyed than will make it to heaven.  That is obvious.  That doesn't mean that only an extremely small number of people will make it to heaven, and it certainly doesn't mean that people's thoughts disqualify them from being Christians, that you have to have completely non violent political views in order to be a Christian. What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.


Really?  So you believe Jesus wasn't serious when He said you can commit adultery or murder through your thoughts?  And we aren't just talking about thoughts here.  We are talking about people publicly taking and supporting a particular position that leads to a particular policy.  Come on TC.  It's *not* just a thought any more than someone advocating for Obamacare or immigrant amnesty or for increased taxes or for teaching kids how to have gay sex in school or any other position that you might agree or disagree with is "just a thought."  Politicians look at what people are saying, not just thinking, about a particular issue and that has an influence on public policy.  Why has Obama sent more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan?  Because 80 percent of Americans in recent polls have voiced an opinion that they are in favor of military action against ISIS.  Thoughts matter.

Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Matt 12:36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

Matt 15:18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

A Christian will not be able to plead on the day of judgment "Well Jesus, I didn't do X, but I just thought about it and advocated for it."  NAMBLA members don't necessarily have sex with little boys.  But they think about it, talk about it and advocate for it.  If it's wrong to do then it is wrong to advocate.

Now Jesus is merciful and God's love covers a multitude of sins.  Not just the people who advocate for torture can be forgiven, but those who torture can be forgiven and even the real terrorists who actually do kill innocent people (and some of them wear uniforms) can be forgiven.  And yes, there are people who push anti Christian ideas that don't realize they are doing that because they haven't been taught the truth.  And then on top of that people know Bible truth and don't consistently live up to that.  I'm one of them.  I'm not saying if a person ever thought "I'd love to torture so and so" that they can't go to heaven any more than I would say someone who looked at someone else and said "I'd really love to sleep with him/her" is disqualified from heaven.  David will be in heaven and he thought about another man's wife...then slept with her...then killed the man to cover it up.  But we're talking (I thought anyway) about what Jesus defined as moral.  The whole justification/sanctification/election/once-saved-always-saved/conditional-salvation debate is for another subforum.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not arguing that torture should be used on a regular basis, that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation.  I said that I oppose the CIA torture program that's been revealed.  We're merely having a theoretical discussion about whether torture is ever morally justified in any situation, and I believe that it is.  All other forms of violence are morally acceptable in certain situations, and I don't think it makes sense to say that for some reason, torture is the exception and doesn't depend at all on situational ethics.  I think that all forms of violence, killing, fighting, and torture are absolutely terrible, but I'm not going to say that those things are immoral in every situation.  The morality of those things depends on the situation; it depends on situational ethics.  In my view this issue doesn't have to be black and white, right or wrong.  The only two positions that you can have on this issue doesn't have to either be that there's no moral problem with torture and that it should always be used, or that torture is always immoral and should never be used.  You can be somewhere in between, which is where most Americans are.


Rape is a form of violence.  Are you prepared to say that it's never acceptable?  Or, depending on situational ethics, do you think it is sometimes okay?

----------


## jmdrake

> Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used.  (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation.  But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work.  I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation.  That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)


Except you've already admitted that you wouldn't torture someone's child to save millions so there's something wrong with your moral calculus.  And you have addressed the rape question at all.  Either there are things that are morally wrong regardless of how many lives may be saved in the process or there isn't.  If you draw the line at torturing a terrorist's child and (maybe) at gay rape, then you can't turn around at say someone else is pushing "extreme works salvation" by saying that other forms of torture are never acceptable.  In fact, it's ridiculous to make this about salvation by works.  You can believe something is wrong and still believe it can be forgiven.  David was wrong for committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah to cover it up.  But David will be in heaven.  Salvation by faith does not mean change the definition of sin to one that best suits the sinner.

----------


## otherone

> Rape is a form of violence.  Are you prepared to say that it's never acceptable?  Or, depending on situational ethics, do you think it is sometimes okay?


Many people appear to believe that evil only exists in the intent.

_No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.
Mary Wollstonecraft
_

----------


## jmdrake

> Many people appear to believe that evil only exists in the intent.
> 
> _No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.
> Mary Wollstonecraft
> _


Interesting quote.  _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to otherone again._  Yeah, I think people justify all sorts of wrong things we do.

----------


## Brett85

> Rape is a form of violence.  Are you prepared to say that it's never acceptable?  Or, depending on situational ethics, do you think it is sometimes okay?


You can get into absurd examples over this, but you could even come up with some extreme hypothetical situation in which even rape would be a lesser evil.  Say some guy kidnaps you and some woman that you don't know.  This evil person decides to play a game with you.  He tells you that you have one of two options.  You can either rape the woman that he decided to take captive, or you can use the gun that he has to put a bullet in her brain.  To me, the less evil choice would be to rape her.  Whether the less evil choice is actually the moral choice is debatable.

----------


## otherone

> You can believe something is wrong and still believe it can be forgiven.


The crux (pun unintended) of the matter....
You can't be forgiven until you've admitted you've done wrong.

----------


## Brett85

I also understand and I think agree with your point about certain things, such as anal rape, being immoral even in ticking time bomb situations.  I certainly wouldn't do it.  Still, I wouldn't just automatically claim that a CIA agent who did that because he thought he could save millions of lives by doing that wasn't a Christian.  I don't believe I have the right to determine people's eternal destiny.  But it's just a silly example though, just like I've presented silly examples.  I don't think there's a situation where the rape of a terrorist would somehow be more effective than using some form of violence against him such as waterboarding.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I don't think there's a situation where the rape of a terrorist would somehow be more effective than using some form of violence against him such as waterboarding.


If he thinks (via his faith) that he will be eternally damned for such a rape, you don't think that would be more effective?

----------


## jmdrake

> You can get into absurd examples over this, but you could even come up with some extreme hypothetical situation in which even rape would be a lesser evil.  Say some guy kidnaps you and some woman that you don't know.  This evil person decides to play a game with you.  He tells you that you have one of two options.  You can either rape the woman that he decided to take captive, or you can use the gun that he has to put a bullet in her brain.  To me, the less evil choice would be to rape her.  Whether the less evil choice is actually the moral choice is debatable.


It's not an "absurd example" at all.  I already gave you *documentation* that sexual violence had been used at Gitmo as an interrogation tactic.  So unlike your fanciful "ticking time bomb" hypothetical, mine is actually documented.  As for your example, you can ask the woman to make the choice.  If she tells you she'd rather have sex with you then let someone else shoot her, then you haven't raped her.  If she says "I'd rather die then have sex with you" then it's not your choice to make.  If the gun man puts the gun on you to force you to rape her and you do, then what you've done is morally wrong.  The law *may* let you get away with it based on a duress defense, but you at that point are not following the example of Jesus.

Luke 9:24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

Tell me this.  During the persecution of pagan Rome there were millions of Christians who willingly went to the lions or were crucified because they would neither recant their faith in Jesus nor would the accept some other god such as Nero.  Some Christians would straddle the fence and do both.  Some would send their servants to make sacrifices on their behalf.  Do you believe those Christians were all morally equivalent?  Note I'm not asking if Jesus couldn't or wouldn't save someone who denied Him to save his own skin.  Peter denied Jesus after all.  But should that have been something where Peter shouldn't have even felt bad about?  After all the "situation" seemed to call for that response.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> For what reason do you consider torture to be exempt from situational justification, as opposed to any other form of violence?


It appears that torture is being done for the sake of torture, for the sadistic pleasure of the torturer, not to gain any intelligence and definitely not to dispense any justice. 







> I think that torture is not justified in almost all cases. And any of the few cases where it would be justified are incredibly unlikely to occur. Even though it's only a small difference between 99.9% and 100%, I think it is an important point in principle. You shouldn't appeal to incredulity to make a blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act, when the reality is that no action is ever always good or always bad regardless of all possible circumstances.


I am okay with this but I still think torture is immoral. You are not one of those Christians on my facebook feed who say torture is okay because 'we're at war'. 

I am a Shia Muslim by belief. People here when they have time, should research about Imam Husayn and Karbala and how he and his family were tortured, starved, cut off from water by the oppressive tyrant at that time. It's not a story for the faint of heart. 

According to Edward Gibbon (English historian and member of parliament) "In a distant age and climate the tragic scene of the death of Hussain will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader." [The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1911, volume 5, pp391-2]

This is why I believe that the Iranian government, who claims to be Shia, is going against the values of their Imam Husayn if they torture. Same with the Shia Hezbollah.

----------


## jmdrake

> I also understand and I think agree with your point about certain things, such as anal rape, being immoral even in ticking time bomb situations.  I certainly wouldn't do it.  Still, I wouldn't just automatically claim that a CIA agent who did that because he thought he could save millions of lives by doing that wasn't a Christian.  I don't believe I have the right to determine people's eternal destiny.  But it's just a silly example though, just like I've presented silly examples.  I don't think there's a situation where the rape of a terrorist would somehow be more effective than using some form of violence against him such as waterboarding.


Okay, I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if anyone said anything about anyone's "eternal destiny."  Your "eternal destiny" isn't determined by any one sin otherwise David and everyone else in the Bible would go to hell.  As for waterboarding versus rape, two points.  If waterboarding was the be-all technique, the CIA wouldn't have tried other things like the bloody hookers.  And secondly, you can prepare yourself ahead of time for various forms of torture including waterboarding.  All Navy SEALs go through waterboarding for example.  If you are a member of some radical Islamic terror cell you might have yourself waterboarded and subjected to other forms of torture in order to prepare yourself mentally.  But if you are preparing for sexual torture, that kind of undermines the whole Muslim thing you're supposedly fighting for.

----------


## otherone

> Tell me this.  During the persecution of pagan Rome there were millions of Christians who willingly went to the lions or were crucified because they would neither recant their faith in Jesus nor would the accept some other god such as Nero.


A question for Christians: would you renounce Jesus if it would save lives?

----------


## Brett85

> A question for Christians: would you renounce Jesus if it would save lives?


I can't really respond to every single one of these posts, but I'll just respond to this one.  No, and I see your point.  I see the point that you and others are making that certain things are immoral no matter how dire the situation.  Still, does that mean that using any kind of force at all in these situations is immoral?  Also, how do you even define torture?  For example, I've read that the prisoners at Gitmo consider it to be torture to be interrogated by a female CIA official, because they consider it to be a form of dishonor to be interrogated by a woman.  So the CIA uses that as a form of interrogation to get information from the prisoners about potential attacks.  Should that be outlawed as a form of torture since some of the prisoners consider it to be torture?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> For example, I've read that the prisoners at Gitmo consider it to be torture to be interrogated by a female CIA official, because they consider it to be a form of dishonor to be interrogated by a woman.


I thought it was more than just being a female interrogator. It was more of them menstruating blood all over the place. "Bloody hookers" as jmdrake eloquently described them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can't really respond to every single one of these posts, but I'll just respond to this one.  No, and I see your point.  I see the point that you and others are making that certain things are immoral no matter how dire the situation.  Still, does that mean that using any kind of force at all in these situations is immoral?  Also, how do you even define torture?  For example, I've read that the prisoners at Gitmo consider it to be torture to be interrogated by a female CIA official, because they consider it to be a form of dishonor to be interrogated by a woman.  So the CIA uses that as a form of interrogation to get information from the prisoners about potential attacks.  Should that be outlawed as a form of torture since some of the prisoners consider it to be torture?


I think the issue would be what qualifies as torture, not what the prisoner THINKS qualifies...

So yeah, if I actually knew "Mr. X" was a Muslim Jihadi and that he had information that I needed to stop him from killing lots of people, and I could get that info by having a woman interrogate him, I wouldn't have a problem with doing that.  That's not torture.



> 90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position.  That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct.  And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.
> 
> And a very small tent for Christianity as well.


Yikes...  I was reading that thread and most of the people there sounded more like neocons than libertarians.

Some libertarians are theoretically in support of torture under certain conditions.  Rothbard was... one of the areas where he seriously goofed it up, rather like abortion IMO...

I'm not really sure how anyone who's libertarian minded would TRUST the government to do that though...

Now, as for Christians supporting torture, I think its theoretically possible for one to do so.  I think that's a bad thing.  I'm not sure how a Christian could unconditionally support it without some reluctance.  




> Defending our country is a political issue.  I believe that torture should be off limits for the most part, but if I were President of the United States, I wouldn't just sit back and do nothing if a situation arose where millions of Americans would die if nothing was done.  I would absolutely authorize torture in that situation, and then I would be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision, knowing that torture is illegal.



Would you admit to everyone that you did it and suffer the consequences?



> Ironically, I get criticized by conservatives for being way too soft on this and not being in favor of always using torture, of having torture be legal.  I'm too libertarian for conservatives and too conservative for libertarians.


And I think its downright sad that the "conservative" side is the one that most people are more inclined to identify with Christianity.




> If you read the comment section on Rand's Facebook page, there's a lot of people who are a lot more extreme and crazy than I am on this.  I've only said that I wouldn't rule out torture in every single hypothetical situation.  But these people are just unhinged.  Over 900 comments already.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/po...52680642421107


Yeah, those people are just nuts.  You're probably a mix of paleoconservative and libertarian ideas.  Those people are just neocons.  I wouldn't use them to prove your point, IMO.




> The definition is such:     *inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.*
> 
> So 4 forum members voted that a "true" Christian can support torture?   I'd love to hear the reasons.  How about for not believing in Christ?  (Inquisition) or not believing in the Roman Gods?  
> 
> "The Passion" is about the Torture of Christ and I would wager that no Christians feel what the Roman's did to him was justified? 
> 
> I think it's pretty evident if *you support violence against someone for any reason other than defending your own life then you are not following the teachings of Christ.*  And even then some would argue it's debatable.
> 
> "You will know them by their fruits"......


OK, I think that's iffy.  Even ignoring the technical cop-out of not defending someone else's life, there's a strong argument to be made that the Bible supports capital punishment.  




> I'm never going to agree with this idea that you have to have certain political views to be a Christian.  Christian conservatives do that all the time, basically claiming that you have to want the government to ban everything that's a sin in order to be a Christian.  I just get sick of this from both sides.  Your political views have nothing to do with whether you're a Christian or not.  *Nothing.*  It's about your relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.


So, what if a "Christian" thinks the Holocaust was fine?  If you wouldn't say that a Christian can believe that, there has to be a line SOMEWHERE.  I'm not sure where that is.




> I don't entirely agree with this.  There are a number of political views ("mainstream" and otherwise)and dogmas that are anti-Christian and are adopted by some Christians.


This.




> I don't think torture is ever justified as a punishment. It is only justified if it is the only option in the defense of others, or if an even greater amount of torture to even more people would occur if you fail to torture the one person. For any great evil you can think of, there is always an even greater evil. And if you pit the two up against each other in a choice, then the lesser of the evils is always justified, and in my opinion, moral (although still repulsive)


Well, you also aren't a Christian, so I guess that makes sense.  But, the Bible says not to do evil so that good may come.




> I believe that torture is always immoral if it's being done for the sake of vindictiveness, if it's being done simply for the sake of punishing people.  I don't necessarily believe it's immoral in every single situation in which it's used to get information.  An example of torture being done simply for the sake of vindictiveness was in Abu Graib, when we tortured people simply for the sake of humiliating them.


Can a Christian support the torture that was done in Abu Graib?  

Can a sane person (Christian or not) EVER trust the government that did that after that?



> Agree.  A true, saved Christian would not fear death.  (I honestly DO NOT!)  
> 
> There are far worse things than death!
> 
> If you were to ask me "would you rather?" and detail the torture outlined in this report or death.  I know exactly which one I'd choose.


I would much rather die to.  Which is my point.  I think its possible to kill someone to the glory of God.  I understand the difficulties in doing so, but I definitely think its doable.  Were the lives of my family members in danger, I would kill to defend them.  I also believe the Bible commands capital punishment for murder (note that that doesn't mean I trust the government to implement it.  I don't.)

But, I can't see how anyone could ever tie someone down and deliberately inflict excruciating pain without losing everything that makes them human.  As Christians, we should be better than that, and that "Christian" policymakers are supporting that makes me sick and it makes me ashamed to call myself Christian in this country.  Part of how I deal with this is by assuming the evil people aren't actually Christians.

Is it possible for a Christian to, in dire circumstances, support torture?  I tend to think yes.

But I think that person is at the least going to have some reservations.



> You can make up a hypothetical scenario where torture clearly wouldn't be wrong, is all I'm saying.  Just look at the example Crashland gave.  If you're going to say that torture is always wrong, I don't see why you wouldn't say that violence is always wrong.  Violence is torture; when you inflict physical pain on someone, you're torturing them.  It doesn't matter the circumstances.  If someone jumps on you and starts hitting you, and you start hitting that person back and enacting physical pain on them, that's torture.  The definition of torture is inflicting pain on someone.


You're defining "torture" really loosely.  Its possible to inflict pain without torturing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know how you define "moral."  I've said that I could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.  I don't consider it to be a good thing.  I've said that as a civilized society, we have to have laws against torture.  I support those laws.  But this is simply a theoretical discussion over whether it's immoral to ever use torture.  I guess it just depends on how you define it.  I think you could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.


Do you know what the Bible says about doing evil so good may come?

----------


## Todd

> Do you know what the Bible says about doing evil so good may come?







> Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just!





 End thread.

----------


## Crashland

> No one is defending torture when used in a situation comparable to the torture of Jesus.





> You do understand that at least one Iraqi general was crucified by CIA interrogators right?  Okay, no nails were put in his hands, but that's not how crucifixion killed people.  You died from suffocation as a result of being hung by your arms.


So? The _situation_ of torture for the purpose of interrogation is not comparable to the _situation_ of torture of Jesus, even if it is the exact same torture _method_.





> No.  It's incredibly stupid to excuse torture on a situational ethics basis.  Those who wish to torture will merely claim that every scenario is the "ticking time bomb" scenario.  I will ask you the question I asked T.C.  If you thought it would help in the ".1%" of the cases where you believe torture is justified, would you commit an act of male rape?  Would you personally stick your penis in a man's anus repeatedly in order to get information from him? * If the answer to that question is "no because that would be wrong", then* you have just taken a "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act" and you can't criticize someone else for making a different "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act."  And besides, it's Christians who have for the past half century been attacking secular humanism for teaching situational ethics in public schools.


Actually the answer is *yes*, I would stick my penis is a man's anus against his will *if* it was the choice which would result in the least harm to others. So the second half of that does not apply. I am not necessarily endorsing rape or torture for interrogation purposes. Due diligence must be taken to evaluate the situation and make sure with reasonable certainty that the act would in fact cause the least harm. You are right that most scenarios are not a "ticking time bomb" scenario, and you are also right that torture is often not effective in extracting information. But that doesn't affect my argument. The only thing that would matter is if at least *one* scenario *IS* a "ticking time bomb" scenario, or if torture is *ever* the only way to extract information. Because if those situations are conceivable, no matter how improbable, then torture is not _always_ the wrong choice.

I'm with you on the hypocrisy point though -- Christians arguing against situational ethics in secular humanism while supporting CIA torture is rather dissonant.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Do you know what the Bible says about doing evil so good may come?


http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...the_world.aspx

----------


## Crashland

> Many people appear to believe that evil only exists in the intent.
> 
> _No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.
> Mary Wollstonecraft
> _


Not really. Doing evil with good intentions happens all the time, as does doing good with bad intentions. The real connection to evil is how much damage you cause. Choosing the course of action for which it is reasonable to believe it will cause the least harm out of all available options, is not evil, ever. Ugly and unpleasant, but not evil.

----------


## Crashland

> It appears that torture is being done for the sake of torture, for the sadistic pleasure of the torturer, not to gain any intelligence and definitely not to dispense any justice.


I would say that torture in that context is quite obviously evil.





> I am okay with this but I still think torture is immoral. You are not one of those Christians on my facebook feed who say torture is okay because 'we're at war'. 
> 
> I am a Shia Muslim by belief. People here when they have time, should research about Imam Husayn and Karbala and how he and his family were tortured, starved, cut off from water by the oppressive tyrant at that time. It's not a story for the faint of heart. 
> 
> According to Edward Gibbon (English historian and member of parliament) "In a distant age and climate the tragic scene of the death of Hussain will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader." [The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1911, volume 5, pp391-2]
> 
> This is why I believe that the Iranian government, who claims to be Shia, is going against the values of their Imam Husayn if they torture. Same with the Shia Hezbollah.


Disclaimer: I am an atheist, so I just want to clarify I am not speaking from a Christian perspective. I used to be a believer though

----------


## Crashland

> It's not an "absurd example" at all.  I already gave you *documentation* that sexual violence had been used at Gitmo as an interrogation tactic.  So unlike your fanciful "ticking time bomb" hypothetical, mine is actually documented.  As for your example, you can ask the woman to make the choice.  If she tells you she'd rather have sex with you then let someone else shoot her, then you haven't raped her.  If she says "I'd rather die then have sex with you" then it's not your choice to make.  If the gun man puts the gun on you to force you to rape her and you do, then what you've done is morally wrong.  The law *may* let you get away with it based on a duress defense, but you at that point are not following the example of Jesus.


Asking the woman to make the choice would be the correct course of action, but you are not counting the _possible_ situation where the woman is unable to communicate her preference to you, or if she is unaware or not able to be aware of the implications of disallowing you to have sex with her. You are also not counting the _possible_ situation where the choice is instead between raping the woman versus letting someone else shoot a dozen children. All that matters for the sake of argument, is that there exists at least one possible situation that would justify it.

----------


## Crashland

> Well, you also aren't a Christian, so I guess that makes sense.  But, the Bible says not to do evil so that good may come.


That is an excellent point. You can always choose not to do it in hope/faith that God will intervene or somehow make it work for good even if it appears like really bad things will happen as a result of inaction. From my secular perspective though that isn't really a good option. Although, getting back to the OP, can a "true Christian" disagree with that? If disagreeing with that idea is enough to move someone who professes to be a Christian from "true Christian" category to "not a true Christian" category, then how many other disagreements would that be the case for? Given the vast diversity of Christian thought, almost no one could be considered a "true christian" perhaps except for one's self.

----------


## euphemia

If it makes you all feel any better, I think the Bible teaches that there is both an individual accountability based on whether a person chooses Jesus or not.  There is also another judgement called the judging of the nations that seems to teach a nation will be judged based on how the nation enacts justice and responsibility.  I think God will hold a nation accountable for what it does.  I guess that means I will bear some accountability for my responsibility toward the government of the United States and whether I have done everything required of me before God.  Maybe I haven't resisted the effort of government enough on behalf of the unborn or widows and orphans.  What I am glad of is that it will be a judgement based on the character of a fully righteous and merciful God, and not what some other person thinks.

Sometimes it is a comfort to know that God is trustworthy because the capriciousness of government is scary.

----------


## Todd

I just love how everyone defending torture can't find any scripture to back it up.

----------


## pcosmar

> If it makes you all feel any better, I think the Bible teaches that there is both an individual accountability based on whether a person chooses Jesus or not.  There is also another judgement called the judging of the nations that seems to teach a nation will be judged based on how the nation enacts justice and responsibility.  I think God will hold a nation accountable for what it does.  I guess that means I will bear some accountability for my responsibility toward the government of the United States and whether I have done everything required of me before God.  Maybe I haven't resisted the effort of government enough on behalf of the unborn or widows and orphans.  What I am glad of is that it will be a judgement based on the character of a fully righteous and merciful God, and not what some other person thinks.
> 
> Sometimes it is a comfort to know that God is trustworthy because the capriciousness of government is scary.


The judgement of Nations will be a universal condemnation of all of them for all time.

Nations (government of Man) were never created by God..

they have another source.

----------


## otherone

> Not really. Doing evil with good intentions happens all the time, as does doing good with bad intentions. The real connection to evil is how much damage you cause. Choosing the course of action for which it is reasonable to believe it will cause the least harm out of all available options, is not evil, ever. Ugly and unpleasant, but not evil.


Do you see how relativism leads to bad outcome?   

Each person in the chain of events believes they will cause the least harm out of all available options.

Then we arrive here:



And wonder how the hell we got there.

A side question. If I am confronted with a scenario as you've described, and I refuse to choose...am I doing evil?

----------


## staerker

> Not really. Doing evil with good intentions happens all the time, as does doing good with bad intentions. The real connection to evil is how much damage you cause. Choosing the course of action for which it is reasonable to believe it will cause the least harm out of all available options, is not evil, ever. Ugly and unpleasant, but not evil.


The real connection to evil, is whether or not there is strict adherence to the instructions given to us. 

Not in a fearful, legalistic way. But fully knowing that yes, the situation depends on all the variable involved. And if there is any entity capable of correctly identifying and solving for *all* of the variables, it is the entity who created and sustains the universe.

----------


## Brett85

> I just love how everyone defending torture can't find any scripture to back it up.


Those who believe that torture is immoral in every single situation also can't find any scripture to back it up.

----------


## jmdrake

> Asking the woman to make the choice would be the correct course of action, but you are not counting the _possible_ situation where the woman is unable to communicate her preference to you, or if she is unaware or not able to be aware of the implications of disallowing you to have sex with her. You are also not counting the _possible_ situation where the choice is instead between raping the woman versus letting someone else shoot a dozen children. All that matters for the sake of argument, is that there exists at least one possible situation that would justify it.


If you can't ascertain her choice then it's rape.  That doesn't mean you can't ask her forgiveness later.  The moral thing to do is for you to attack the person with the gun and either take it from him or die trying.  As for the "rape a woman versus letting someone else shoot a dozen children", again you don't have the right to make that decision for someone else.  So that is *super* immoral.  If you want to be a moral person, attack the man with the gun and disarm him or die trying.  It's not your fault if the children die.  It's sad, but it's totally the responsibility of the jackass who killed them.  Trust me, I've heard all sorts of stupid situational ethics BS.  You know where all of this crap ultimately leads?




I want you to watch ^that video as many times as it takes for the truth to set in.  As soon as you start down the "We can think of a hypothetical where evil is justified" path, you end up like that witch Madeline Albright you said 500,000 dead Iraqi children, while a horrible price, was somehow "worth it."  Seriously, how is raping an innocent woman to save some children any different from the scenario I posed to Traditional Conservative of torturing someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to stop a suitcase nuke?  Sure the torture of the child is worse, but the "benefit" from the number of people saved is "better".  So....why don't *you* answer *my* scenario?  Are you ready to agree with John Yoo that, in some extreme case, torturing an innocent child by crushing his genitals with pliers is "worth it?"  Yes or no?

----------


## Todd

> Those who believe that torture is immoral in every single situation also can't find any scripture to back it up.



I've offered several that speak to the very nature of doing evil to another to hurting another.  When you find one that directly or even implicitly suggests that you may cause pain and suffering in order to achieve the greater good, you let me know.

----------


## jmdrake

> Those who believe that torture is immoral in every single situation also can't find any scripture to back it up.


That is not true.  I already gave you scriptures to back it up.  That you don't want to take those scriptures as meaning what they say is another thing altogether.  This would be like someone saying "There is no scripture that goes against gay marriage."  Sure there are Christians who are fine with gay marriage and have ways to explain away the scriptures used against it, but it's dishonest to say those scriptures don't exist.  Now if you want to be on parity, provide the New Testament scriptures that condone torture and we can compare.  Hey, I'll even go a step further.  Find an Old Testament scripture.  There are OT scriptures that condone genocide but I can't think of one that condones torture off hand.

----------


## Brett85

> That is not true.  I already gave you scriptures to back it up.


No, you haven't.  Citing the verse where Jesus said "love your enemies" has nothing to do with it, unless your claim is that Jesus was saying that all violence is immoral in all situations.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, you haven't.  Citing the verse where Jesus said "love your enemies" has nothing to do with it, unless your claim is that Jesus was saying that all violence is immoral in all situations.


*
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.*




> Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.


*Proverbs 25:21-22*



> If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you.


It is the same throughout the bible.
You really need to check yourself *TC*,, because scripture is clear.

----------


## Brett85

> *
> But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Proverbs 25:21-22*
> 
> 
> It is the same throughout the bible.
> You really need to check yourself *TC*,, because scripture is clear.


Again, if that's how you interpret it, then you should be consistent and say that violence is immoral in all situations.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, you haven't.  Citing the verse where Jesus said "love your enemies" has nothing to do with it, unless your claim is that Jesus was saying that all violence is immoral in all situations.


Again you are being dishonest.  Saying you disagree with the clear teachings of Jesus and saying those teachings don't exist are two entirely different things.  Also the command wasn't just "Love your enemies".  It was "Do good to them who persecute you and despitefully use you."  Do *good unto them!*  Do you believe torture is somehow *good*?  As for your "violence is all situations" nonsense, I've debunked that already.  There is a difference between defending yourself using the minimum amount of force necessary and violence.  In fact some forms of self defense are non violent.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, if that's how you interpret it, then you should be consistent and say that violence is immoral in all situations.


Doing violence against someone who is helpless to defend himself is immoral in all situations.  But hey, if you believe in moral relativism then you should be consistent and be okay with crushing a child's genitals.  I mean if the ends justify the means then the ends justify the means.  Madelyne Albright was right.  The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...the_world.aspx


Amen.  That was really good, thank you.



> That is an excellent point. You can always choose not to do it in hope/faith that God will intervene or somehow make it work for good even if it appears like really bad things will happen as a result of inaction. From my secular perspective though that isn't really a good option. Although, getting back to the OP, can a "true Christian" disagree with that? If disagreeing with that idea is enough to move someone who professes to be a Christian from "true Christian" category to "not a true Christian" category, then how many other disagreements would that be the case for? Given the vast diversity of Christian thought, almost no one could be considered a "true christian" perhaps except for one's self.


I would certainly never say that anyone who disagrees with me on any issue isn't saved.  But, pretty much all of the torture justifications are coming from consequentialist ethical systems, which are completely contradictory to Christianity.




> That is not true.  I already gave you scriptures to back it up.  That you don't want to take those scriptures as meaning what they say is another thing altogether.  This would be like someone saying "There is no scripture that goes against gay marriage."  Sure there are Christians who are fine with gay marriage and have ways to explain away the scriptures used against it, but it's dishonest to say those scriptures don't exist.  Now if you want to be on parity, provide the New Testament scriptures that condone torture and we can compare.  Hey, I'll even go a step further.  Find an Old Testament scripture.  There are OT scriptures that condone genocide but I can't think of one that condones torture off hand.


I can just imagine a Nazi saying "There is no scripture that says genocide is always wrong."  If we can't logically deduce things from scriptural principles, we are monsters...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *Doing violence against someone who is helpless to defend himself is immoral in all situations.*  But hey, if you believe in moral relativism then you should be consistent and be okay with crushing a child's genitals.  I mean if the ends justify the means then the ends justify the means.  Madelyne Albright was right.  The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.


Would you include capital punishment in that category?  Scripture does condone it...

----------


## jmdrake

> Would you include capital punishment in that category?  Scripture does condone it...


The old testament scripture condoned it.  But the old testament condoned genocide as well.  When Jesus had the opportunity to administer it He said "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more."  Paul seemed to condone it by saying "The sword is not a terror to good works", but then he was killed by the sword of the state himself for doing good works.  So based on that I don't think there is strong Biblical evidence in support of capital punishment.  I wonder if Paul thought to himself "What was I thinking when I wrote Romans 13" as his head was being cut off?

Edit: I know of no other New Testament passage besides Romans 13 that people use to justify capital punishment.  And the "rulers bearing the sword" doesn't necessarily mean capital punishment.  After all soldiers carried them as did the Roman equivalent of police.  So Romans 13 could have been Paul's endorsement of the police and military without being an endorsement of capital punishment, which is interesting since, if I recall, you don't think Christians can be members of either of those groups.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, if that's how you interpret it, then you should be consistent and say that violence is immoral in all situations.


NO,, it makes it clear that *Torture* is immoral.
Violence is to be avoided,, and even violence towards animals is discouraged,, save for defense.

Torture is deliberate cruelty.




> 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF


Do you torture yourself? Do you wish it on your children?

Just how does one lovingly torture someone?

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, if that's how you interpret it,.


And WTF is this? how I "interpret it"?

letters on a page.. the letters make words.. The Word has meaning.

I read the words.. it says what it says.
It is the mental gymnastics to twist those words into something else that often bothers me.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Amen.  That was really good, thank you.


Funny thing is I wondered if you'd critique it because it was on a Catholic blog!   lol!

----------


## Todd

> No, you haven't.  Citing the verse where Jesus said "love your enemies" has nothing to do with it, unless your claim is that Jesus was saying that all violence is immoral in all situations.


Like I said earlier, I have to wonder if that may be the message.....and might we all be living incongruent with the entire Gospel?  See I am a staunch 2A supporter and believe I can defend myself against the initiation of force.....but I am not going to suggest that my belief is SCRIPTURAL or that Jesus approves.   But you suggest no discomfort with the possibility of this.  

So again, please post scripture that suggests the Christian should act otherwise besides love your enemies, 70 times 7........

----------


## jmdrake

> Funny thing is I wondered if you'd critique it because it was on a Catholic blog!   lol!


LOL.  I thought about that.  Broken clocks and twice a day?    Seriously though I think people of all faiths bring something good to the table.  (I know you were addressing this to FF, but I thought I'd chime that in.)

----------


## jmdrake

> Like I said earlier, I have to wonder if that may be the message.....and might we all be living incongruent with the entire Gospel?  See I am a staunch 2A supporter and believe I can defend myself against the initiation of force.....but I am not going to suggest that my belief is SCRIPTURAL or that Jesus approves.   But you suggest no discomfort with the possibility of this.  
> 
> So again, please post scripture that suggests the Christian should act otherwise besides love your enemies, 70 times 7........
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep trying to do what was actually "said".


It's interesting that Jesus told the disciples to get swords, but then chastised Peter for using it.

----------


## otherone

> No, you haven't.  Citing the verse where Jesus said "love your enemies" has nothing to do with it, unless your claim is that Jesus was saying that all violence is immoral in all situations.


Morality (in a Christian context ) is obeying God's word and trusting that He knows best.

----------


## Todd

> Again you are being dishonest.  Saying you disagree with the clear teachings of Jesus and saying those teachings don't exist are two entirely different things.  Also the command wasn't just "Love your enemies".  It was "Do good to them who persecute you and despitefully use you."  Do *good unto them!*  Do you believe torture is somehow *good*?  As for your "violence is all situations" nonsense, I've debunked that already.  There is a difference between defending yourself using the minimum amount of force necessary and violence.  In fact some forms of self defense are non violent.


Come on drake.  Thou shalt not covet doesn't mean I can't want that bike of yours just a little bit...  Thou shalt not commit adultery doesn't mean I can't give her just a little smooch or touch them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I know, but if you're going to be consistent, then you should oppose all violence in all situations.


Nah.  It is hard to reconcile the loving of your neighbor with the torturing of your neighbor.  It is not hard to reconcile the defense of your family from your rampaging murderous neighbor with the loving of your neighbor.

Physically harming someone is not synonymous with torture.  Jesus does not seem to have taught that physically harming people was always wrong.  Toruture, on the other hand, is a special form of harm, under special circumstances.

----------


## otherone

> It's interesting that Jesus told the disciples to get swords, but then chastised Peter for using it.


lol
Virtue doesn't exist without temptation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Funny thing is I wondered if you'd critique it because it was on a Catholic blog!   lol!


No, I wouldn't.  I don't care for Catholicism's theology, but when someone's right, they are right

Catholics seem to do better when it comes to rejecting consequentialist ethics than Protestants do as well, which saddens me.  



> The old testament scripture condoned it.  But the old testament condoned genocide as well.  When Jesus had the opportunity to administer it He said "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more."  Paul seemed to condone it by saying "The sword is not a terror to good works", but then he was killed by the sword of the state himself for doing good works.  So based on that I don't think there is strong Biblical evidence in support of capital punishment.  I wonder if Paul thought to himself "What was I thinking when I wrote Romans 13" as his head was being cut off?
> 
> Edit: I know of no other New Testament passage besides Romans 13 that people use to justify capital punishment.  And the "rulers bearing the sword" doesn't necessarily mean capital punishment.  After all soldiers carried them as did the Roman equivalent of police.  So Romans 13 could have been Paul's endorsement of the police and military without being an endorsement of capital punishment, which is interesting since, if I recall, you don't think Christians can be members of either of those groups.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.)


Oh... there are so many different directions to go with this, and I'm not totally sure what the right way is.

Genocide is never condoned as normative in the Old Testament.  There are some instances where God says to commit genocide in specific instances, but there is no genocide advocated in the law.  I suspect this is the reason theonomists support almost all of the death penalties in the Old Testament, and yet are committed non-interventionists.

Believe it or not, I have had people defend "collateral damage" to me based upon Old Testament instructions for warfare.  I happen to think that's theologically laughable.  Its really easy to dismiss...

Now, regarding the death penalty, you could make a case that the Mosaic penal sanctions were only for Israel (which I agree with, although I think principles of proportionality need to be taken from Mosaic Law.  Prison makes little sense as a punishment, those who are robbed should receive restitution, and so forth.)  But, the death penalty for murder was given for Noah, and I'm not sure theologically how you could say that the Noahic command was changed, or where it was changed.

I'm Bible first so I want to go by what the Bible says, not what I may intuitively think...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Regarding the police and military... I certainly think its possible for a Christian to be part of those groups.  I don't really think Christians should, given what those groups are currently required to do, but "it would be wrong" is different than "A Christian can't."  I'd say that it would be wrong but Christians still do it.

Regarding Romans 13, I'm still figuring that passage out, to be honest, but some preliminary thoughts:

1. If Romans 13 was ordaining a government for the purpose of punishing evil, this would likely prove anarcho-capitalism to be unbiblical (It wouldn't necessarily prove this though, as one could argue that anarcho-capitalism still has a government.)  However, even if Romans 13 is interpreted that way, that would still leave NUMEROUS things that police and military do that are inconsistent with Romans 13.  Romans 13 certainly does not give government authority to redistribute wealth, initiate overseas conflicts, bomb civilians, control guns, prohibit substances, or any number of other things that governments do.  I don't see how anybody could read an interpretation into Romans 13 that makes any aspect of government more authoritarian than what was enforced under Old Testament Law (I do, however, think you could make a good argument, and one I'd support, that government should be LESS authoritarian than the way God had his theocracy governed.)

2. I'm not sure if Romans 13 means anything like that at all, though.  I'm not sure how to reconcile that passage with either the basic morals of the rest of scripture, its context in scripture, or its context in that Paul was quite clearly being persecuted by "authorities" at that time.  I'm actually still working this out, though. Erowe1's interpretation of Romans 13 seemed somewhat plausible to me, but I'm not 100% convinced.  I'm open to thoughts on that passage...

----------


## erowe1

> Regarding the police and military... I certainly think its possible for a Christian to be part of those groups.  I don't really think Christians should, given what those groups are currently required to do, but "it would be wrong" is different than "A Christian can't."  I'd say that it would be wrong but Christians still do it.


This is precisely why the correct answer to the OP is yes.

----------


## pcosmar

> Regarding the police and military...





> And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?"  And he said to them, "Collect no more than what you have been ordered to."  Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "*Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.*"


KJV



> And the soldiers likewise asked of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, *Do violence to no man*, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

----------


## erowe1

> KJV


Hence the rest of his quote.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is precisely why the correct answer to the OP is yes.


Good point.

The issue that I'm having goes beyond this one issue.  Its that most professing Christians in America are fundamentally pragmatists and nationalists, whereas the entire corpus of Biblical teaching.

I would never dream of saying somebody has to agree with me on every single point in order to be a Christian.  I'm definitely not even correct on every point.  I do question whether someone can be anything near a consistent pragmatist and be a Christian at the same time.  

The more obviously evil something is the less I can understand how a Christian could miss it.  Writing traffic tickets is wrong, but its easy for me to see how a Christian could not realize it.  Torture, on the other hand, just seems really obvious to me (and oddly enough, its the Christian demographic who's most for it in the US.)

Part of all of this is how easy it is to profess Christianity in the US.  And if you actually take Christian morals seriously and apply them to political issues, you get persecuted by other Christians.





> KJV


I agree with you.  I don't think Christians should be in those roles.  I said they "can" be, not "should."

----------


## otherone

> The more obviously evil something is the less I can understand how a Christian could miss it.  Writing traffic tickets is wrong, but its easy for me to see how a Christian could not realize it.  Torture, on the other hand, just seems really obvious to me (and oddly enough, its the Christian demographic who's most for it in the US.)


FF, of those Christians who support torture , in your opinion, do you suppose they love God or fear God?

----------


## otherone

''

----------


## Christian Liberty

A lot of this comes back to the Lordship Salvation debate, and the book of James.

Those who reject Lordship Salvation don't necessarily believe that committment to Christ automatically comes with saving faith.  If that's so, then this debate is a non-debate.  Of course people who believe in, and even engage in, torture can still be saved (present tense.)  Same with homosexuality, adultery, murder, whatever...  Now, that wouldn't mean that doing those types of things is right, but it wouldn't prove you weren't saved.

On the other hand, the book of James makes it very clear that saving faith must include works.  That's not to say works play a role in salvation, only that an inevitable effect of salvation is going to be works.

So, how much immorality can one support, or even engage in, while still being saved?  I'm not talking about short-term immorality or short-term endorsements of immorality. I'm talking about long-term.  Can a Christian continually support his government in its engaging in torture even after being confronted on it?  Would he even do that if he's actually saved?  Would a Christian continually endorse homosexuality or rape?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, of those Christians who support torture , in your opinion, do you suppose they love God or fear God?


Not particularly, hence why I'm wrestling with this.  I certainly don't think much of them, nor do I particularly want Christian fellowship with them...

Now, there are a lot of degrees and nuances with regards to this.  TC's position isn't Dick Cheney's position.  I'd be much slower to condemn someone like TC over this issue than someone like Dick Cheney.  And there are probably a few different positions in between there that one could hold...

----------


## otherone

> Not particularly, hence why I'm wrestling with this.


? "Not particularly" what ?

----------


## erowe1

> ? "Not particularly" what ?


He doesn't particularly suppose that they love/fear God.

----------


## Crashland

> If you can't ascertain her choice then it's rape.  That doesn't mean you can't ask her forgiveness later.  The moral thing to do is for you to attack the person with the gun and either take it from him or die trying.  As for the "rape a woman versus letting someone else shoot a dozen children", again you don't have the right to make that decision for someone else.  So that is *super* immoral.  If you want to be a moral person, attack the man with the gun and disarm him or die trying.  It's not your fault if the children die.  It's sad, but it's totally the responsibility of the jackass who killed them.  Trust me, I've heard all sorts of stupid situational ethics BS.  You know where all of this crap ultimately leads?


It would not be your fault if the children die, but you would be in a position to be able to prevent it from happening. I would rather attempt to save the children than make some futile effort at attacking the man with the gun (if that were even possible, which is not the case in all situations).




> I want you to watch ^that video as many times as it takes for the truth to set in.  As soon as you start down the "We can think of a hypothetical where evil is justified" path, you end up like that witch Madeline Albright you said 500,000 dead Iraqi children, while a horrible price, was somehow "worth it."  Seriously, how is raping an innocent woman to save some children any different from the scenario I posed to Traditional Conservative of torturing someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to stop a suitcase nuke?  Sure the torture of the child is worse, but the "benefit" from the number of people saved is "better".  So....why don't *you* answer *my* scenario?  Are you ready to agree with John Yoo that, in some extreme case, torturing an innocent child by crushing his genitals with pliers is "worth it?"  Yes or no?





> Doing violence against someone who is helpless to  defend himself is immoral in all situations.  But hey, if you believe  in moral relativism then you should be consistent and be okay with  crushing a child's genitals.  I mean if the ends justify the means then  the ends justify the means.  Madelyne Albright was right.  The deaths of  500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.


*Yes*, in some extreme case, torturing an innocent child by crushing his genitals with pliers would be worth it. Problem is, you keep comparing this to actual real-world atrocities and then trying to make a slippery slope argument. As I said before, it is critical that due diligence is taken to ensure with reasonable certainty that the action you are taking is in fact the least bad out of all available options. It would be immoral not to do that due diligence to the fullest extent possible. That's why in all of our proposed examples you keep trying to work around it to find a better option than rape or torture. That is exactly what you should do. My point is that it would be possible for a situation to exist in which there was no escape route, where all of your possible ways around it would very likely result in an even greater amount of pain and suffering. It seems rather obvious to me that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was not the least bad option. It's not even close. That is why TC referred to our examples as "absurd" -- because any situation which might actually meet the criteria to justify rape or torture is SO unlikely to actually occur to the point of absurdity. But the chances are not zero.

----------


## Crashland

> A side question. If I am confronted with a scenario as you've described, and I refuse to choose...am I doing evil?


Good question. You would not be the one actually performing the evil act. This question is somewhat linked the the idea of, is it wrong to fail to perform a heroic act? If you could save a dozen children's lives, would it be wrong not to do it? What if you had to steal a hundred dollars in order to do it, would it be wrong not to do it? What if there was a chance you could put an unrelated innocent person in danger? Similar issue

----------


## otherone

> He doesn't particularly suppose that they love/fear God.


It was an "either/or" question.  Sorry it was unclear.

----------


## Brett85

> Nah.  It is hard to reconcile the loving of your neighbor with the torturing of your neighbor.  It is not hard to reconcile the defense of your family from your rampaging murderous neighbor with the loving of your neighbor.
> 
> Physically harming someone is not synonymous with torture.  Jesus does not seem to have taught that physically harming people was always wrong.  Toruture, on the other hand, is a special form of harm, under special circumstances.


The main example I gave in this thread was the use of torture in defense of one's family, when someone has information about where your kidnapped child is being held.  It's absolutely no different at all than defending your family from your rampaging murderous neighbor.

----------


## Brett85

> Doing violence against someone who is helpless to defend himself is immoral in all situations.  But hey, if you believe in moral relativism then you should be consistent and be okay with crushing a child's genitals.  I mean if the ends justify the means then the ends justify the means.  Madelyne Albright was right.  The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.


The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children had nothing to do with our national security.  It made us less safe.

----------


## jmdrake

> The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children had nothing to do with our national security.  It made us less safe.


Torture has nothing to do with national security.  It has made us less safe.  Now you can debate otherwise.  And Madeline Albright clearly felt the deaths of those 500,000 children were "worth it."  Who are you to judge?  Do you have all of the intelligence reports she had?  Now I happen to agree with your position, but only because I know that ultimately no good comes from doing evil.

----------


## Brett85

> Torture has nothing to do with national security.  It has made us less safe.  Now you can debate otherwise.  And Madeline Albright clearly felt the deaths of those 500,000 children were "worth it."  Who are you to judge?  Do you have all of the intelligence reports she had?  Now I happen to agree with your position, but only because I know that ultimately no good comes from doing evil.


I still think that you're making a straw man argument, basically equating my position on this with Dick Cheney's position.  It's not.  I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that I oppose the CIA torture program.  I haven't argued that torture generally works and that we should have it as a policy in our country.  My argument is that you can envision scenarios when it's not immoral.  Whether or not torture is effective is debatable, and people can point to studies on both sides.  But I believe that you could come up with a hypothetical situation where torture would be the only option left to try, when the CIA would be up against the clock.  Torture may not work in that situation, but asking nicely certainly isn't going to work.

----------


## jmdrake

> It would not be your fault if the children die, but you would be in a position to be able to prevent it from happening. I would rather attempt to save the children than make some futile effort at attacking the man with the gun (if that were even possible, which is not the case in all situations).


How would you know that if you raped the woman then man wouldn't go ahead and kill the children anyway?  Oh that's right.  *You wouldn't!*  So basically you would do something immoral in the vain hope that some other immoral person would do the semi-moral thing and keep his promise not to do something immoral based on your immoral act?  Sorry but all involved would have better odds if you just went for the gun.  Meantime take some Krav Maga courses if such a scenario really keeps you up at night.




> *Yes*, in some extreme case, torturing an innocent child by crushing his genitals with pliers would be worth it. Problem is, you keep comparing this to actual real-world atrocities and then trying to make a slippery slope argument.


A) I'm not the one that made the analogy.  John Yoo did.  And he did it to justify real-world atrocities.

B) I'm not sure what you're considering the slippery slope.    Most people would say that crushing an innocent child's genitals is about as evil as you can get and anyone who would even consider such a thing is already beyond the pale.  What could somebody possibly "slip" to after that?

C) If we as a nation accept such crap as "sometimes acceptable" than we are no better than Nazi Germany or any other nation.  Seriously, somebody always has some kind of excuse for the evil they do.  Madeline Albright used Saddam supposedly gassing the Kurds (he didn't by the way according to the U.S. Army war college) and other evil Saddam did (he did do a lot of evil) as the excuse for 500,000 dead Iraqi children.  Osama Bin Laden supposedly used the 500,000 dead Iraqi children as the excuse for 9/11.  




> As I said before, it is critical that due diligence is taken to ensure with reasonable certainty that the action you are taking is in fact the least bad out of all available options.


No.  Diligence is taking some options off the table period.  Morality is taking some options off the table period.  The "lesser of two evils" options is why we sent jihadist textbooks to Afghanistan and why we supported Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.  Neocon Charles Krauthammer literally said "We should support Al Qaeda in Syria because they are the lesser of two evils.




The problem with your so called "diligence" is that you are not God.  You can't see the future.  You have no idea if you rape the woman if the guy with the gun isn't going to kill the kids anyway.  You would have had no idea if you sent jihadist textbooks to Afghanistan if that would later give rise to the Taliban.  You would have had no idea that supporting Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria would have given rise to ISIS.  The best you could do, the best *anyone* can do, is look at whatever it is you're thinking about doing and asking yourself "Regardless of the ultimate outcome, is the means that I'm considering using moral."  If it isn't, you shouldn't do it.  Period.  Not from a Christian point of view anyway.  Of course you have given up on Christianity so you don't have that worldview.  But having this conversation helps me better understand those who say that atheists have a hard time with ultimate morality.  From a Christian worldview we believe that God will set things right if we do the moral thing and get a temporary less than optimal outcome.  You don't have that assurance so you have taken the burden of "due diligence" to "predict the outcome" of your immoral act upon yourself.  Sadly, those Christians who give tacit support to torture as long as it's for a "really really good reason" have let go of an aspect of their faith in God.  Would you believe it is wrong to renounce your faith in God in order to save your life and/or the life of your family?  Of course you would not.  But from a Christian point of view that is problematic.  I remember the high school girl at Columbine who had a gun put in her face and was asked "Do you believe in Jesus."  She paused for a second, then said yes.  She was murdered.  From an atheist/agnostic point of view she made the wrong decision and that was just a wasted life.  From a Christian point of view she was a hero.  There were many people who were shaky in their Christian walk, or not even Christian at all, who were inspired by her story to truly follow Christ.




> It would be immoral not to do that due diligence to the fullest extent possible.


You're not God.  It is immoral to think you could even attempt such "diligence."




> That's why in all of our proposed examples you keep trying to work around it to find a better option than rape or torture. That is exactly what you should do. My point is that it would be possible for a situation to exist in which there was no escape route, where all of your possible ways around it would very likely result in an even greater amount of pain and suffering.


My point is that you haven't done your "diligence" as you've discounted the possibility of disarming the man with the gun and you've ignored the possibility that the man with the gun won't keep his promise and kill you all anyway.  There have been many stories like this where one man with a gun gets "forces" people to tie each other up and then he kills them all.  I remember years ago a story of one man with a knife that raped a murdered a whole dorm full of nurses one by one.  Had enough of them decided "Screw this!  I'm going down fighting!" and fought back they probably would have overpowered him.  And let's look at 9/11.  While I don't buy the official story, let's assume for the sake of argument it's 100% accurate.  So some guys with box cutters take over an entire plane?  That was only possible because people gave into fear and decided they loved their own lives too much to try to do anything.  If you have a box cutter, and I have a briefcase, I'm taking you out!  That's what real men do.




> It seems rather obvious to me that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was not the least bad option. It's not even close.


Says you.  If it was so "obvious" then Madeline Albright wouldn't be the beloved hero of the left that she is.  Most democrats aren't evil people.  Same with most republicans.  But they "trust" that their "leaders" know enough to do "due diligence" and make the "right" decision.  As far as you know Madeline Albright had solid information that Saddam was working on a nuclear weapon, that he was determined to give that nuclear weapon to terrorists, and if we lifted the sanctions America would have been at risk for a suitcase nuke.  Far fetched?  Yes.  But so is your belief that some mad man that is trying to force you to rape someone at gunpoint will actually keep his promise.




> That is why TC referred to our examples as "absurd" -- because any situation which might actually meet the criteria to justify rape or torture is SO unlikely to actually occur to the point of absurdity. But the chances are not zero.


The chance is so close to zero that it's not worth considering whether the option is ever "moral."  Not unless you've developed mental powers where you can no if the mad man who wants to make you a rapist is an honest sociopath.

----------


## jmdrake

> I still think that you're making a straw man argument, basically equating my position on this with Dick Cheney's position.  It's not.  I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that I oppose the CIA torture program.  I haven't argued that torture generally works and that we should have it as a policy in our country.  My argument is that you can envision scenarios when it's not immoral.  Whether or not torture is effective is debatable, and people can point to studies on both sides.  But I believe that you could come up with a hypothetical situation where torture would be the only option left to try, when the CIA would be up against the clock.  Torture may not work in that situation, but asking nicely certainly isn't going to work.


I'm not at all making a straw man or equating your position with Dick Cheney's.  What I'm saying is that once you step away from the moral position that torture is never acceptable then there's no way to cabin that decision to the fanciful *yes fanciful* ticking time bomb scenario.  You just aren't willing to see the truth on this matter.  It's like the retarded "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" argument.  That argument was never about fires in theaters.  It was about repressing political speech.  (I've actually read the case where that came from.)  Similarly this isn't about some "ticking time bomb."  Intelligence doesn't work that way except in the movies and on TV.  But even if it did, how would one ever know all of the torture was being done to stop "ticking time bombs?"

Also, I'm not even sure why you are still trying to have this argument as you have admitted that you wouldn't even deny Christ to save millions of people.  Do you think Christ would rather you torture someone than deny Him?  I don't.  I will say this unequivocally.  I would never torture anyone or their child or condone their torture for any reason.  But if I could save millions of lives by renouncing Christianity, I'd at least think about that.  I believe that's the choice Jesus would *want* me to make.  It saddens me to no end that Christians aren't willing to stand up against abject evil, but will take a stand on stupid stuff like school prayer.  I bet there are Christians who would burn the clothes on their back to stay warm rather than burn their Bibles, yet think they can morally rationalize torture.

----------


## jmdrake

> Good question. You would not be the one actually performing the evil act. This question is somewhat linked the the idea of, is it wrong to fail to perform a heroic act? If you could save a dozen children's lives, would it be wrong not to do it? What if you had to steal a hundred dollars in order to do it, would it be wrong not to do it? What if there was a chance you could put an unrelated innocent person in danger? Similar issue


The person you are willing to torture is someone who is impervious to pain.  He tells you "Just renounce Jesus and your family will live."  Do you do it?  To save a dozen lives do you do it?  And if you do it, then was your decision moral?  Or did Peter really not need to repent after denying Jesus?  Here is the deal.  You have set your moral line at a different place.  That doesn't make you right.  It doesn't necessarily make you wrong either, but it doesn't make you right.  Just because you can imagine a circumstance where you would use torture doesn't make torture moral.  There are a lot of immoral things that I might do.  Hell, there are a lot of immoral things that I *still* do.  But I recognize them for what they are.

----------


## jmdrake

> Good question. You would not be the one actually performing the evil act. This question is somewhat linked the the idea of, is it wrong to fail to perform a heroic act? If you could save a dozen children's lives, would it be wrong not to do it? What if you had to steal a hundred dollars in order to do it, would it be wrong not to do it? What if there was a chance you could put an unrelated innocent person in danger? Similar issue


Going along with the twisted scheme of a madman doesn't qualify as a "heroic act."  That said, do you believe it is immoral for the government not to always give into the demands of terrorists whenever there are hostages?  Say if ISIS takes 50 U.S. citizens hostage and only demands the execution of somebody who hasn't done anything in order for those hostages to be freed.  Does your "diligence" say make the deal?

----------


## erowe1

> It was an "either/or" question.  Sorry it was unclear.


But for Christians, faith in God involves both fear and love of him. It isn't an either/or.

----------


## jmdrake

> Come on drake.  Thou shalt not covet doesn't mean I can't want that bike of yours just a little bit...  Thou shalt not commit adultery doesn't mean I can't give her just a little smooch or touch them.


LOL.  You know I'm glad you brought up those examples.  We all covet at some point.  (I know I still do anyway).  And Jesus said you don't even have to smooch to commit adultery.  You can "lust in your heart."  Well...I hate to admit that I did that today.    Am I going to beat myself up over it for the next 24 hours?  Nope.  Am I going to turn around and say "Well it's impossible for me never to do that so then my doing that is not immoral."  Again, nope.  Once we go beyond saying "I can understand why someone might do X under certain circumstances" to "X is therefor moral...at least under those circumstances" we cheapen what Jesus was trying to teach us.

----------


## otherone

> But for Christians, faith in God involves both fear and love of him. It isn't an either/or.



The question was for FF.
He questions the rationale of those Christians who support torture. My question to him is what he believes puts their torture-supporting butts in the pews every week...love or fear.

----------


## Crashland

> How would you know that if you raped the woman then man wouldn't go ahead and kill the children anyway?  Oh that's right.  *You wouldn't!*  So basically you would do something immoral in the vain hope that some other immoral person would do the semi-moral thing and keep his promise not to do something immoral based on your immoral act?  Sorry but all involved would have better odds if you just went for the gun.  Meantime take some Krav Maga courses if such a scenario really keeps you up at night.


You wouldn't be able to go for the gun if you are confined in a room with no one but you and the woman in it, with the captor(s) communicating with you from the outside. And, what you are saying about the man breaking his promise, that of course would be part of the consideration. It would not be moral to do it unless you have reasonable confidence that your choice will produce the least harmful outcome. Suppose there were others before you, and you witnessed multiple times the guy keep his promise and you saw them escape, and you also witnessed others before you who chose not to rape the woman and the group of children were killed. That would probably be enough to indicate that the same thing will happen when it is your turn. On top of that, if you are released then you can take it upon yourself to get help from the outside and put a stop to the messed up stuff going on in there.





> A) I'm not the one that made the analogy.  John Yoo did.  And he did it to justify real-world atrocities.
> 
> B) I'm not sure what you're considering the slippery slope.    Most people would say that crushing an innocent child's genitals is about as evil as you can get and anyone who would even consider such a thing is already beyond the pale.  What could somebody possibly "slip" to after that?
> 
> C) If we as a nation accept such crap as "sometimes acceptable" than we are no better than Nazi Germany or any other nation.  Seriously, somebody always has some kind of excuse for the evil they do.  Madeline Albright used Saddam supposedly gassing the Kurds (he didn't by the way according to the U.S. Army war college) and other evil Saddam did (he did do a lot of evil) as the excuse for 500,000 dead Iraqi children.  Osama Bin Laden supposedly used the 500,000 dead Iraqi children as the excuse for 9/11.  
> 
> No.  Diligence is taking some options off the table period.  Morality is taking some options off the table period.  The "lesser of two evils" options is why we sent jihadist textbooks to Afghanistan and why we supported Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.  Neocon Charles Krauthammer literally said "We should support Al Qaeda in Syria because they are the lesser of two evils.


The fact that the same framework has been used to justify real-world  atrocities does not mean that it is flawed. The immorality of it lies in  their flawed evaluation of the situation, not the idea that the  situation should be evaluated as opposed to dismissed outright. I mean that you are using a slippery slope argument to get from my  position of "torture can be justified in absurd situations X, Y, and Z",  to, "the same reasoning has been used to justify torture in real-world  situations A, B, and C".

Taking some options off the table period is a short-cut. Would humanity be better off if we always used that shortcut? Yes, almost certainly. The problem we have with performing unjustified torture is very bad, and the problem we have with failing to perform justified torture is non-existent as far as I know. But I won't believe something just because it is convenient to think of it in black-and-white terms. The reality I see is that there is no reason to exempt any action from situational ethics.




> My point is that you haven't done your "diligence" as you've  discounted the possibility of disarming the man with the gun and you've  ignored the possibility that the man with the gun won't keep his promise  and kill you all anyway.  There have been many stories like this where  one man with a gun gets "forces" people to tie each other up and then he  kills them all.  I remember years ago a story of one man with a knife  that raped a murdered a whole dorm full of nurses one by one.  Had  enough of them decided "Screw this!  I'm going down fighting!" and  fought back they probably would have overpowered him.  And let's look at  9/11.  While I don't buy the official story, let's assume for the sake  of argument it's 100% accurate.  So some guys with box cutters take over  an entire plane?  That was only possible because people gave into fear  and decided they loved their own lives too much to try to do anything.   If you have a box cutter, and I have a briefcase, I'm taking you out!   That's what real men do.
> 
> Says you.  If it was so "obvious" then Madeline Albright wouldn't be the  beloved hero of the left that she is.  Most democrats aren't evil  people.  Same with most republicans.  But they "trust" that their  "leaders" know enough to do "due diligence" and make the "right"  decision.  As far as you know Madeline Albright had solid information  that Saddam was working on a nuclear weapon, that he was determined to  give that nuclear weapon to terrorists, and if we lifted the sanctions  America would have been at risk for a suitcase nuke.  Far fetched?  Yes.   But so is your belief that some mad man that is trying to force you to  rape someone at gunpoint will actually keep his promise.
> 
> The  chance is so close to zero that it's not worth considering whether the  option is ever "moral."  Not unless you've developed mental powers where  you can no if the mad man who wants to make you a rapist is an honest  sociopath.


Already addressed this above about the man keeping his promise, but in general yes I agree, you are  showing good examples of "diligence". All other options would have to be  exhausted or impossible.





> You're not God.  It is immoral to think you could even attempt such "diligence."


This  is not a problem for a non-believer, since we can only do the best we  can with the limited information and faculties we do have. This is not  the same as pretending to be God; it's just doing your best which I  don't see as immoral. In a Christian framework yes this might be  problematic if you are supposed to trust God in such a situation.




> The problem with your so called "diligence" is that you are not God.  You can't see the future.  You have no idea if you rape the woman if the guy with the gun isn't going to kill the kids anyway.  You would have had no idea if you sent jihadist textbooks to Afghanistan if that would later give rise to the Taliban.  You would have had no idea that supporting Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria would have given rise to ISIS.  The best you could do, the best *anyone* can do, is look at whatever it is you're thinking about doing and asking yourself "Regardless of the ultimate outcome, is the means that I'm considering using moral."  If it isn't, you shouldn't do it.  Period.  Not from a Christian point of view anyway.  Of course you have given up on Christianity so you don't have that worldview.  But having this conversation helps me better understand those who say that atheists have a hard time with ultimate morality.  From a Christian worldview we believe that God will set things right if we do the moral thing and get a temporary less than optimal outcome.  You don't have that assurance so you have taken the burden of "due diligence" to "predict the outcome" of your immoral act upon yourself.  Sadly, those Christians who give tacit support to torture as long as it's for a "really really good reason" have let go of an aspect of their faith in God.  Would you believe it is wrong to renounce your faith in God in order to save your life and/or the life of your family?  Of course you would not.  But from a Christian point of view that is problematic.  I remember the high school girl at Columbine who had a gun put in her face and was asked "Do you believe in Jesus."  She paused for a second, then said yes.  She was murdered.  From an atheist/agnostic point of view she made the wrong decision and that was just a wasted life.  From a Christian point of view she was a hero.  There were many people who were shaky in their Christian walk, or not even Christian at all, who were inspired by her story to truly follow Christ.


Yes, I actually completely agree with this assessment. But if a Christian woman had the gun pointed to her head and decided to deny  Jesus out of fear for her life, would that make her not a "true  Christian"? I could never bring myself to say that about her. Christians sin all the time -- there is no such thing as a Christian or anyone who doesn't do bad things. Getting back to the OP, if a professing Christian is not a "true Christian" because they don't always trust God, then no one is a true Christian. That's why I voted yes in the poll.

----------


## presence

> The main example I gave in this thread was the use of torture in defense of one's family, when someone has information about where your kidnapped child is being held.  It's absolutely no different at all than defending your family from your rampaging murderous neighbor.


It certainly is different: A "rampaging murderous neighbor" is not _CAPTIVE_*.

*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It would not be your fault if the children die, but you would be in a position to be able to prevent it from happening. I would rather attempt to save the children than make some futile effort at attacking the man with the gun (if that were even possible, which is not the case in all situations).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, in some extreme case, torturing an innocent child by crushing his genitals with pliers would be worth it.* Problem is, you keep comparing this to actual real-world atrocities and then trying to make a slippery slope argument. As I said before, it is critical that due diligence is taken to ensure with reasonable certainty that the action you are taking is in fact the least bad out of all available options. It would be immoral not to do that due diligence to the fullest extent possible. That's why in all of our proposed examples you keep trying to work around it to find a better option than rape or torture. That is exactly what you should do. My point is that it would be possible for a situation to exist in which there was no escape route, where all of your possible ways around it would very likely result in an even greater amount of pain and suffering. It seems rather obvious to me that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was not the least bad option. It's not even close. That is why TC referred to our examples as "absurd" -- because any situation which might actually meet the criteria to justify rape or torture is SO unlikely to actually occur to the point of absurdity. But the chances are not zero.


The bold, in my mind, pretty much makes you an awful person in my mind.'

Now, you are "of the world" so I don't really hold it against you, but were a Christian to assert something like this, I would pretty much immediately conclude that they are, in fact, lost.  If they claimed to have been Christians for any significant amount of time, I wouldn't even think twice about it.

There is nothing Christian in consequentialist ethics.  *Nothing*  And part of why I hate American Christianity so much is that its so prevalent.  Admittedly, its less prevalent both among Reformed Christians and orthodox Catholics than it is among more "cultural" churches, but its still prevalent pretty much everywhere.



> Good question. You would not be the one actually performing the evil act. This question is somewhat linked the the idea of, is it wrong to fail to perform a heroic act? If you could save a dozen children's lives, would it be wrong not to do it? What if you had to steal a hundred dollars in order to do it, would it be wrong not to do it? What if there was a chance you could put an unrelated innocent person in danger? Similar issue


I'd even go so far as to say that it would be immoral to steal a hundred dollars to save a hundred lives.  And really, this seems obvious to me if we're actually thinking about it logically and Biblically.  The Bible is very clear about doing evil that good may come.




> Torture has nothing to do with national security.  It has made us less safe.  Now you can debate otherwise.  And Madeline Albright clearly felt the deaths of those 500,000 children were "worth it."  Who are you to judge?  Do you have all of the intelligence reports she had?  Now I happen to agree with your position, but only because I know that ultimately no good comes from doing evil.


This is how so many people argue with me, its not even funny.  "You just don't have all the information to make that judgment call" is how it always goes.  Well, I have my Bible, and frankly, that's enough in a lot of these cases...



> I still think that you're making a straw man argument, basically equating my position on this with Dick Cheney's position.  It's not.  I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that I oppose the CIA torture program.  I haven't argued that torture generally works and that we should have it as a policy in our country.  My argument is that you can envision scenarios when it's not immoral.  Whether or not torture is effective is debatable, and people can point to studies on both sides.  But I believe that you could come up with a hypothetical situation where torture would be the only option left to try, when the CIA would be up against the clock.  Torture may not work in that situation, but asking nicely certainly isn't going to work.


Would you ever trust the CIA with that power?

Who would Jesus torture?




> I'm not at all making a straw man or equating your position with Dick Cheney's.  What I'm saying is that once you step away from the moral position that torture is never acceptable then there's no way to cabin that decision to the fanciful *yes fanciful* ticking time bomb scenario.  You just aren't willing to see the truth on this matter.  It's like the retarded "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" argument.  That argument was never about fires in theaters.  It was about repressing political speech.  (I've actually read the case where that came from.)


I wrote a research paper in school about that case.  You're right.  It wasn't about fires in theaters.  This is really analogus as well.




> Also, I'm not even sure why you are still trying to have this argument as you have admitted that you wouldn't even deny Christ to save millions of people.  Do you think Christ would rather you torture someone than deny Him?  I don't.  I will say this unequivocally.  I would never torture anyone or their child or condone their torture for any reason.  But if I could save millions of lives by renouncing Christianity, I'd at least think about that.  I believe that's the choice Jesus would *want* me to make.  It saddens me to no end that Christians aren't willing to stand up against abject evil, but will take a stand on stupid stuff like school prayer.  I bet there are Christians who would burn the clothes on their back to stay warm rather than burn their Bibles, yet think they can morally rationalize torture.


Yeah, that's definitely interesting.  That said, God clearly takes denying him really seriously to.  I would say that it would also be wrong for you to deny Christ to save lives.  Again, pragmatism isn't Christian.  We should be as consistent as we possibly can here.

Now, one thing I will note, my argument for capital punishment was never that it was less bad than something else, but that I don't think it is immoral.  I would NEVER justify that, or anything else, on a "lesser of evils" argument.  I used to justify taxation using such an argument, and then I rejected it because I realized pragmatism wasn't Christian.  If I were ever to be convinced that taxation was OK again, I would have to be convinced that taxation is BIBLICALLY JUSTIFIED, not merely a "lesser evil" or some such.  We should never, ever do evil so that good may come, no matter how small the matter is.

(I'm not sure if burning a physical copy of the Bible in order to stay warm would actually be a sin, though I'd honestly feel extremely uncomfortable doing it, you could make an argument that doing something like that isn't inherently immoral.)  




> The question was for FF.
> He questions the rationale of those Christians who support torture. My question to him is what he believes puts their torture-supporting butts in the pews every week...love or fear.


Culture...

----------


## jmdrake

> You wouldn't be able to go for the gun if you are confined in a room with no one but you and the woman in it, with the captor(s) communicating with you from the outside. And, what you are saying about the man breaking his promise, that of course would be part of the consideration. It would not be moral to do it unless you have reasonable confidence that your choice will produce the least harmful outcome. Suppose there were others before you, and you witnessed multiple times the guy keep his promise and you saw them escape, and you also witnessed others before you who chose not to rape the woman and the group of children were killed. That would probably be enough to indicate that the same thing will happen when it is your turn. On top of that, if you are released then you can take it upon yourself to get help from the outside and put a stop to the messed up stuff going on in there.


Even then your calculation is flawed.  Apparently this man gets his jollies off of doing this.  By going along with his game you give him the pleasure he craves to do it again.  Better to not do that.





> The fact that the same framework has been used to justify real-world  atrocities does not mean that it is flawed. The immorality of it lies in  their flawed evaluation of the situation, not the idea that the  situation should be evaluated as opposed to dismissed outright. I mean that you are using a slippery slope argument to get from my  position of "torture can be justified in absurd situations X, Y, and Z",  to, "the same reasoning has been used to justify torture in real-world  situations A, B, and C".


According to *you* their evaluation is wrong.  How do you know Albright's decisions which led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children didn't save 1 million lives of children elsewhere?  That's right.  *You don't!*  The flaw in *your* calculus is that you have put yourself in the place of God where you can somehow "calculate" when it's okay to do evil or not.  Since you aren't omnipotent that calculation will *always* be flawed.  You can never know if you were right, even in your hypothetical, and you can never no if, according to your calculus, the Madelyn Albrights or even the Adolf Hitlers were wrong.  They *appear* wrong to you, but you don't have perfect information.




> Taking some options off the table period is a short-cut. Would humanity be better off if we always used that shortcut? Yes, almost certainly. The problem we have with performing unjustified torture is very bad, and the problem we have with failing to perform justified torture is non-existent as far as I know. But I won't believe something just because it is convenient to think of it in black-and-white terms. The reality I see is that there is no reason to exempt any action from situational ethics.


According to *you* there is no reason.  But you aren't a Christian.  You are willing to put yourself in place of God, even hypothetically, and assume you can somehow know all of the consequences of an immoral act when you can't.  You believe you can evaluate the real world applications of situational ethics and determine that other people got it wrong when the truth is you can't really do that either.




> Already addressed this above about the man keeping his promise, but in general yes I agree, you are  showing good examples of "diligence". All other options would have to be  exhausted or impossible.


Only God would really know if all other options are exhausted or impossible.  The best you can do as a human is guess.




> This  is not a problem for a non-believer, since we can only do the best we  can with the limited information and faculties we do have. This is not  the same as pretending to be God; it's just doing your best which I  don't see as immoral. In a Christian framework yes this might be  problematic if you are supposed to trust God in such a situation.


Except you are judging the real world actions that you merely *think* are immoral based on your calculus when, given the way you've described yourself, you might very well have gone along with causing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.  The calculus could have come out that way.  That you can't see this shows the ultimate flaw in your reasoning.





> Yes, I actually completely agree with this assessment. But if a Christian woman had the gun pointed to her head and decided to deny  Jesus out of fear for her life, would that make her not a "true  Christian"? I could never bring myself to say that about her. Christians sin all the time -- there is no such thing as a Christian or anyone who doesn't do bad things. Getting back to the OP, if a professing Christian is not a "true Christian" because they don't always trust God, then no one is a true Christian. That's why I voted yes in the poll.


Do you understand the difference between falling into sin and supporting sin.  It's one thing for someone to make a mistake like David and commit adultery and then murder to cover it up.  It's another thing for someone to support that as a moral choice.  While I can't say for certain that I would be as strong in my faith as the young woman who publicly confessed Jesus at Columbine and was killed for it, I can say for certain that someone with a gun to my head couldn't make me torture some innocent kid.  I'd rather die.  Nor would I torture an innocent kid to save my own or even to save 100 other innocent kids.  A large number of the gears in the Nazi machine were people went along with it and did evil things to avoid bringing down the wrath of a madman on themselves and their families.  But if enough people had just said "Hell no" the machine would have ground to a halt.

----------


## Crashland

> Even then your calculation is flawed.  Apparently this man gets his jollies off of doing this.  By going along with his game you give him the pleasure he craves to do it again.  Better to not do that.


I would gladly give him the pleasure to crave to do it again, if it meant I had the chance to escape and come back with others to put an end to it.





> According to *you* their evaluation is wrong.  How do you know Albright's decisions which led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children didn't save 1 million lives of children elsewhere?  That's right.  *You don't!*  The flaw in *your* calculus is that you have put yourself in the place of God where you can somehow "calculate" when it's okay to do evil or not.  Since you aren't omnipotent that calculation will *always* be flawed.  You can never know if you were right, even in your hypothetical, and you can never no if, according to your calculus, the Madelyn Albrights or even the Adolf Hitlers were wrong.  They *appear* wrong to you, but you don't have perfect information.
> 
> According to *you* there is no reason.  But you aren't a Christian.  You are willing to put yourself in place of God, even hypothetically, and assume you can somehow know all of the consequences of an immoral act when you can't.  You believe you can evaluate the real world applications of situational ethics and determine that other people got it wrong when the truth is you can't really do that either.
> 
> Only God would really know if all other options are exhausted or impossible.  The best you can do as a human is guess.
> 
> Except you are judging the real world actions that you merely *think*  are immoral based on your calculus when, given the way you've described  yourself, you might very well have gone along with causing the deaths  of 500,000 Iraqi children.  The calculus could have come out that way.   That you can't see this shows the ultimate flaw in your reasoning.


Part of reality in my view is that nothing is perfect. Just because the calculus is  not perfect does not mean it is inadequate. We base decisions on our own  imperfect calculations all the time in every aspect of our lives,  and that applies to Christians as well as non-Christians.




> Do you understand the difference between falling into sin and supporting sin.  It's one thing for someone to make a mistake like David and commit adultery and then murder to cover it up.  It's another thing for someone to support that as a moral choice.  While I can't say for certain that I would be as strong in my faith as the young woman who publicly confessed Jesus at Columbine and was killed for it, I can say for certain that someone with a gun to my head couldn't make me torture some innocent kid.  I'd rather die.  Nor would I torture an innocent kid to save my own or even to save 100 other innocent kids.  A large number of the gears in the Nazi machine were people went along with it and did evil things to avoid bringing down the wrath of a madman on themselves and their families.  But if enough people had just said "Hell no" the machine would have ground to a halt.


Propagating a theology where people see morality in black-and-white terms where any sin is always wrong, would probably help to avoid atrocities, I get that. That doesn't mean it is an accurate depiction of reality.

----------


## Crashland

> The bold, in my mind, pretty much makes you an awful person in my mind.'
> 
> Now, you are "of the world" so I don't really hold it against you, but were a Christian to assert something like this, I would pretty much immediately conclude that they are, in fact, lost.  If they claimed to have been Christians for any significant amount of time, I wouldn't even think twice about it.
> 
> There is nothing Christian in consequentialist ethics.  *Nothing*  And part of why I hate American Christianity so much is that its so prevalent.  Admittedly, its less prevalent both among Reformed Christians and orthodox Catholics than it is among more "cultural" churches, but its still prevalent pretty much everywhere.


Well I'm glad you don't hold it against me. And yes, my position on this is not the same as it was when I was a believer.





> I'd even go so far as to say that it would be immoral to steal a hundred dollars to save a hundred lives.  And really, this seems obvious to me if we're actually thinking about it logically and Biblically.  The Bible is very clear about doing evil that good may come.


Do you really reject situational, or consequentialist ethics all the time? Take something on the other side of the equation. Giving someone a gift of $100. In most situations this would be a moral act. But what if you're giving it to Dick Cheney (picking him because on these boards he is worse than satan), or someone else who is likely to use it for evil? You don't know for certain what the person is going to use it for. But if by your best judgment, if you think it will be used to do something evil, I would argue that giving that person $100 is immoral. The difference is entirely situational and is based on your own calculation. Do you disagree? How about lying (bearing false witness)? In most cases, lying is immoral. However would you lie in order to save someone's life?





> This is how so many people argue with me, its not even funny.  "You just don't have all the information to make that judgment call" is how it always goes.  Well, I have my Bible, and frankly, that's enough in a lot of these cases...


I view the Bible, or other religious texts, sort of as a moral cheat sheet. It's much simpler, easier, and you are less likely to make errors if you can reference something in your book that tells you whether an act is right or wrong. And it pretty much works, because especially for the more severe sins, all people are very likely to go their entire lives without ever facing one of those absurd situations where it might warrant questioning the rulebook.

----------


## otherone

> Do you really reject situational, or consequentialist ethics all the time? Take something on the other side of the equation. Giving someone a gift of $100. In most situations this would be a moral act. But what if you're giving it to Dick Cheney (picking him because on these boards he is worse than satan), or someone else who is likely to use it for evil? You don't know for certain what the person is going to use it for. But if by your best judgment, if you think it will be used to do something evil, I would argue that giving that person $100 is immoral. The difference is entirely situational and is based on your own calculation. Do you disagree? How about lying (bearing false witness)? In most cases, lying is immoral. However would you lie in order to save someone's life?


You have difficulty enough holding yourself accountable, yet somehow we can be morally responsible for our neighbor's actions?

----------


## Brett85

@FreedomFanatic-Who would Jesus use any kind of violence against?  If the standard is what would Jesus do, or what did Jesus do when he was here on earth, then I still think that in order to be consistent then you should preach a theology of pacifism and say that Jesus considers all violence to be immoral.  After all, "turn the other cheek, love your enemies," right?

----------


## pcosmar

> @FreedomFanatic-Who would Jesus use any kind of violence against?  If the standard is what would Jesus do, or what did Jesus do when he was here on earth, then I still think that in order to be consistent then you should preach a theology of pacifism and say that Jesus considers all violence to be immoral.  After all, "turn the other cheek, love your enemies," right?


There is only one example of violence recorded. The Cleansing of the Temple.
And there is the prophecy of Violence to come,,  at His return.

Nothing about advocating the abuse of captives.



> I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, To open blind eyes, *To bring out prisoners from the dungeon And those who dwell in darkness from the prison.* "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.





> The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, *to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners*,


I am not sure you know the same Lord.

----------


## otherone

> There is only one example of violence recorded. The Cleansing of the Temple.
> And there is the prophecy of Violence to come,,  at His return.
> 
> Nothing about advocating the abuse of captives.
> 
> I am not sure you know the same Lord.




_"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10_

...not seeing anything about enhanced interrogators.

----------


## Todd

I just watched Dick Cheney on Sunday morning Nooze.   Sounded a whole lot like everyone in this thread arguing for torture.  

Cept he used the term "9-11" about a dozen times.

Cheney must be one of those "flawed" Christians everyone keeps talking about.

----------


## Crashland

> You have difficulty enough holding yourself accountable, yet somehow we can be morally responsible for our neighbor's actions?


No, you are not responsible for your neighbor's actions. You are only responsible for your own. And if your own actions include enabling or giving power to someone who is very likely to use that power for evil, then that is irresponsible and unethical. Would you give money to Dick Cheney?

----------


## Crashland

> There is only one example of violence recorded. The Cleansing of the Temple.
> And there is the prophecy of Violence to come,,  at His return.


There wasn't any physical violence at the cleansing of the temple though was there? Only perhaps destruction of property. (Which, btw, would be immoral if anyone else were to do this in an ordinary context but Jesus gets an exemption? Maybe he was using situational ethics.)

----------


## otherone

> No, you are not responsible for your neighbor's actions. You are only responsible for your own. And if your own actions include enabling or giving power to someone who is very likely to use that power for evil, then that is irresponsible and unethical. Would you give money to Dick Cheney?


You are making the claim that your act is moral or immoral based on what your neighbor does.

----------


## Crashland

> You are making the claim that your act is moral or immoral based on what your neighbor does.


So I guess it doesn't matter if I give a gun to my brother who I know and trust, or to a Syrian rebel. If one of them uses it for something bad, well, I'm not the one who pulled the trigger. Both actions are equally ethical.

----------


## otherone

> So I guess it doesn't matter if I give a gun to my brother who I know and trust, or to a Syrian rebel. If one of them uses it for something bad, well, I'm not the one who pulled the trigger. Both actions are equally ethical.


Is a gun manufacturer moral or immoral?

----------


## pcosmar

> There wasn't any physical violence at the cleansing of the temple though was there? Only perhaps destruction of property. (Which, btw, would be immoral if anyone else were to do this in an ordinary context but Jesus gets an exemption? Maybe he was using situational ethics.)


PROPERTY RIGHTS

/next

----------


## otherone

> PROPERTY RIGHTS
> 
> /next

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well I'm glad you don't hold it against me. And yes, my position on this is not the same as it was when I was a believer.


I don't really expect non-Christians to reject situational ethics.  Honestly, its by God's grace that they have ethical systems at all.  There's no reason for them to do so.

I'm glad you aren't claiming the God I believe in while defending situationalist ethics (Just as a note, I don't really think Traditional Conservative is defending situational ethics, but most torture supporters do).  When I see people who DO claim my God defending situational ethics, I have a problem with that.





> Do you really reject situational, or consequentialist ethics all the time?


No, only when it comes to moral issues.  This is an important point that I should clarify.  We all act utilitarian at times, and rightfully so.  When you're deciding what to eat for lunch, its going to be a purely pragmatic decision based on price, taste, prep time... whatever other factors.

Pragmatism is fine unless it contradicts moral principle.  




> Take something on the other side of the equation. Giving someone a gift of $100. In most situations this would be a moral act. But what if you're giving it to Dick Cheney (picking him because on these boards he is worse than satan), or someone else who is likely to use it for evil? You don't know for certain what the person is going to use it for. But if by your best judgment, if you think it will be used to do something evil, I would argue that giving that person $100 is immoral. The difference is entirely situational and is based on your own calculation. Do you disagree?


No, because although "giving" in general is a moral command according to the Bible, there's no command to give to certain specific people (you aren't going to give to everyone.)  There are certain cases where the Bible allows for situational calculations anyway (self-defense and so forth.)  But there are certain acts that are ALWAYS wrong, no matter why or when you do them.  TC seems to think that torture isn't one of those.  You seem to think those don't exist.




> How about lying (bearing false witness)? In most cases, lying is immoral. However would you lie in order to save someone's life?


This is a big Biblical debate based on interpretation of certain passages that seem at first glance to justify lying.  My answer is yes (That it is always wrong to lie.)  However, it is possible to read the Bible honestly and come to an answer of "no" without being a pragmatist.



> I view the Bible, or other religious texts, sort of as a moral cheat sheet. It's much simpler, easier, and you are less likely to make errors if you can reference something in your book that tells you whether an act is right or wrong. And it pretty much works, because especially for the more severe sins, all people are very likely to go their entire lives without ever facing one of those absurd situations where it might warrant questioning the rulebook.



That's great for a non-Christian.  But for Christians, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is extraordinarily clear on this issue.



> @FreedomFanatic-Who would Jesus use any kind of violence against?  If the standard is what would Jesus do, or what did Jesus do when he was here on earth, then I still think that in order to be consistent then you should preach a theology of pacifism and say that Jesus considers all violence to be immoral.  After all, "turn the other cheek, love your enemies," right?


I'm still open to figuring this out.  But at least when it comes to other types of violence (war, the death penalty, and self-defense and so forth) there's seemingly conflicting info in the Old Testament and the New Testament that you have to exegete and interpret somehow.  I currently have a way of doing so that I think works, but I'm open to revising it.  I think its possible to make principled arguments either for or against principled pacifism in the Bible, but I currently see the arguments against as being stronger.

None of this exists with torture though.  With some of these other types of violence there are some parts of the BIble that seem at first glance to endorse and other passages that don't, but with torture there's not a single passage that seems to suggest that torture would be OK, and many that wouldn't (heck, the Bible even commands that you don't torture ANIMALS.  I would think that even a condemned, guilty man would have more rights than an animal.  Though, again, this is based on a Biblical value system that values man as made in God's image.)

I happen to think (Though I respect people that disagree with me) that purely defensive wars (where collateral damage is avoided to the maximum extent possible), the death penalty (for murder, rape, and kidnapping), and self-defense continue to be permitted by Biblical teaching.  I don't see how anyone could make that argument for torture.
(NOTE: In saying that the death penalty is justified on principle, I'm not saying I trust our government to carry it out.)

----------


## presence

> Is a gun manufacturer moral or immoral?


amoral

----------


## Crashland

> Is a gun manufacturer moral or immoral?





> amoral


Yes, the gun manufacturer is amoral, as long as they charge everyone for their weapons and do not just give them away to certain groups and not others. If the gun manufacturer were to be deciding that they will only sell or give to groups X, Y, and Z but not groups A, B, or C then that decision would have moral implications.

----------


## jmdrake

> I just watched Dick Cheney on Sunday morning Nooze.   Sounded a whole lot like everyone in this thread arguing for torture.  
> 
> Cept he used the term "9-11" about a dozen times.
> 
> Cheney must be one of those "flawed" Christians everyone keeps talking about.





> o you really reject situational, or consequentialist ethics all the time? Take something on the other side of the equation. Giving someone a gift of $100. In most situations this would be a moral act. But what if you're giving it to Dick Cheney (picking him because on these boards he is worse than satan), or someone else who is likely to use it for evil? You don't know for certain what the person is going to use it for. But if by your best judgment, if you think it will be used to do something evil, I would argue that giving that person $100 is immoral. The difference is entirely situational and is based on your own calculation. Do you disagree? How about lying (bearing false witness)? In most cases, lying is immoral. However would you lie in order to save someone's life?


You know it's interesting that you mention Dick Cheney.  As Todd has pointed out, he's basically using the same argument.  Torture is okay in certain circumstances no matter how bad the torture is, and since 9/11 those circumstances happen all the time.  Really, I know you and Traditional Conservative want to distance yourself from Dick Cheney, but I don't see how you can in reality.  Michael Scheuer has taken the position that our foreign policy is wrong, but he's perfectly fine with the U.S. torture policy.  He actually helped design the rendition part of it.

But here's something I think you've missed.  I don't think Dick Cheney is the worst of the worst.  I reserve that honor for John Yoo.  John Yoo is the one that wrote the memo saying that torturing someone by crushing his child's genitals in front of him was permissible.  I haven't heard Dick Cheney say anything that extreme.  Could I possibly give you $100.00?  I suppose.  I guess I could give $100.00 to Cheney as well if I thought he needed it or if we were actually friends.  There's nothing immoral about that.

Here's the deal.  If we're going to be against torture as a policy then we either attack it from a moral position (it's never worth doing) or attack the "official story" of how good it's been.  If you believe that torture is sometimes okay, and if you believe that torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, then the torture policy is fine.  Seriously.  Screw the stupid "ticking time bomb" scenario.  You rarely have intelligence good enough like in those movies where the good guide knows there is a bomb but just doesn't know where it is or knows where it is but just doesn't know how to disarm it.  But the idea that there *might* be a terrorist out there who *might* be able to set of a bomb that kills a lot of Americans at some point is a real possibility.  Of course, Osama Bin Laden was already dead before the raid.  I'm certain of that.  Why else did they not release any video, photographic or DNA evidence for proof of death?  Now if you're going to run with that argument than maybe I'll believe you really are against torture as a policy.  But just saying "I don't believe the real world reasons for torture were worth it" without any access to the intelligence behind those real world reasons are meaningless.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know it's interesting that you mention Dick Cheney.  As Todd has pointed out, he's basically using the same argument.  Torture is okay in certain circumstances no matter how bad the torture is, and since 9/11 those circumstances happen all the time.  Really, I know you and Traditional Conservative want to distance yourself from Dick Cheney, but I don't see how you can in reality.  Michael Scheuer has taken the position that our foreign policy is wrong, but he's perfectly fine with the U.S. torture policy.  He actually helped design the rendition part of it.
> 
> But here's something I think you've missed.  I don't think Dick Cheney is the worst of the worst.  I reserve that honor for John Yoo.  John Yoo is the one that wrote the memo saying that torturing someone by crushing his child's genitals in front of him was permissible.  I haven't heard Dick Cheney say anything that extreme.  Could I possibly give you $100.00?  I suppose.  I guess I could give $100.00 to Cheney as well if I thought he needed it or if we were actually friends.  There's nothing immoral about that.
> 
> Here's the deal.  If we're going to be against torture as a policy then we either attack it from a moral position (it's never worth doing) or attack the "official story" of how good it's been.  If you believe that torture is sometimes okay, and if you believe that torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, then the torture policy is fine.  Seriously.  Screw the stupid "ticking time bomb" scenario.  You rarely have intelligence good enough like in those movies where the good guide knows there is a bomb but just doesn't know where it is or knows where it is but just doesn't know how to disarm it.  But the idea that there *might* be a terrorist out there who *might* be able to set of a bomb that kills a lot of Americans at some point is a real possibility.  Of course, Osama Bin Laden was already dead before the raid.  I'm certain of that.  Why else did they not release any video, photographic or DNA evidence for proof of death?  Now if you're going to run with that argument than maybe I'll believe you really are against torture as a policy.  But just saying "I don't believe the real world reasons for torture were worth it" without any access to the intelligence behind those real world reasons are meaningless.


TC has clearly said he doesn't support legalize torture and that he'd accept the consequences for his actions if he were to ever engage in torture.  While that may not be ENOUGH of a difference from Cheney's positions for our liking, its still pretty clearly different. I'd say that at the least from a policy standpoint, if not a moral one, it is different.  I also doubt TC would ever knowingly torture an INNOCENT person for any reason.  I can't say that for sure about Cheney (and we definitely can't say that about John Yoo.)

Scheuer I was actually disappointed by.  But I guess it is what it is.  Scheuer is useful for explaining why our foreign policy is immoral, but that doesn't make him a moral person.  I definitely think a fair bit less of him after that revelation, but then, he's in the CIA, so what do I expect?  Not much...

Cheney isn't in power anymore, but I think Crashland's point was that it might be situationally immoral to give someone money if you had a strong reason to believe that person was going to put it to an immoral cause.  Say you knew Mr. X was likely to give the money to a neo-con think tank.  It might well be at the least ill-advised to give him the money, where gifting people money is "normally" a good thing to do.  I just don't think that scenario is comparable to torture at all...

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW: its fairly obvious that torture doesn't "work" but I'm not certain Bin Laden was dead before the raid, not sure how you could be certain of that.  I definitely tend to think that he may have been, though.  I think you'd probably get labeled a loon were you to argue it that way.  Probably moreso than just taking a moral stance against torture.  Its less strong of an argument to, since situations change.

----------


## Crashland

> I don't really expect non-Christians to reject situational ethics.  Honestly, its by God's grace that they have ethical systems at all.  There's no reason for them to do so.


If the only reason you try to behave ethically is because you think God wants you to, then I would consider *that* to make you an awful person. Christians often claim that atheists have no reason to be ethical, but this ignores the implications for their own motivations. I do not think that Christians are so depraved as they imply they are. There are plenty of good reasons to have an ethical system that don't involve religion. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why it is better to live by the golden rule or to exercise humility, for example.





> No, because although "giving" in general is a moral command according to the Bible, there's no command to give to certain specific people (you aren't going to give to everyone.)  There are certain cases where the Bible allows for situational calculations anyway (self-defense and so forth.)  But there are certain acts that are ALWAYS wrong, no matter why or when you do them.  TC seems to think that torture isn't one of those.  You seem to think those don't exist.


Well, if there is such a thing as the "most evil action", then I would consider that to be always wrong, because such an action could never be the better choice in a dilemma. But it is easy to prove by induction that there is no such thing as a most evil action.





> This is a big Biblical debate based on interpretation of certain passages that seem at first glance to justify lying.  My answer is yes (That it is always wrong to lie.)  However, it is possible to read the Bible honestly and come to an answer of "no" without being a pragmatist.


It sure would take some ballsy faith to tell the truth or to refuse to answer the question about those people you're hiding when the Nazis come looking. That would be one of those situations where I would highly recommend questioning the rulebook.

----------


## pcosmar

> It sure would take some ballsy faith to tell the truth or to refuse to answer the question about those people you're hiding when the Nazis come looking. That would be one of those situations where I would highly recommend questioning the rulebook.


The "rulebook" as you call it does mention such.



> Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.…


Those who suffer for their faith will be rewarded and honored.

----------


## Crashland

> Here's the deal.  If we're going to be against torture as a policy then we either attack it from a moral position (it's never worth doing) or attack the "official story" of how good it's been.  If you believe that torture is sometimes okay, and if you believe that torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, then the torture policy is fine.  Seriously.  Screw the stupid "ticking time bomb" scenario.  You rarely have intelligence good enough like in those movies where the good guide knows there is a bomb but just doesn't know where it is or knows where it is but just doesn't know how to disarm it.  But the idea that there *might* be a terrorist out there who *might* be able to set of a bomb that kills a lot of Americans at some point is a real possibility.  Of course, Osama Bin Laden was already dead before the raid.  I'm certain of that.  Why else did they not release any video, photographic or DNA evidence for proof of death?  Now if you're going to run with that argument than maybe I'll believe you really are against torture as a policy.  But just saying "I don't believe the real world reasons for torture were worth it" without any access to the intelligence behind those real world reasons are meaningless.


Even if the use of torture did lead to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I still don't think it would have been justified. The hunt for Bin Laden was more about revenge and punishment than it was about national security (did anyone really think that killing Bin Laden would make us safer at all, or prevent a catastrophic attack that could not happen with someone else in charge?), and I think torture for the purpose of vengeance or punishment is never justified.

About Bin Laden, I would think it is more likely that if they did not kill him that night, they might have captured him alive that night (or earlier). Could be still alive in some hellhole being tortured by the CIA still. I have no reason to doubt the official story at the moment but it wouldn't surprise me too much if it turned out things didn't happen exactly as it was reported.

----------


## Crashland

> Those who suffer for their faith will be rewarded and honored.


That's fine, I just hope other people wouldn't need to suffer because of your faith.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's fine, I just hope other people wouldn't need to suffer because of your faith.


No one will suffer for my faith. They may suffer at the hands of the state for it's hatred of my faith..

but I have no control over the state.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the only reason you try to behave ethically is because you think God wants you to, then I would consider *that* to make you an awful person. Christians often claim that atheists have no reason to be ethical, but this ignores the implications for their own motivations. I do not think that Christians are so depraved as they imply they are. There are plenty of good reasons to have an ethical system that don't involve religion. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why it is better to live by the golden rule or to exercise humility, for example.


Of course, if I were an atheist I would almost certainly delude myself into thinking I had some basis for my ethical system.  Wouldn't mean I actually had one.








> It sure would take some ballsy faith to tell the truth or to refuse to answer the question about those people you're hiding when the Nazis come looking. That would be one of those situations where I would highly recommend questioning the rulebook.


I'd consider the odds highly likely that I would lie in that situation.  But I think the principled thing to do would be to refuse to answer.

And yes, I would also refuse to answer if I actually did have no Jews in my home.  I think wasting the time of Nazis and making them less efficient is a virtue...

----------


## Crashland

> Of course, if I were an atheist I would almost certainly delude myself into thinking I had some basis for my ethical system.  Wouldn't mean I actually had one.


I prefer my 'deluded' ethical system based on reasoning and experience over one that is based on "because God said so". We'll just have to disagree....

----------


## otherone

> I prefer my 'deluded' ethical system based on reasoning and experience over one that is based on "because God said so". We'll just have to disagree....


When both Christian and atheist morality justifies torture, then I see no practical difference between the two.

----------


## Crashland

> Do you understand the difference between falling into sin and supporting sin.  It's one thing for someone to make a mistake like David and commit adultery and then murder to cover it up.  It's another thing for someone to support that as a moral choice.


Not sure if I responded to this part yet. I think it is possible for a true Christian to continue doing the same sin on an ongoing basis without realizing that they are sinning. It probably happens all the time. I do not think that we are in a position to be able to definitively judge someone as not being a true Christian. We cannot know that.

----------


## euphemia

Obviously there has been no resolution to the discussion and it's starting to get a bit personal.  

If we ended up all being against torture, at what level is the individual citizen required to be personally involved in stopping it?  Is writing a congressman enough?  Phone calls?  Public discourse in the meda (letters to the editor, social media)?  Physically going where it is happening and stopping it?

The reason I ask is that it's real easy to go around angry and upset about real or perceived injustice.  How is anger helpful if it does not motivate some action?  You all certainly have the right to an opinion and a feeling, but I wonder if it is more helpful to find some common ground and work together to bring about some change.

Just trying to think past the argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> Even if the use of torture did lead to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I still don't think it would have been justified. The hunt for Bin Laden was more about revenge and punishment than it was about national security (did anyone really think that killing Bin Laden would make us safer at all, or prevent a catastrophic attack that could not happen with someone else in charge?), and I think torture for the purpose of vengeance or punishment is never justified.


To get to Bin Laden would require taking his network down one person at a time.  It stands to reason that somewhere in the process persons planning mayhem against the U.S. were taken out.  You don't have enough information to truly declare that the results of torture under these circumstances wouldn't match what was needed to be justified under your moral calculus.  




> About Bin Laden, I would think it is more likely that if they did not kill him that night, they might have captured him alive that night (or earlier). Could be still alive in some hellhole being tortured by the CIA still. I have no reason to doubt the official story at the moment but it wouldn't surprise me too much if it turned out things didn't happen exactly as it was reported.


Bin Laden was most likely dead.  Come up.  Think this through.  The Pentagon lost the DNA evidence?  They have no photographic evidence they killed him?  Really?  Do they think we're stupid?  You have no reason to *believe* the official story of his death.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323364
_Pentagon officials recently disclosed to the Associated Press (AP) that they could not find any photo or video evidence to confirm that Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed in the Navy Seal raid in Pakistan a year ago.
AP has submitted more than 20 requests for information surrounding the raid on Bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound to the U.S. Government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In response to the request for visual evidence of Bin Laden’s death, the Pentagon stated that it could not find any pictures or video footage of the raid itself or of Bin Laden’s dead body. It also told AP it could not locate any images of Bin Laden’s body that were taken on the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, the Navy aircraft carrier that reportedly lowered him into the sea after his death.

In addition, the Pentagon admitted that it could not find an autopsy report, death certificate or results of a DNA identification test for Bin Laden, in spite of claims made by President Obama and reported by CBC News that a DNA test was performed._

----------


## Crashland

> Obviously there has been no resolution to the discussion and it's starting to get a bit personal.  
> 
> If we ended up all being against torture, at what level is the individual citizen required to be personally involved in stopping it?  Is writing a congressman enough?  Phone calls?  Public discourse in the meda (letters to the editor, social media)?  Physically going where it is happening and stopping it?
> 
> The reason I ask is that it's real easy to go around angry and upset about real or perceived injustice.  How is anger helpful if it does not motivate some action?  You all certainly have the right to an opinion and a feeling, but I wonder if it is more helpful to find some common ground and work together to bring about some change.
> 
> Just trying to think past the argument.


On that note, I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but realize on my end that I do not take any of this personally, so don't worry about anything said so far. For any of you, if I say something in response to you that you think is too personal please let me know. I definitely like to make my opinions clear for the sake of making strong arguments but I don't want to be hurtful.

As far as I know, everyone participating in this thread does not support the CIA torture. In terms of taking action, I certainly haven't done anything worth mentioning. Would be interested to hear what some of you have done already or would like to do.

----------


## Crashland

> To get to Bin Laden would require taking his network down one person at a time.  It stands to reason that somewhere in the process persons planning mayhem against the U.S. were taken out.  You don't have enough information to truly declare that the results of torture under these circumstances wouldn't match what was needed to be justified under your moral calculus.


Yes, you are right, I do not have enough information to truly declare that. However, due to the likelihood of abuse of torture, we cannot have a system where we simply trust the CIA to make those calls. I cannot say how to fix this problem, but in general I would say the power to make those decisions can not be too concentrated and the individuals making those calls would need to be held accountable for their actions. The easiest solution of course is to just have a no-torture policy, but how would you prevent the CIA from doing whatever it wants behind the scenes with their actions never seeing the light of day?

----------


## euphemia

Thanks for that.  I'm just wondering why people want to be morally outraged about everything and the live as if the feelings are the most important thing.  Moral outrage is helpful if it motivates to effective action.  Moral outrage is not helpful if it leads to something worse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When both Christian and atheist morality justifies torture, then I see no practical difference between the two.


The problem is that this isn't true.  The Bible doesn't support torture.  Weak Christians and non-Christian fools who think they understand the Bible are justifying torture, but "Christian morality" has never justified torture.  (Just to be clear here, I'm calling BOTH the weak Christians and the non-Christians who justify torture "fools.")

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not sure if I responded to this part yet. I think it is possible for a true Christian to continue doing the same sin on an ongoing basis without realizing that they are sinning. It probably happens all the time. I do not think that we are in a position to be able to definitively judge someone as not being a true Christian. We cannot know that.


It depends on the sin.  1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 6 make clear that there are certain types of sins that a Christian CANNOT continually do as a Christian (Note: Whether this means you lose your salvation or that you weren't saved to begin with is a debate I won't have in this thread.)  Of course that doesn't mean we'll ever be perfect or aware of all our sins.

A trickier question, for me, is how Biblically obvious a certain sin has to be before a Christian really can't support it as a Christian.

----------


## moostraks

> Thanks for that.  I'm just wondering why people want to be morally outraged about everything and the live as if the feelings are the most important thing.  Moral outrage is helpful if it motivates to effective action.  Moral outrage is not helpful if it leads to something worse.


Curious, what could the moral outrage lead to which would be the something worse you are alluding to?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Curious, what could the moral outrage lead to which would be the something worse you are alluding to?


Thing is, a single individual cannot, when left to himself, do anything NEAR the great evil that is the State.  

The reality is probably doing something closer to what I did, which is getting really depressed and ticked off at everyone for a couple of days, along with losing any less remnants of positive association with the US.  

The "worst" possible would probably be going on a torture murder spree oneself.  Its not particularly likely that anyone would do that, but even if they did, they wouldn't be capable of nearly the amount of damage that the State apparatus is capable of.

----------


## otherone

> A trickier question, for me, is how Biblically obvious a certain sin has to be before a Christian really can't support it as a Christian.


People have a greater affinity for the "thou shalt not"s ; I suspect the "thou shalt"s require too much effort.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> People have a greater affinity for the "thou shalt not"s ; I suspect the "thou shalt"s require too much effort.


Good point.  It is easier to not do something than to do something.  I do this sometimes to without realizing it.

But there is one thing you will not see me do, and that's justifying torture

----------


## otherone

> The problem is that this isn't true.  The Bible doesn't support torture.  Weak Christians and non-Christian fools who think they understand the Bible are justifying torture, but "Christian morality" has never justified torture.  (Just to be clear here, I'm calling BOTH the weak Christians and the non-Christians who justify torture "fools.")


I was not referring to Biblical morality . I was referring to the morality of self-professed Christians.

----------


## otherone

> But there is one thing you will not see me do, and that's justifying torture


Good on ya'. son.

Christ commanded us to love our neighbors. If people were actually obedient , this thread wouldn't be here...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was not referring to Biblical morality . I was referring to the morality of self-professed Christians.


"Christian morality" comes from the Bible.  What certain people who call themselves Christians think often isn't "Christian morality."

Mind you, even Christians who read the Bible disagree on some stuff, but this really seems clear cut.  I really doubt there would be any Christians in China or India who would say torture is OK.  This whole debate comes from American nationalism in the church more than anything else.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not sure if I responded to this part yet. I think it is possible for a true Christian to continue doing the same sin on an ongoing basis without realizing that they are sinning. It probably happens all the time. I do not think that we are in a position to be able to definitively judge someone as not being a true Christian. We cannot know that.


Yeah.  I agree.  I think the point of the OP is that torture falls outside the teachings of Jesus and that it's a shame that more Christians don't realize that.

----------


## jmdrake

> On that note, I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but realize on my end that I do not take any of this personally, so don't worry about anything said so far. For any of you, if I say something in response to you that you think is too personal please let me know. I definitely like to make my opinions clear for the sake of making strong arguments but I don't want to be hurtful.
> 
> As far as I know, everyone participating in this thread does not support the CIA torture. In terms of taking action, I certainly haven't done anything worth mentioning. Would be interested to hear what some of you have done already or would like to do.


Speaking only for myself I haven't been offended by anything you or anyone else said and I don't think I've offended anyone, but if I have please let me know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah.  I agree.  I think the point of the OP is that torture falls outside the teachings of Jesus and that it's a shame that more Christians don't realize that.


I knew that before I started.  And I honestly didn't expect that to be controversial on this website (I guess I shouldn't be surprised though... Rothbard was theoretically supportive of torture).  The point of the OP was to discuss whether its possible for a Christian to disagree that torture is wrong.  Interestingly, my answer is "its probably technically possible" and over 70% of this forum says it isn't.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, you are right, I do not have enough information to truly declare that. However, due to the likelihood of abuse of torture, we cannot have a system where we simply trust the CIA to make those calls. I cannot say how to fix this problem, but in general I would say the power to make those decisions can not be too concentrated and the individuals making those calls would need to be held accountable for their actions. The easiest solution of course is to just have a no-torture policy, but how would you prevent the CIA from doing whatever it wants behind the scenes with their actions never seeing the light of day?


Well we have a no torture policy that's still good law.  The law was violated.  The violations have been brought out into the light.  Nobody is being held to account.  Both sides of the Republicrat party are digging in their trenches in such a way that nothing will happen.  And why will nothing happen?  Because most Americans either don't care or worse agree.  A whopping 48% of Americans support routine torture of detainees and only a mere 24% of Americans think it is never justified.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/12/po...ver-justified/

With those numbers, it doesn't matter how bad or illegal the torture is or even how open the government ultimately is about it.

----------


## moostraks

> Thing is, a single individual cannot, when left to himself, do anything NEAR the great evil that is the State.  
> 
> The reality is probably doing something closer to what I did, which is getting really depressed and ticked off at everyone for a couple of days, along with losing any less remnants of positive association with the US.  
> 
> The "worst" possible would probably be going on a torture murder spree oneself.  Its not particularly likely that anyone would do that, but even if they did, they wouldn't be capable of nearly the amount of damage that the State apparatus is capable of.


Mmmm....I am curious what tobismom thinks the worst is in context to whom she is applying the argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well we have a no torture policy that's still good law.  The law was violated.  The violations have been brought out into the light.  Nobody is being held to account.  Both sides of the Republicrat party are digging in their trenches in such a way that nothing will happen.  And why will nothing happen?  Because most Americans either don't care or worse agree.  A whopping 48% of Americans support routine torture of detainees and only a mere 24% of Americans think it is never justified.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/12/po...ver-justified/
> 
> With those numbers, it doesn't matter how bad or illegal the torture is or even how open the government ultimately is about it.


What is wrong with 76% of Americans?

I feel like I live in a nation of wolves.

Now, if only that 24% would openly disavow this nation of wolves, that might be a start...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is wrong with 76% of Americans?
> 
> I feel like I live in a nation of wolves.
> 
> Now, if only that 24% would openly disavow this nation of wolves, that might be a start...


I'll start.

I am not an American.  I have no role in this nation of wolves.  I am a Christian...

----------


## Brett85

> There is only one example of violence recorded. The Cleansing of the Temple.
> And there is the prophecy of Violence to come,,  at His return.
> 
> Nothing about advocating the abuse of captives.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure you know the same Lord.


There was no physical violence at the destruction of the temple.  If we are to literally follow Jesus' example and never use violence under any circumstances, then we are indeed called to be pacifists in every situation, not simply refrain from engaging in or theoretically supporting torture in certain situations.  Again, that would be the only consistent position.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't really expect non-Christians to reject situational ethics.  Honestly, its by God's grace that they have ethical systems at all.  There's no reason for them to do so.
> 
> I'm glad you aren't claiming the God I believe in while defending situationalist ethics (Just as a note, I don't really think Traditional Conservative is defending situational ethics, but most torture supporters do).  When I see people who DO claim my God defending situational ethics, I have a problem with that.


So you don't believe in situational ethics at all?  You don't think that the morality of something like killing another human being depends on the particular situation that's at hand?

----------


## Brett85

> Here's the deal.  If we're going to be against torture as a policy then we either attack it from a moral position (it's never worth doing) or attack the "official story" of how good it's been.  If you believe that torture is sometimes okay, and if you believe that torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, then the torture policy is fine.  Seriously.  Screw the stupid "ticking time bomb" scenario.  You rarely have intelligence good enough like in those movies where the good guide knows there is a bomb but just doesn't know where it is or knows where it is but just doesn't know how to disarm it.  But the idea that there *might* be a terrorist out there who *might* be able to set of a bomb that kills a lot of Americans at some point is a real possibility.  Of course, Osama Bin Laden was already dead before the raid.  I'm certain of that.  Why else did they not release any video, photographic or DNA evidence for proof of death?  Now if you're going to run with that argument than maybe I'll believe you really are against torture as a policy.  But just saying "I don't believe the real world reasons for torture were worth it" without any access to the intelligence behind those real world reasons are meaningless.


I'm not going to accept your argument that it has to be all or nothing, that either you have to support torture in every single situation or oppose torture in every single situation.  Most Americans are somewhere in the middle and reject both extremes.  I'm generally opposed to torture because of the very real possibility of torturing an innocent person.  The people that we're holding at Gitmo haven't even been tried, and I'm not in favor of indefinite detention without a trial, and as a rule not in favor of torture.  But I'm just not going to make an absolute statement and say that there's never a situation where torture would be moral and would be necessary.

----------


## pcosmar

> There was no physical violence at the destruction of the temple.  If we are to literally follow Jesus' example and never use violence under any circumstances, then we are indeed called to be pacifists in every situation, not simply refrain from engaging in or theoretically supporting torture in certain situations.  Again, that would be the only consistent position.


Perhaps,,
Many Christian groups over the years have denounced any violence at all.
I can only speak for myself  and I would defend myself and  others. I would most likely resort to violence in defense of others.
That is my nature. But I have no interest in harming anyone.. especially to deliberately harm them after they are no longer a threat.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you don't believe in situational ethics at all?  You don't think that the morality of something like killing another human being depends on the particular situation that's at hand?


I've answered this previosuly, but I'lll go ahead and do it again.
There are passages in theBible that seem to justify self-defense (including some level of defensive warfare), and capital punishment.  Now, there are other verses that may seem to say otherwise, so that's something a Christian really has to try to figure out based on scripture.  Does the Bible allow for those things?  I think so, but I can see why others would feel differently.  Torture on the other hand, is NEVER defended in the BIble, even in the OT, and the Bible even says animals shouldn't be tortured.  The implications are obvious, and there's NOTHING in scripture that would prove otherwise.  Not even anything in the Old Testament where the idea of torturing a prisoner is suggested.

----------


## euphemia

> Curious, what could the moral outrage lead to which would be the something worse you are alluding to?


The recent example that comes to mind is when the Ferguson rioters burned down businesses that had nothing to do with Michael Brown's death.  To me, having a rabble do random violence for the sake of violence is worse.  There is no stated purpose except to do the most damage possible to anyone and everyone.  I don't think it was all moral outrage.  It was lawlessness.  That's worse.

The state forces me to participate in violence, like abortion, and I have no recourse.  Targeted protests at abortuaries and targeted violence against abortionists are both prosecuted.  Yet those who abhor abortion are between a rock and a hard place.  If we don't renounce the violence and be outraged, we are somehow guilty of that violence, whether we protest or not.  But we are also not allowed to publicly renounce those who murder babies in the womb and damage women.  We had a string of cases here where women died of complications from surgical abortion, and when there were community demands for prosecution of those guilty of double murder (the babies and the mothers), those who are firmly against abortion on-demand  have no place at the table.

When that happens, and my tax dollars are confiscated to provide procedures that I consider murder, how is it that I am supporting torture if I don't physically go there and stop those who are doing it?  I'm not allowed to stop someone who is murdering babies and moms in my own town.  How can I be asked to renounce what our government does somewhere I've never been, to people I've never heard of?  

It just cracks me up that so-called freedom lovers are interested in what I think based on faith, and are ready to pounce on anyone who doesn't agree.  You can't have it both ways.  Make up your mind.  Violence is good or violence is bad.  Decide and do something about it.

----------


## pcosmar

> The recent example that comes to mind is when the Ferguson rioters burned down businesses that had nothing to do with Michael Brown's death.  To me, having a rabble do random violence for the sake of violence is worse.  There is no stated purpose except to do the most damage possible to anyone and everyone.  I don't think it was all moral outrage.  It was lawlessness.  That's worse.


OK,, I have to disagree there.. I believe there was a purpose.
someone was ordering that,, and they gave orders for a reason.

Even street gangs have leaders and lieutenants,,

Just who was pulling the strings is in question,, but there was most definitely a purpose.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not going to accept your argument that it has to be all or nothing, that either you have to support torture in every single situation or oppose torture in every single situation.  Most Americans are somewhere in the middle and reject both extremes.  I'm generally opposed to torture because of the very real possibility of torturing an innocent person.  The people that we're holding at Gitmo haven't even been tried, and I'm not in favor of indefinite detention without a trial, and as a rule not in favor of torture.  But I'm just not going to make an absolute statement and say that there's never a situation where torture would be moral and would be necessary.


Once again, what I actually said:

_ If we're going to be against torture as a policy then we either attack it from a moral position (it's never worth doing) or attack the "official story" of how good it's been._

Now the "It's sometimes worth doing" position is untenable without some kind of attack on the claims of how useful it has been.  And as far as the trial goes?   Well if you're worried about a "ticking time bomb" scenario, then you don't have time for a trial.  I know you want to stake out a middle ground position, but frankly you haven't articulated a viable one.

----------


## euphemia

> OK,, I have to disagree there.. I believe there was a purpose.
> someone was ordering that,, and they gave orders for a reason.
> 
> Even street gangs have leaders and lieutenants,,
> 
> Just who was pulling the strings is in question,, but there was most definitely a purpose.


But they chose innocent people.  That is worse.  Far worse.   They took away rights.  That is worse.

----------


## euphemia

You all are just buying into the mainstream media.  Diane Feinstein is a horrible leader in a desperate, losing party.  Of course she's going to release something harmful.  That's what desperate people do.  

For once, I would love it if liberty lovers would consider the source and realize they are being played.  Stop attacking each other over something done by desperate losers.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You all are just buying into the mainstream media.  Diane Feinstein is a horrible leader in a desperate, losing party.  Of course she's going to release something harmful.  That's what desperate people do.  
> 
> For once, I would love it if liberty lovers would consider the source and realize they are being played.  Stop attacking each other over something done by desperate losers.


Its one thing to say Feinstein was lying (which I'm not convinced of at all, but I digress.)  Its another thing to support torture.

----------


## pcosmar

> But they chose innocent people.  That is worse.  Far worse.   They took away rights.  That is worse.


of course they did,,

And the Police Provocateurs that were outed were targeting innocent people too. (in another thread)

I have no confidence in the police investigation of the police.
Police start riots to silence the protesters.

----------


## Brett85

> Its one thing to say Feinstein was lying (which I'm not convinced of at all, but I digress.)  Its another thing to support torture.


It should be noted that you're someone who doesn't even believe in the concept of national defense, that we should have a government whose main role it is to protect the lives and liberties of the American people.  In light of that, it's just a pointless conversation.  Because you don't even believe that any real threats exist, or that the government should have any role at all in trying to stop those threats.

----------


## euphemia

> Its one thing to say Feinstein was lying (which I'm not convinced of at all, but I digress.)  Its another thing to support torture.



Who is supporting torture?  Diane Feinstein.  She knew about it.  Congress knew about it. <---this is not news.  The MO of this should not surprise anyone.  Democrats have been in charge for the last ten years.  They knew what's going on, but now that the cat is out of the bag, they can't blameshift fast enough.

And you all buy that the CIA is a rogue agency.  It might be rogue in the decisions it makes, but Congress knew.  It's their job to know.  

Don't ever believe the mainstream media.  Especially do not believe what congress says about itself.  This administration is the most ignorant ever.  President claims he doesn't know stuff until he reads it in the paper.  Congress claims they didn't know.  Why not?  What are they doing all day?

----------


## jmdrake

> You all are just buying into the mainstream media.  Diane Feinstein is a horrible leader in a desperate, losing party.  Of course she's going to release something harmful.  That's what desperate people do.  
> 
> For once, I would love it if liberty lovers would consider the source and realize they are being played.  Stop attacking each other over something done by desperate losers.


Ad hominem fallacy.  I'm not against torture because Dianne Feinstein is against it.  I'm against it because I've always been against it.  I'm a supporter of Ron Paul in part because he has always been consistently against it.  Alan Grayson is a big time supporter of Obamacare and a douchebag on that issue, but he spoke out against Ben Bernake and the federal reserve.  Does that mean that we should quit being consistently against end the fed?  And who's "attacking" anyone?  Nobody has gotten offended in this thread except maybe you.

----------


## jmdrake

> It should be noted that you're someone who doesn't even believe in the concept of national defense, that we should have a government whose main role it is to protect the lives and liberties of the American people.  In light of that, it's just a pointless conversation.  Because you don't even believe that any real threats exist, or that the government should have any role at all in trying to stop those threats.


Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers were against a standing army because they felt that would lead to wars of aggression.  Seems they were right.  They weren't against a common defense.  They believed that well organized militias could do the trick.  Whether you agree with Thomas Jefferson or not, it's not accurate to say that his position was against a national defense.  And from what I can tell that's the position FreedomFanatic has taken.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who is supporting torture?  Diane Feinstein.  She knew about it.  Congress knew about it. <---this is not news.  The MO of this should not surprise anyone.  Democrats have been in charge for the last ten years.  They knew what's going on, but now that the cat is out of the bag, they can't blameshift fast enough.
> 
> And you all buy that the CIA is a rogue agency.  It might be rogue in the decisions it makes, but Congress knew.  It's their job to know.  
> 
> Don't ever believe the mainstream media.  Especially do not believe what congress says about itself.  This administration is the most ignorant ever.  President claims he doesn't know stuff until he reads it in the paper.  Congress claims they didn't know.  Why not?  What are they doing all day?


Nothing that you have just said has any bearing on anything anyone has said in this thread.  The question of whether torture is ever morally justified has nothing to do with the political motivations of Diane Feinstein releasing this particular report.

----------


## pcosmar

> And you all buy that the CIA is a rogue agency.


It was a rogue agency from it's creation/
One of it's first known actions was the overthrow of a democratically elected (and very popular) leader and the imposition of a maniacal dictator. (in Iran 1953)

They ran the MKUltra programs for decades without oversight. As well as Drug and arms running to several very questionable regimes.




> It might be rogue in the decisions it makes, but Congress knew.  It's their job to know.


it should be,, and they should have disbanded and eliminated it long ago..

----------


## Brett85

> Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers were against a standing army because they felt that would lead to wars of aggression.  Seems they were right.  They weren't against a common defense.  They believed that well organized militias could do the trick.  Whether you agree with Thomas Jefferson or not, it's not accurate to say that his position was against a national defense.  And from what I can tell that's the position FreedomFanatic has taken.


No, Freedom Fanatic is an anarcho capitalist.  He believes in having no government at all.  He doesn't just oppose a standing army.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, Freedom Fanatic is an anarcho capitalist.  He believes in having no government at all.  He doesn't just oppose a standing army.


You can still have a common defense without a government.  Admittedly that's a bit tougher, but it can happen.  I Liberia the government there hired South African mercenaries to ward off genocidal rebels.  The U.N. forced the rebels to leave.  Now you might say "Well they used a government".  True.  But private citizens could have done the same thing.  And they would have been more likely to tell the U.N. to go to hell.  Since the government knuckled into the U.N. the rebels came back with a vengeance and that's when most of the mutilations happened.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It should be noted that you're someone who doesn't even believe in the concept of national defense, that we should have a government whose main role it is to protect the lives and liberties of the American people.  In light of that, it's just a pointless conversation.  Because you don't even believe that any real threats exist, or that the government should have any role at all in trying to stop those threats.


I don't deny that threats exist.  PEOPLE exist.

If governments insist on existing (I prefer the term "States" if we're being precise, as there are many kinds of government that are not coercive) than I would say they certainly have a duty to protect their citizens, using moral means.  Torture isn't a moral means.




> No, Freedom Fanatic is an anarcho capitalist.  He believes in having no government at all.  He doesn't just oppose a standing army.


Again, I don't know what this has to do with anything.  I don't think I've used anarcho-capitalist arguments in this thread...

----------


## Brett85

> I don't deny that threats exist.  PEOPLE exist.
> 
> If governments insist on existing (I prefer the term "States" if we're being precise, as there are many kinds of government that are not coercive) than I would say they certainly have a duty to protect their citizens, using moral means.  Torture isn't a moral means.


I'm never going to understand how people can say that it's somehow moral for a government to kill people in order to protect its citizens, but it's never moral under any circumstances for a government to use torture in order to defend its citizens.  In most cases, torture doesn't involve the permanent disfigurement of those who have been tortured.  It certainly doesn't involve the loss of life that occurs through wars, even defensive wars.  And something like waterboarding doesn't involve any kind of physical harm at all to the person who goes through it.  (Again, I'm not arguing that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation procedures)  I just don't see how killing people can sometimes be moral for a government to do in order to protect its citizens, but dunking someone in water in order to protect its citizens is always immoral.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm never going to understand how people can say that it's somehow moral for a government to kill people in order to protect its citizens, but it's never moral under any circumstances for a government to use torture in order to defend its citizens.  In most cases, torture doesn't involve the permanent disfigurement of those who have been tortured.  It certainly doesn't involve the loss of life that occurs through wars, even defensive wars.  And something like waterboarding doesn't involve any kind of physical harm at all to the person who goes through it.  (Again, I'm not arguing that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation procedures)  I just don't see how killing people can sometimes be moral for a government to do in order to protect its citizens, but dunking someone in water in order to protect its citizens is always immoral.


Torture can be worse than death.  I would rather be killed than tortured.

Also, torture is never at any time authorized in the Bible.  Even tortuing animals is condemned.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm never going to understand how people can say that it's somehow moral for a government to kill people in order to protect its citizens,


The only time it is "moral" or acceptable is when it is in self defense.

This country has not used it's military for such in a very long time (if ever).

----------


## euphemia

That's what we say about abortion, but nobody listens.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The only time it is "moral" or acceptable is when it is in self defense.
> 
> This country has not used it's military for such in a very long time (if ever).


1812 was questionable.  1941 might have been judgmental had we only targeted Japanese Military.

----------


## otherone

> Because you don't even believe that any real threats exist, or that the government should have any role at all in trying to stop those threats.


No one can stop "threats".  One can only combat aggression.
"Threats" are only phantoms that induce fear.  Fear is the mother of the state.

----------


## moostraks

> The recent example that comes to mind is when the Ferguson rioters burned down businesses that had nothing to do with Michael Brown's death.  To me, having a rabble do random violence for the sake of violence is worse.  There is no stated purpose except to do the most damage possible to anyone and everyone.  I don't think it was all moral outrage.  It was lawlessness.  That's worse.
> 
> The state forces me to participate in violence, like abortion, and I have no recourse.  Targeted protests at abortuaries and targeted violence against abortionists are both prosecuted.  Yet those who abhor abortion are between a rock and a hard place.  If we don't renounce the violence and be outraged, we are somehow guilty of that violence, whether we protest or not.  But we are also not allowed to publicly renounce those who murder babies in the womb and damage women.  We had a string of cases here where women died of complications from surgical abortion, and when there were community demands for prosecution of those guilty of double murder (the babies and the mothers), those who are firmly against abortion on-demand  have no place at the table.
> 
> When that happens, and my tax dollars are confiscated to provide procedures that I consider murder, how is it that I am supporting torture if I don't physically go there and stop those who are doing it?  I'm not allowed to stop someone who is murdering babies and moms in my own town.  How can I be asked to renounce what our government does somewhere I've never been, to people I've never heard of?  
> 
> It just cracks me up that so-called freedom lovers are interested in what I think based on faith, and are ready to pounce on anyone who doesn't agree.  You can't have it both ways.  Make up your mind.  Violence is good or violence is bad.  Decide and do something about it.


So you think that people who decry "Christians" for supporting torture are capable or culpable of/for a violent response to the violence? Did you think that one through at all before you thought you'd throw it at the wall to make it stick to shut down discussion on the subject?

Your last paragraph is almost impossible to follow. Are people only freedom lovers when they agree with your positions or can they have thought out their own positions with which they will defend without being accused of pouncing on you and having it equated to violence? Or were those statements not to be read together even though they were connected within the same paragraph?

Moral outrage motivates action and all responses do not have to be equated to violence. Discussion with like minded individuals should provide an environment conducive for coordinating a workable response. It is not healthy or beneficial imo to suffer in silence and be isolated when others can relate to one's own frustration. Discussion shouldn't be stifled just because the process is messy or doesn't serve your personal agenda. To each his own...

----------


## moostraks

> Who is supporting torture?  Diane Feinstein.  She knew about it.  Congress knew about it. <---this is not news.  The MO of this should not surprise anyone.  Democrats have been in charge for the last ten years.  They knew what's going on, but now that the cat is out of the bag, they can't blameshift fast enough.
> 
> And you all buy that the CIA is a rogue agency.  It might be rogue in the decisions it makes, but Congress knew.  It's their job to know.  
> 
> Don't ever believe the mainstream media.  Especially do not believe what congress says about itself.  This administration is the most ignorant ever.  President claims he doesn't know stuff until he reads it in the paper.  Congress claims they didn't know.  Why not?  What are they doing all day?


This reads like a FOX news script...So now don't discuss torture being wrong because it is a Democrat ploy to dirty the competition? Yep, reads just like a FOX news script.

----------


## Brett85

> Torture can be worse than death.  I would rather be killed than tortured.
> 
> Also, torture is never at any time authorized in the Bible.  Even tortuing animals is condemned.


Was it not torture to be stoned to death the way they were in the Bible?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's what we say about abortion, but nobody listens.


I'm completely against abortion to.  The only reason I don't discuss it as much is because its almost unquestioned in my social circles that abortion is murder.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Was it not torture to be stoned to death the way they were in the Bible?


It wasn't.

----------


## pcosmar

> Was it not torture to be stoned to death the way they were in the Bible?


THAT WAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Under the law.

The method of punishment/execution,, being stones..

----------


## Brett85

> It wasn't.


Why not?  Torture was involved in the process of dying.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm completely against abortion to.  The only reason I don't discuss it as much is because its almost unquestioned in my social circles that abortion is murder.


I'm not.  I believe that abortion is moral when the life of the mother is in danger, and I believe it should be legal in that situation.  So even on an issue like that, where I feel very strongly, I still support an exception in an extraordinary situation.  My view on torture is no different.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why not?  Torture was involved in the process of dying.


See Pcosmar's post.  Yes, it was a painful method of execution, but the point was that it was communitarian, not to deliberately drag out the criminal's suffering.



> I'm not.  I believe that abortion is moral when the life of the mother is in danger, and I believe it should be legal in that situation.  So even on an issue like that, where I feel very strongly, I still support an exception in an extraordinary situation.  My view on torture is no different.


Hmmm... I wouldn't criminalize it in that situation but I still wouldn't classify it as "moral."  And, I'd probably use jury nullification were someone to be convicted of torturing someone in a genuine ticking time bomb type scenario, but I still wouldn't classify it as moral.

----------


## Brett85

> Hmmm... I wouldn't criminalize it in that situation but I still wouldn't classify it as "moral."  And, I'd probably use jury nullification were someone to be convicted of torturing someone in a genuine ticking time bomb type scenario, but I still wouldn't classify it as moral.


Why would you use jury nullification not to convict someone who broke the law and also did something barbaric and immoral?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why would you use jury nullification not to convict someone who broke the law and also did something barbaric and immoral?


Because its also understandable...

----------


## Brett85

> Because its also understandable...


It seems like you're undermining everything you've said in this entire thread.  You've said throughout this entire thread that torture is barbaric and immoral, and seemed to be saying that anyone who ever supports it may not be a Christian.  But yet it's also understandable???

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why would you use jury nullification not to convict someone who broke the law and also did something barbaric and immoral?


If we think in terms of crimes and victims:

Say Mr. A kidnaps Mrs. B.  Her husband figures out hat Mr. A did it and captures Mr. A.  He then proceeds to torture Mr. A to try to figure out where his wife is. Mr. A tells him.  He then rescues his wife.

Mr. A doesn't really have any standing on which to condemn Mrs. B's husband.  It would be absurd to suggest that Mr. A should get compensation from Mrs. B's husband, considering he was the original criminal to begin with.  And I couldn't really see myself supporting the guy's execution.  His circumstances are clearly a mitigating factor.  I don't believe in prisons as a form of punishment.  

That doesn't change the fact that Mrs. B's husband still did something immoral, and something that he should not have done, morally speaking.  If I were going to discipline him at all I'd consider doing it through his church long before through the legal system...

----------


## jmdrake

> It seems like you're undermining everything you've said in this entire thread.  You've said throughout this entire thread that torture is barbaric and immoral, and seemed to be saying that anyone who ever supports it may not be a Christian.  But yet it's also understandable???


I can understand the person who steals to support his drug habit.  Does that make his stealing moral?

----------


## Brett85

> I can understand the person who steals to support his drug habit.  Does that make his stealing moral?


No, but if I were on a jury I wouldn't vote to acquit the person who stole from others.

----------


## Brett85

Would it be torture to make them listen to Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus all day?

----------


## Crashland

I would point out --

Exodus 21:20-21
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Those are words that are directly attributed to God himself ("The Lord said to Moses...:"). Beating a slave to the point where it takes them a day or two to recover seems to me like torture. Recovering from waterboarding only takes minutes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Would it be torture to make them listen to Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus all day?


lol!



> I would point out --
> 
> Exodus 21:20-21
> "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
> 
> Those are words that are directly attributed to God himself ("The Lord said to Moses...:"). Beating a slave to the point where it takes them a day or two to recover seems to me like torture. Recovering from waterboarding only takes minutes.


I don't know why this law, but I know all it says it "they must not be PUNISHED."  I do know that it was specifically not-permissible to flog anyone more than 40 times...

----------


## otherone

> I would point out --
> 
> Exodus 21:20-21
> "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
> 
> Those are words that are directly attributed to God himself ("The Lord said to Moses...:"). Beating a slave to the point where it takes them a day or two to recover seems to me like torture. Recovering from waterboarding only takes minutes.


...yeah. Prisoners are property, Mr. Torquemada.

----------


## Crashland

> Would it be torture to make them listen to Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus all day?


It would probably be much more effective than waterboarding.

----------


## staerker

It is the nature of man to manipulate and coerce through violence and aggression.

The Bible teaches that the only effective methods that can be used are love, and prayer.

To use anything else, is to revert to human naivety.

----------


## Brett85

Never mind.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The main example I gave in this thread was the use of torture in defense of one's family, when someone has information about where your kidnapped child is being held.  It's absolutely no different at all than defending your family from your rampaging murderous neighbor.


Well, it actually is quite a bit different.  Most people would do the second (family defense) without too much compunction, while the vast majority of people would not be willing to do the first (your proposed torturing for defensive purposes).  They must see some difference between the two.

Now as for myself, I can see the theoretical moral point you are making, and do not particularly disagree.  However, let us consider reality.  Do individuals torture?  No, they do not.  Private individuals do not torture their fellows, not for family defense nor for any other reason.  It just does not happen in the real world that we live in, in America in 2014.

Private individuals do not torture.  States torture.  Specifically, the American state tortures.  So, let us not concoct and use a wholly _imaginary_ scenario to defend the _real_ scenario as it actually exists.  The real scenario is that the American state is torturing its captives.  It is doing so wickedly, reprehensibly, and pointlessly.  Its torture shows it to be so impotent, so pathetic, so contemptible, all decent people should completely recoil from it.  Instead, many support its actions.  They do so largely because they draw parallels from imaginary examples like your own.  "If it's OK for a noble father to extract info to save his daughter, it's OK for the noble Cheney to extract info to save America.  In fact, three-hundred million times _more_ OK, because instead of saving one, he's saving us all."  Let's not use imaginary situations to buttress the otherwise indefensible real situation.  Let's not help freedom's enemies.

----------


## Crashland

> Well, it actually is quite a bit different.  Most people would do the second (family defense) without too much compunction, while the vast majority of people would not be willing to do the first (your proposed torturing for defensive purposes).  They must see some difference between the two.
> 
> Now as for myself, I can see the theoretical moral point you are making, and do not particularly disagree.  However, let us consider reality.  Do individuals torture?  No, they do not.  Private individuals do not torture their fellows, not for family defense nor for any other reason.  It just does not happen in the real world that we live in, in America in 2014.
> 
> Private individuals do not torture.  States torture.  Specifically, the American state tortures.  So, let us not concoct and use a wholly _imaginary_ scenario to defend the _real_ scenario as it actually exists.  The real scenario is that the American state is torturing its captives.  It is doing so wickedly, reprehensibly, and pointlessly.  Its torture shows it to be so impotent, so pathetic, so contemptible, all decent people should completely recoil from it.  Instead, many support its actions.  They do so largely because they draw parallels from imaginary examples like your own.  "If it's OK for a noble father to extract info to save his daughter, it's OK for the noble Cheney to extract info to save America.  In fact, three-hundred million times _more_ OK, because instead of saving one, he's saving us all."  Let's not use imaginary situations to buttress the otherwise indefensible real situation.  Let's not help freedom's enemies.


Well put. For myself, I would not be making the same arguments I am making here, outside of a RPF philosophical thread. Because yes, most people will conflate imaginary examples and use them to justify real-world atrocities.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, it actually is quite a bit different.  Most people would do the second (family defense) without too much compunction, while the vast majority of people would not be willing to do the first (your proposed torturing for defensive purposes).  They must see some difference between the two.
> 
> Now as for myself, I can see the theoretical moral point you are making, and do not particularly disagree.  However, let us consider reality.  Do individuals torture?  No, they do not.  Private individuals do not torture their fellows, not for family defense nor for any other reason.  It just does not happen in the real world that we live in, in America in 2014.
> 
> Private individuals do not torture.  States torture.  Specifically, the American state tortures.  So, let us not concoct and use a wholly _imaginary_ scenario to defend the _real_ scenario as it actually exists.  The real scenario is that the American state is torturing its captives.  It is doing so wickedly, reprehensibly, and pointlessly.  Its torture shows it to be so impotent, so pathetic, so contemptible, all decent people should completely recoil from it.  Instead, many support its actions.  They do so largely because they draw parallels from imaginary examples like your own.  "If it's OK for a noble father to extract info to save his daughter, it's OK for the noble Cheney to extract info to save America.  In fact, three-hundred million times _more_ OK, because instead of saving one, he's saving us all."  Let's not use imaginary situations to buttress the otherwise indefensible real situation.  Let's not help freedom's enemies.


So perhaps this is a better question: Can a Christian support the current torture regime?

----------


## Lucille

http://blog.independent.org/2014/12/...-from-torture/




> Especially in this season celebrating the birth of Christ, the Prince of Peace who taught us the Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” we need to take this opportunity to affirm that these methods are totally unacceptable in the eyes of man and God.
> [...]
> The only way to uncorrupt our culture is to return to our roots and re-immerse ourselves in the principles upon which the kind of culture worth preserving rests: all humans are equally beloved children of God, endowed inalienably and equally with rights which must be respected regardless of circumstance. No ends can justify an unjust means—every means is itself an end.
> 
> Christmas provides an excellent starting point: read the life of Jesus. Remember how it ended, in torture and death. Then decide whose example you wish to follow, and do your best to do so.

----------


## pcosmar

> So perhaps this is a better question: Can a Christian support the current torture regime?


I have a hard time with it even being a question. But history shows a number of atrocities carried out (allegedly) in Christ's name,, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

----------


## pcosmar

I would suggest Mathew 25 for those that have questions.




> Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’  Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’


"I was a captive and you tortured me".

I don't think I would want to hear that.

----------


## Lucille

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...rture-part-ii/




> And let us never forget that the State is Satan’s citadel. Of course it tortures. Of course it steals. Of course it murders. And of course it euphemizes and lies about all these sins. Christians repudiate such perversion. They live by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. They do not advocate the utilitarian saving of thousands of live by savaging one; they realize that every life, even those of Moslems, even those across the seas, even those in countries that resent the USSA’s bullying, are precious in God’s eyes. They do not condone deliberate injury of defenseless scapegoats. They do not blaspheme God’s Word by taking it out of context and perverting its message of repentance into one of governmental vengeance. If they do, they aren’t Christians. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

----------


## Muwahid

I'm just happy there was a poll option for me to choose

----------


## Occam's Banana

*Maybe Crucifixion Was Only A "Stress Position"*
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ress-position/
_Becky Akers (17 December 2014)_

If you’d like to see everything wrong with American Christianity, or at least the pretender thereto, read this column at the _Federalist_. Actually, don’t read it: it will sicken you as it tries to justify torture _from the Bible_. “Yes, Christians Can Support Torture,”  the headline heretically proclaims. The Prince of Peace, the Man  government tortured to death on the cross, the One Who commanded us to  do unto others as we would have them do unto us, actually approves  stress-positions and rectal hydration—under the right circumstances, of  course. “National security” is Lord for Leviathan’s idolators.

There are other reasons not to sully your mind with this garbage. It  meanders on and on, in desperate need of an editor; it lacks wit and  even common sense as the author commits logical fallacy after factual  mistake after circular reasoning. For example, “government” is an entity  rather than simply a group of politicians and bureaucrats exercising  their fallen wills over the rest of us: we who oppose torture err  because we “[apply] these [Biblical] commandments meant for individuals … to the government.” The writer also ascribes to _24’s_ fantasy: that torture yields information with which our ingeniously crafty public servants save lives. Study after study has disproved this, so much so that even the Feds themselves have admitted that hurting people into babbling only produces lies.

As you might expect, the usual misinterpretation of Romans 13 plays  its usual starring role. And, in yet another insult, the article quotes  the execrable John Yoo as if he were an expert rather than a sociopathic  criminal.

Kudos to Michael Alford. He not only sent me the link, he also  resoundingly reprimands the author in his reader’s comment (which I do  urge you to read though you skip the article. And leave one yourself. We  who follow our Lord, however imperfectly, should stomp these snakes in  our midst).

----------


## Occam's Banana

*"Christians" Who Torture, Part II*
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...rture-part-ii/
_Becky Akers (18 December 2014)_

I was busy retching or I would have endeavored to find out more about  the author who claims to be a Christian yet justifies torture in the  article I referenced yesterday. Fortunately, Andreatta G. was on the ball even if I wasn’t and discovered that this repulsive hypocrite is a subcontractor for the Department of Defense. Ergo, aside from her innate and idolatrous statism, the writer also has a vested interest in defending utter evil.

Several years after Abu Ghraib’s horrific photographs shocked the  world, I happened to attend a lecture at a free-market think-tank. I  will never forget my disgust when about half the audience booed the  speaker’s denunciation of torture. One woman in particular, an elderly  schoolteacher who has long haunted the movement for liberty, insisted  that “terrorists” deserve such abuse — and she was not alone, by any  means. How nauseating that supposedly civilized people could actually  discuss _and endorse_ such perversion over their wine and cheese. I mean, to discuss it is bad enough, but to eagerly disclose that you _approve?_  What have we become? And if this is what prevails at a place supposedly  devoted to liberty, what of the wide world outside its walls?

I saw the same nausea in the emails so many of you sent me when you  learned that a supposed Christian is defending the Feds’ unspeakable  atrocities. And if this is what prevails in the Church, what can we  expect from the wide world outside?

Nonetheless, true Christians respond to the State’s victims with help  and healing as we pray for our Father to deliver us from evil — and to  abolish Leviathan, the source of so much of that evil. Indeed, let us  take a lesson from a jury that not only exonerated a man cops beat for no reason but _hugged_ him (thanks to Bill Martin for sending me this link).

And let us never forget that the State is Satan’s citadel. _Of course_ it tortures. _Of course_ it steals. _Of course_ it murders. And _of course_  it euphemizes and lies about all these sins. Christians repudiate such  perversion. They live by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. They  do not advocate the utilitarian saving of thousands of live by savaging  one; they realize that _every_ life, even those of Moslems, even  those across the seas, even those in countries that resent the USSA’s  bullying, are precious in God’s eyes. They do not condone deliberate  injury of defenseless scapegoats. They do not blaspheme God’s Word by  taking it out of context and perverting its message of repentance into  one of governmental vengeance. If they do, they aren’t Christians. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm just happy there was a poll option for me to choose


What's your opinion on all this?  Does your religion teach that its ever OK to torture people?




> *"Christians" Who Torture, Part II*
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...rture-part-ii/
> _Becky Akers (18 December 2014)_
> 
> I was busy retching or I would have endeavored to find out more about  the author who claims to be a Christian yet justifies torture in the  article I referenced yesterday. Fortunately, Andreatta G. was on the ball even if I wasn’t and discovered that this repulsive hypocrite is a subcontractor for the Department of Defense. Ergo, aside from her innate and idolatrous statism, the writer also has a vested interest in defending utter evil.
> 
> Several years after Abu Ghraib’s horrific photographs shocked the  world, I happened to attend a lecture at a free-market think-tank. I  will never forget my disgust when about half the audience booed the  speaker’s denunciation of torture. One woman in particular, an elderly  schoolteacher who has long haunted the movement for liberty, insisted  that “terrorists” deserve such abuse — and she was not alone, by any  means. How nauseating that supposedly civilized people could actually  discuss _and endorse_ such perversion over their wine and cheese. I mean, to discuss it is bad enough, but to eagerly disclose that you _approve?_  What have we become? And if this is what prevails at a place supposedly  devoted to liberty, what of the wide world outside its walls?
> 
> I saw the same nausea in the emails so many of you sent me when you  learned that a supposed Christian is defending the Feds’ unspeakable  atrocities. And if this is what prevails in the Church, what can we  expect from the wide world outside?
> ...


Amen.  Thank God for Becky Akers.

----------


## Theocrat

As Christians, do we support Christ's suffering on the cross? Was that not torture, yet, we glory in that punishment because of what it afforded to all of the world in providing complete atonement for sins so that those who believe in Jesus would not be tortured, themselves, by having to face the full wrath of God for the penalty of their sins eternally?

----------


## erowe1

> As Christians, do we support Christ's suffering on the cross? Was that not torture, yet, we glory in that punishment because of what it afforded to all of the world in providing complete atonement for sins so that those who believe in Jesus would not be tortured, themselves, by having to face the full wrath of God for the penalty of their sins eternally?


I don't think that really has to do with the OP. The torturing of Jesus, as wonderful as it was, as beneficial to those who have faith in him, and as pleasing to God the Father, was still a sin for those who did it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I've tried to address this thread 3 or 4 times since it was created but I never posed a reply.  I can't answer the poll.  I want to say an unequivocal "no" but I think the poll responses are too limiting.  You cannot as a Christian support or endorse torture, but I also allow that some actual Christians may be suffering under extraordinary deception...which means that you could not make a hard judgement that if "Person A" says it was OK to torture in the GWOT then they are necessarily "not a Christian" (aye, in all _probability_ they are 'not a Christian' at this point, however) because they may be under extraordinary deception.  They have been deceived into believing that the enemies of America are the enemies of God, they have been deceived into believing that torture is not really torture but enhanced interrogation, and they have been deceived into believing that the enemy are not really people but manifest demons with extraordinary powers.

There is no excuse for allowing oneself to be deceived when there is all the evidence in the world to dispatch the myth available at everyone's fingertips.  However, I also think we have all been deceived into one thing or another at some point in our journeys, so I am not about to make a claim that suffering under extreme deception or delusion is sufficient to effect the loss of one's salvation.

Now, a proper argument can be made that any soul which is truly regenerate could not be deceived to this level.  Sure, assuming 'ordinary' growth in Christ.  What we have in America today is a nationwide church filled with the saved and the unsaved alike, and those who ARE saved are literally babies still on milk.  Some people, forty years in the American church and still babies just on milk.  A lot of that is their fault and it questions their regeneration, but also a lot of that is the churches and the state's fault for making a false idol out of the US government, and demonstrating to these people that "this is how things are."  The false note leads legitimately to that kind of stunted growth, so there is just no way I could cut a soul off from God *UP TO NOW* for being given in paradigm to the government church which they trust.

However, right about now I think will emerge the call to "come out of her." I think that's actually in progress right now, and that the call is already there but it is not really evident as of yet.  So, from this point forward hearing will become magnified again and there will be no excuse whatever for deception and such things.

It is interesting to try and parse this discussion, because I think we are actually standing right on top of that division point.  So you look off at this angle and it looks a lot different than if you look off at that angle.  So it makes it more difficult to nail it down. But what I mean by that is we are right at the moment in time where the call to "come out of her" (leave the established church) will become manifest I believe.  I also believe it will manifest individually for every regenerate soul that is within the church.  A quiet exodus will follow, after which the _nominal_ 'church' will be nothing but dead, and the living will have come out and had the scales lifted from their eyes.

So you have to say "this was right up to this point, now this other thing is right from this point hereafter" but the "point in time" is expansive and undefined even if it is imminent.  At what 'instant' does it shift from "it is possible for a saved baby on milk to become so deceived as to unknowingly support evil" to "All that hear God have been called out from the deception, so those who remain there do so of their own free will." ?

I have been hearing the call for a long time now, but I was 'told' I was hearing it early, so I don't really know when the rest of them are supposed to start hearing it, BUT I do think this torture thing may be (probably is) a catalyst for it.

----------


## Atehequa

Yes and right up through the dark ages, inquisitions, manifest destiny and now. 

I didn't hit your poll button as a person's words transcends such.

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't think that really has to do with the OP. The torturing of Jesus, as wonderful as it was, as beneficial to those who have faith in him, and as pleasing to God the Father, was still a sin for those who did it.


Yes, I understand that, and I agree with you 100%. However, Christ's torture occurred for the greater good, in order that lives would be saved. The Father was even pleased to see His Son tortured, as we're told in Isaiah 53:10 (as difficult as that sentiment may be for us to accept).

So, by that same principle, could Christians not make a case that some torture is beneficial (howbeit, under crucial circumstances, as a last resort), if it saves lives for the greater good (as God defines that)? I would be open to say so.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I understand that, and I agree with you 100%. However, Christ's torture occurred for the greater good, in order that lives would be saved. The Father was even pleased to see His Son tortured, as we're told in Isaiah 53:10 (as difficult as that sentiment may be for us to accept).
> 
> So, by that same principle, could Christians not make a case that some torture is beneficial (howbeit, under crucial circumstances, as a last resort), if it saves lives for the greater good (as God defines that)? I would be open to say so.


Jesus volunteered to be tortured so you can't use that example to make your argument.  Mary also volunteered to be impregnated.  That doesn't mean that rape is okay under certain circumstances.

----------


## Theocrat

> Jesus volunteered to be tortured so you can't use that example to make your argument.  Mary also volunteered to be impregnated.  That doesn't mean that rape is okay under certain circumstances.


Jmdrake, you've made a logical fallacy of a "false analogy" because comparing Christ's torture on the cross with Mary's submission to give birth to the Savior of the world is comparing two different things. In passing, I would also say that Mary was not raped, in any sense, by having the Holy Spirit come upon her and bring forth the seed of the Messiah.

But that point aside, you must remember that, at one point, Christ was not willing to be crucified (cf. Matthew 26:36-39), but He did submit to His Father's will, eventually. Why is that? For the greater good of saving His people from the penalty of their sins by dying, Himself. So, yes, Christ did volunteer to be tortured, even though He didn't want to as the time drew near. But the principle I'm attempting to draw from that is that torture can be used for the preservation of lives (given extreme circumstances, no doubt). I can't find anything in God's word that *explicitly* instructs us that torture is evil, in and of itself. I do believe that we must use Biblical wisdom to determine when and why torture should be used in order to save lives, and that as a last resort. But the sinfulness of human hearts to do abominable and extreme acts of wickedness in this world sometimes calls for extreme measures to supplant them, too.

----------


## Todd

> Yes, I understand that, and I agree with you 100%. However, Christ's torture occurred for the greater good, in order that lives would be saved. The Father was even pleased to see His Son tortured, as we're told in Isaiah 53:10 (as difficult as that sentiment may be for us to accept).
> 
> So, by that same principle, could Christians not make a case that some torture is beneficial (howbeit, under crucial circumstances, as a last resort), if it saves lives for the greater good (as God defines that)? I would be open to say so.


Love ya Theo.  But you're wrong.  

Wow.  This Mr Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one" libtard collective horsecrap is rampant in this thread.  

Am I still on Ron Paul forums?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, you've made a logical fallacy of a "false analogy" because comparing Christ's torture on the cross with Mary's submission to give birth to the Savior of the world is comparing two different things. In passing, I would also say that Mary was not raped, in any sense, by having the Holy Spirit come upon her and bring forth the seed of the Messiah.


Theocrat you have some freaking nerve to be talking about false analogies!  You're whole stupid "Well Jesus was tortured too" argument is one big logical fallacy!  Beyond that, you're being an ridiculous.  Jesus torture was okay because he agreed to it.  Mary being impregnated was okay because she agreed to it.  If she didn't agree to it then it would have been rape and not okay.  If Jesus didn't agree to being tortured then it wouldn't be okay.  When an American citizen agrees to be waterboarded in order to see what it's like nobody is charged with torture.  Same thing when someone agrees to have a feeding tube inserted.












> But that point aside, you must remember that, at one point, Christ was not willing to be crucified (cf. Matthew 26:36-39), but He did submit to His Father's will, eventually. Why is that? For the greater good of saving His people from the penalty of their sins by dying, Himself. So, yes, Christ did volunteer to be tortured, even though He didn't want to as the time drew near.


That's not at all relevant.  Again you are the one making the logical fallacy.  Jesus agreed to the plan of salvation "From the foundation of the world."  And ultimately He said "Not my will but thine be done."  That he had cold feed about the process at one point in no way affects the fact that He agreed to let Himself be tortured.  And further, it wasn't the physical torture that hurt Jesus as much as the spiritual separation from God.  That's why Jesus cried out "My God, my God why have You forsaken me."  Focusing solely on the physical suffering is poor theology.





> But the principle I'm attempting to draw from that is that torture can be used for the preservation of lives (given extreme circumstances, no doubt). I can't find anything in God's word that *explicitly* instructs us that torture is evil, in and of itself. I do believe that we must use Biblical wisdom to determine when and why torture should be used in order to save lives, and that as a last resort. But the sinfulness of human hearts to do abominable and extreme acts of wickedness in this world sometimes calls for extreme measures to supplant them, too.


If you're going to go with the "Well the Bible doesn't say though shalt not torture" argument, I disagree, but that's an argument.  The "Well Jesus was tortured so it must be okay" argument is just plain stupid.

----------


## jmdrake

> Love ya Theo.  But you're wrong.  
> 
> Wow.  This Mr Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one" libtard collective horsecrap is rampant in this thread.  
> 
> Am I still on Ron Paul forums?


Even then, Mr. Spock was *volunteering* to sacrifice his life for the good of the ship.  That's perfectly fine from a libertarian / liberty point of view.  Spock volunteered to die for the ship.  Jesus volunteered to be tortured and die for the earth.  Mary volunteered to be an unwed mother.  Force is the issue here.

----------


## Theocrat

> Love ya Theo.  But you're wrong.  
> 
> Wow.  This Mr Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one" libtard collective horsecrap is rampant in this thread.  
> 
> Am I still on Ron Paul forums?


Todd, I'm not trying to argue from some arbitrary, utilitarian approach to justify torture. As a Christian, my commitment is to the Holy Scriptures, primarily, as the means of understanding the world and human affairs in the world (as God sees them). As I've said previously, I am open to an argument for the use of torture, provided that it begins from some Biblical principle. The Biblical principle that I've alluded to is the salvation or preservation of lives, and I've looked at how one example of torture in the Scriptures (Christ's passion) could be a foundation for the use of torture for that greater good (which I've also acknowledged must be defined by God's word).

Yes, I understand that Christ's torture on the cross was, ultimately, for an eternal and spiritual cause, but it also had temporal and physical ramifications. But we as Christians should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that the Bible gives no prescriptions about the use nor prohibition of torture (at least from my personal studies, and I'm open to be corrected on that). So, what we're left with is using wisdom gleaned from God's word to ascertain the validity and/or the process by which torture can be used. I'm attempting to glean some principles from the cross of Christ, but I am also not fully committed to whether torture ought to be used at all.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat you have some freaking nerve to be talking about false analogies!  You're whole stupid "Well Jesus was tortured too" argument is one big logical fallacy!  Beyond that, you're being an ridiculous.  Jesus torture was okay because he agreed to it.  Mary being impregnated was okay because she agreed to it.  If she didn't agree to it then it would have been rape and not okay.  If Jesus didn't agree to being tortured then it wouldn't be okay.  When an American citizen agrees to be waterboarded in order to see what it's like nobody is charged with torture.  Same thing when someone agrees to have a feeding tube inserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jmdrake, I don't believe that I've used a false analogy in starting with the only example of torture in the Bible (Christ's) and trying to extract from that a principle on the use of torture, from God's perspective. But, I also don't want to spend the rest of this thread in a "back-and-forth" game of accusing each other of logical fallacies, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your aggressive remarks.

Concerning the videos that you've posted, let me just assure you that I don't find those to be Biblical approaches to justify the use of torture because in either case, the torture was not used for the salvation of others' lives. Therefore, I would be on your side and say that those forms of torture are horrendous.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, I don't believe that I've used a false analogy in starting with the only example of torture in the Bible (Christ's) and trying to extract from that a principle on the use of torture, from God's perspective. But, I also don't want to spend the rest of this thread in a "back-and-forth" game of accusing each other of logical fallacies, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your aggressive remarks.


Right.  When I turn  your fallacy back on you that's somehow "aggressive".    Sorry but that's just silly.  You are focused on the torture, I'm focused on the use of force.  As for this being the only example of torture in the Bible, that's simply not true.  That's unless you think the floggings of Paul and others were walks in the park.




> Concerning the videos that you've posted, let me just assure you that I don't find those to be Biblical approaches to justify the use of torture because in either case, the torture was not used for the salvation of others' lives. Therefore, I would be on your side and say that those forms of torture are horrendous.


Actually the videos I posted are arguably being used for the salvation of lives.  In both videos the person in the videos agreed to be tortured in order to point out that torture is wrong.  If they raise enough awareness about torture, then maybe public awareness that torture shouldn't be allowed is raised and lives can be saved.  So if you want to go with the Jesus analogy, feel free to volunteer to be tortured yourself so that people can see how bad torture is.

----------


## Theocrat

> Right.  When I turn  your fallacy back on you that's somehow "aggressive".    Sorry but that's just silly.  You are focused on the torture, I'm focused on the use of force.  As for this being the only example of torture in the Bible, that's simply not true.  That's unless you think the floggings of Paul and others were walks in the park.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the videos I posted are arguably being used for the salvation of lives.  In both videos the person in the videos agreed to be tortured in order to point out that torture is wrong.  If they raise enough awareness about torture, then maybe public awareness that torture shouldn't be allowed is raised and lives can be saved.  So if you want to go with the Jesus analogy, feel free to volunteer to be tortured yourself so that people can see how bad torture is.


Jmdrake, we're not arguing about whether the use of force can be supported by Christians in this thread; we're discussing whether torture can be supported by Christians. If the topic were about the use of force, then Paul's floggings (and the other apostles', as well) would be relevant to the discussion. But Paul's floggings are not relevant at all because Paul was not being tortured for his faith, especially not in any way comparable to Christ's crucifixion.

I understand the reason for those videos, as educational tools to aware the public about the painfulness of torture. But I'm talking about the real-world scenario of answering the questions of "when" and "why" such forms of torture should be used, at least starting from the Bible. If someone is waterboarded just to get him to confess a crime, then I would say there is absolutely no Biblical reason to torture him. If someone is force-fed by the use of torture, then I can't find a Biblical reason for that form of torture, either.

But, the bottom line of it all is that there has to be a foundation for the use of torture, and that foundation must come from God's word (given the Christian worldview). So, jmdrake, can you show me where God has revealed that torture is never to be used under any circumstance?

----------


## moostraks

> Jmdrake, we're not arguing about whether the use of force can be supported by Christians in this thread; we're discussing whether torture can be supported by Christians. If the topic were about the use of force, then Paul's floggings (and the other apostles', as well) would be relevant to the discussion. But Paul's floggings are not relevant at all because Paul was not being tortured for his faith, especially not in any way comparable to Christ's crucifixion.
> 
> I understand the reason for those videos, as educational tools to aware the public about the painfulness of torture. But I'm talking about the real-world scenario of answering the questions of "when" and "why" such forms of torture should be used, at least starting from the Bible. If someone is waterboarded just to get him to confess a crime, then I would say there is absolutely no Biblical reason to torture him. If someone is force-fed by the use of torture, then I can't find a Biblical reason for that form of torture, either.
> 
> But, the bottom line of it all is that there has to be a foundation for the use of torture, and that foundation must come from God's word (given the Christian worldview). So, jmdrake, can you show me where God has revealed that torture is never to be used under any circumstance?


Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Is that not sufficiently clear enough instruction for you?

----------


## Todd

> Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> 
> 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
> 
> Is that not sufficiently clear enough instruction for you?


Yep.  the Bibilical references for the heart of the matter have been posted ad naseum in this thread.  But I have yet to see one where it's explicitly said to save others lives by means of evil.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, we're not arguing about whether the use of force can be supported by Christians in this thread; we're discussing whether torture can be supported by Christians. If the topic were about the use of force, then Paul's floggings (and the other apostles', as well) would be relevant to the discussion. But Paul's floggings are not relevant at all because Paul was not being tortured for his faith, especially not in any way comparable to Christ's crucifixion.
> 
> I understand the reason for those videos, as educational tools to aware the public about the painfulness of torture. But I'm talking about the real-world scenario of answering the questions of "when" and "why" such forms of torture should be used, at least starting from the Bible. If someone is waterboarded just to get him to confess a crime, then I would say there is absolutely no Biblical reason to torture him. If someone is force-fed by the use of torture, then I can't find a Biblical reason for that form of torture, either.
> 
> But, the bottom line of it all is that there has to be a foundation for the use of torture, and that foundation must come from God's word (given the Christian worldview). So, jmdrake, can you show me where God has revealed that torture is never to be used under any circumstance?


Theocrat, your reference to the torture of Jesus is only relevant if you admit that Jesus volunteered to be tortured.  Once you admit that Jesus volunteered to be tortured, then you have to admit that we are now talking about force rather than merely talking about torture.  Jesus volunteered to be murdered as well.  We're not simply talking about killing.  We're talking about the unjust killing of an innocent person.  So using your "logic" it's okay to unjustly kill someone who has not volunteered to be a sacrifice simply because Jesus was unjustly killed.  That's the "logical" conclusion to your argument.

Now as for the general revelation as to whether torture goes against scripture, that's really already been covered in this thread.  If you wish to disagree with it, fine.  Christians disagree on all sorts of things that others believe were clearly revealed.  I believe when Jesus said "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies.  Do good to them that despitefully use you and persecute you" that covers torture.  You are clearly familiar with those verses and you fit in the category of Traditional Conservative and others who, absent a command that says "Thou shalt not torture" just don't see that Jesus covered torture.  Fine.  You have your opinion, I have mine.  But the "Jesus was tortured so that means torture is okay sometimes" argument simply holds no water.

Edit: And here is the ultimate problem with your torture argument.  I've seen apologists for papal persecution torture argue *in this very forum* that it was justified by the need to stop heresy because the "false teaching" could cause people's souls to be lost.  To be fair I've seen Calvinists use similar arguments to justify John Calvin's personal failure and the failure of the Dutch reform in this same regard.  And going further, Muslims use the same "logic" to justify killing people who abandon Islam.  "Maybe if this one infidel/heretic is tortured to death then other infidels/heretics will think twice about abandoning Jesus/Yahweh/Allah."  

In fact it's the same "logic" the priests who ordered Jesus' death used.  "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."  John 11:50  Now yes, ultimately Caiphas was fulfilling prophecy.  But ultimately Caiphas will also pay for his sin in the torture and murder of Jesus.  In fact everyone who was part of the torture and murder of Jesus and who did not repent will pay for that sin.  They will not be able to plead on the day of judgement "Well God ultimately wanted that to happen so what we did should be excused."

----------


## jmdrake

> Yep.  the Bibilical references for the heart of the matter have been posted ad naseum in this thread.  But I have yet to see one where it's explicitly said to save others lives by means of evil.


I guess that's what Theocrat is trying to get at but his argument is more than a bit of a stretch.  (Good came from the "evil" of Jesus being tortured, but Jesus agreed to it.)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Theocrat you have some freaking nerve to be talking about false analogies!  You're whole stupid "Well Jesus was tortured too" argument is one big logical fallacy!  Beyond that, you're being an ridiculous.  Jesus torture was okay because he agreed to it.  Mary being impregnated was okay because she agreed to it.  If she didn't agree to it then it would have been rape and not okay.  If Jesus didn't agree to being tortured then it wouldn't be okay.  When an American citizen agrees to be waterboarded in order to see what it's like nobody is charged with torture.  Same thing when someone agrees to have a feeding tube inserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I agree with the salient point here.  To use an ad ridiculum to illustrate the point, let's say in Nazi Germany the Jews went willingly.  Doesn't make what Hitler did any less evil.  Just because one party takes the attitude of non-resistance, doesn't excuse or ameliorate the burden of guilt from the other party.  In fact, the Scriptures would appear argue that submitting to their cruelty will ACTUALLY make the evildoer's punishment _worse_.


(Proverbs 25:21-22 KJV) If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

(Romans 12:14-21 KJV) Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

----------


## Crashland

> Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> 
> 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
> 
> Is that not sufficiently clear enough instruction for you?


If you apply this verse to torture, it would be hypocritical not to apply this to _any_ use of force. Someone trying to kill you or your family? Turn the other cheek and bless them. Unless you think you can shoot an enemy lovingly, right?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not sure I agree with the salient point here.  To use an ad ridiculum to illustrate the point, let's say in Nazi Germany the Jews went willingly.  Doesn't make what Hitler did any less evil.  Just because one party takes the attitude of non-resistance, doesn't excuse or ameliorate the burden of guilt from the other party.  In fact, the Scriptures would appear argue that submitting to their cruelty will ACTUALLY make the evildoer's punishment _worse_.


Jesus submitted willingly to an evil that He knew would ultimately lead to good.  To use a military analogy imagine a marine who willingly volunteers to go on what will clearly be a suicide mission versus one forced to go on one at gun point.  




> (Proverbs 25:21-22 KJV) If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.
> 
> (Romans 12:14-21 KJV) Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.


Yep.  I agree that such passages do not allow for torture.  But some of our fellow Christians beg to differ.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you apply this verse to torture, it would be hypocritical not to apply this to _any_ use of force. Someone trying to kill you or your family? Turn the other cheek and bless them. Unless you think you can shoot an enemy lovingly, right?


In context, the disciples were told to sell their cloaks and buy a sword.  For self-defense.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you apply this verse to torture, it would be hypocritical not to apply this to _any_ use of force. Someone trying to kill you or your family? Turn the other cheek and bless them. Unless you think you can shoot an enemy lovingly, right?


Maybe it doesn't.  There is no record of the early church ever using violence even in self defense.  That said this is a straw man argument.  As I've already pointed out multiple times before, self defense means using the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence.  Take the case of guns used in self defense.  Most of the time the gun is used to scare away an attacker.  There is the old joke about a man who was trying to break into a Quaker house.  He was met at the backdoor with a shotgun.  The Quaker said "Excuse me friend but though art standing where I am fixing to shoot!"

Back to torture versus self defense, torture is done against someone who is defenseless at that point.  When someone is actively trying to kill you, you can't exactly offer him a glass of water.  But when he's your prisoner you can.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jesus submitted willingly to an evil that He knew would ultimately lead to good.  To use a military analogy imagine a marine who willingly volunteers to go on what will clearly be a suicide mission versus one forced to go on one at gun point.


Still don't buy it.  The only reason the Roman Soldiers were forgiven was because Jesus Christ said, "Father forgive them."  Submitting to evil does NOT make the evil any less evil.  Also, a Marine charging a machinegun nest doesn't make the enemy any less 'enemy' simple because the Marine was willing to make the charge.




> Yep.  I agree that such passages do not allow for torture.  But some of our fellow Christians beg to differ.


Since it's blatantly impossible to be in Christ and support torture, I would have to caveat that with "Nominal" Christians, or Christians "in name only."

----------


## jmdrake

> Still don't buy it.  The only reason the Roman Soldiers were forgiven was because Jesus Christ said, "Father forgive them."  Submitting to evil does NOT make the evil any less evil.  Also, a Marine charging a machinegun nest doesn't make the enemy any less 'enemy' simple because the Marine was willing to make the charge.


Okay.  Let me be more explicit.  I would consider God the Father as the marine commander, Jesus being the marine charging the machinegun nest, the Roman Soldiers as being the ones manning the nest, and Satan being the opposing general.  Theocrat's point is that since God the father was pleased with Jesus sacrifice, that was somehow an endorsement of torture since it led to an ultimate good.  I said that's not an endorsement of torture because Jesus went willingly and God the Father didn't force Him to go.  I also pointed out earlier that the Roman centurion was forgiven because he accepted Christ's offer of forgiveness.  Actually Christ offered forgiveness to all involved, but for the text we only know specifically about the centurion's repentance.  So, please understand, I'm not excusing the torture done by the agents of Satan against Jesus because Jesus went willingly.  I already said that, barring forgiveness, they literally have hell to pay.  I'm saying that God the Father being pleased with Jesus sacrifice can no way be used to justify torture because God the Father didn't force Jesus to lay down His life.  Understand now?




> Since it's blatantly impossible to be in Christ and support torture, I would have to caveat that with "Nominal" Christians, or Christians "in name only."


Well that's the point of this and the other similar thread on the subject.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okay.  Let me be more explicit.  I would consider God the Father as the marine commander, Jesus being the marine charging the machinegun nest, the Roman Soldiers as being the ones manning the nest, and Satan being the opposing general.  Theocrat's point is that since God the father was pleased with Jesus sacrifice, that was somehow an endorsement of torture since it led to an ultimate good.  I said that's not an endorsement of torture because Jesus went willingly and God the Father didn't force Him to go.  I also pointed out earlier that the Roman centurion was forgiven because he accepted Christ's offer of forgiveness.  Actually Christ offered forgiveness to all involved, but for the text we only know specifically about the centurion's repentance.  So, please understand, I'm not excusing the torture done by the agents of Satan against Jesus because Jesus went willingly.  I already said that, barring forgiveness, they literally have hell to pay.  I'm saying that God the Father being pleased with Jesus sacrifice can no way be used to justify torture because God the Father didn't force Jesus to lay down His life.  Understand now?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the point of this and the other similar thread on the subject.


Oh you definitely have that part right; Yeshua's endurance of torture in no way, shape, or form makes torture OK.  Just because someone endures evil in no way shape or form makes it any less evil.  My only point was that the centurions were forgiven NOT because Yeshua submitted to them, but because He forgave them.

----------


## Crashland

> Maybe it doesn't.  There is no record of the early church ever using violence even in self defense.  That said this is a straw man argument.  As I've already pointed out multiple times before, self defense means using the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence.  Take the case of guns used in self defense.  Most of the time the gun is used to scare away an attacker.  There is the old joke about a man who was trying to break into a Quaker house.  He was met at the backdoor with a shotgun.  The Quaker said "Excuse me friend but though art standing where I am fixing to shoot!"
> 
> Back to torture versus self defense, torture is done against someone who is defenseless at that point.  When someone is actively trying to kill you, you can't exactly offer him a glass of water.  But when he's your prisoner you can.


I completely agree with "the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence". The only difference between our positions is that I don't think "acts that are the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence" and "acts of torture" are necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In my venn diagram, those two groups are just barely touching. In yours, they aren't touching at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

They definitely aren't touching.  I'm willing to bet that torture has never once stopped any violence in the entire history of the human race.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh you definitely have that part right; Yeshua's endurance of torture in no way, shape, or form makes torture OK.  Just because someone endures evil in no way shape or form makes it any less evil.  My only point was that the centurions were forgiven NOT because Yeshua submitted to them, but because He forgave them.


Yes.  We agree.  We aren't arguing that point.  I kind of made that earlier.  Thank you for the additional clarification.

----------


## jmdrake

> I completely agree with "the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence". The only difference between our positions is that I don't think "acts that are the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent violence" and "acts of torture" are necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In my venn diagram, those two groups are just barely touching. In yours, they aren't touching at all.


Here is the basic difference between our frames of reference.  You are looking at when can you torture someone.  I am looking at when can I show kindness to someone.  The only time showing kindness to someone is actually meaningful is when I have power over that person.  If I am a prisoner and I offer something to a guard am I being kind?  The guard can take it by force anyway.  If someone has a gun to my head and has taken my wallet and I offer to let him clear out my bank account too, am I being kind?  On the flip side, if I've disarmed the mugger, then feel sorry for him and buy him a meal am I being kind?

The last time spontaneous kindness was shown in war on a large scale was 100 years ago at the Christmas truce of 1914.  Both sides exchanged gifts, let each other bury their war dead, sang songs together, played soccer together etc.  I suspect that if any of these men had caught someone from the other side, they would not have tortured that person unless absolutely forced by their commanders.  Christianity revolves around a sincere belief that, giving the opportunity to do so, showing kindness always leads to the ultimate best results.

----------


## Crashland

> Here is the basic difference between our frames of reference.  You are looking at when can you torture someone.  I am looking at when can I show kindness to someone.  The only time showing kindness to someone is actually meaningful is when I have power over that person.  If I am a prisoner and I offer something to a guard am I being kind?  The guard can take it by force anyway.  If someone has a gun to my head and has taken my wallet and I offer to let him clear out my bank account too, am I being kind?  On the flip side, if I've disarmed the mugger, then feel sorry for him and buy him a meal am I being kind?
> 
> The last time spontaneous kindness was shown in war on a large scale was 100 years ago at the Christmas truce of 1914.  Both sides exchanged gifts, let each other bury their war dead, sang songs together, played soccer together etc.  I suspect that if any of these men had caught someone from the other side, they would not have tortured that person unless absolutely forced by their commanders.  Christianity revolves around a sincere belief that, giving the opportunity to do so, showing kindness always leads to the ultimate best results.


I disagree with that, but I can acknowledge it as a philosophy especially in a Christian context. However I don't see that as being a logically consistent view outside of total pacifism. If kindness always leads to the best results, and if we assume that torture is never "kind", then there is no circumstance in which torture could be justified. But you can't say that kindness always leads to the best results when we are talking about torture, but it doesn't necessarily always lead to the best results when we are talking about other less extreme "unkind" actions that also happen to inflict pain on others against their consent.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Theocrat you have some freaking nerve to be talking about false analogies!  You're whole stupid "Well Jesus was tortured too" argument is one big logical fallacy!  Beyond that, you're being an ridiculous.  Jesus torture was okay because he agreed to it.  Mary being impregnated was okay because she agreed to it.  If she didn't agree to it then it would have been rape and not okay.  If Jesus didn't agree to being tortured then it wouldn't be okay.  When an American citizen agrees to be waterboarded in order to see what it's like nobody is charged with torture.  Same thing when someone agrees to have a feeding tube inserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not only that, Jesus was (is) God himself made man.  I don't see how Theo's argument there can be spun as a reasonable comparison.

----------


## jmdrake

> I disagree with that, but I can acknowledge it as a philosophy especially in a Christian context. However I don't see that as being a logically consistent view outside of total pacifism. If kindness always leads to the best results, and if we assume that torture is never "kind", then there is no circumstance in which torture could be justified. But you can't say that kindness always leads to the best results when we are talking about torture, but it doesn't necessarily always lead to the best results when we are talking about other less extreme "unkind" actions that also happen to inflict pain on others against their consent.


Okay.  You totally missed my point.  If you are actively trying to kill me then you are not giving me the opportunity to show you kindness.  Once you are no longer actively trying to kill me, my showing you kindness becomes a possibility.  Again I point you to the Christmas truce.  One of those soldiers, some say German some say British, took advantage of a lull in the fighting (nobody actively trying to shoot at anyone), to show kindness by advancing under a flag of truce, Christmas present for his enemy in hand.  Had the other side opened fire there would not have been the opportunity to show kindness.  Once you have taken somebody prisoner you have the opportunity to show kindness.  You also have the opportunity to mistreat your prisoner.  I know you are intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

----------


## Theocrat

> Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> 
> 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
> 
> Is that not sufficiently clear enough instruction for you?


Where is torture (in the interest of saving lives, nonetheless) used in the context of that, moostraks?

----------


## jmdrake

> Where is torture (in the interest of saving lives, nonetheless) used in the context of that, moostraks?


It's not.  That's her point.  Jesus gave the instruction to "love your enemies" ad to "do good to them that hate you."  Those commands are fundamentally incompatible with torture.  Oh you say "But this may save lives."  Well those who burned heretics at the stake said they were doing it to "save souls."  What's the difference?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, your reference to the torture of Jesus is only relevant if you admit that Jesus volunteered to be tortured.  Once you admit that Jesus volunteered to be tortured, then you have to admit that we are now talking about force rather than merely talking about torture.  Jesus volunteered to be murdered as well.  We're not simply talking about killing.  We're talking about the unjust killing of an innocent person.  So using your "logic" it's okay to unjustly kill someone who has not volunteered to be a sacrifice simply because Jesus was unjustly killed.  That's the "logical" conclusion to your argument.
> 
> Now as for the general revelation as to whether torture goes against scripture, that's really already been covered in this thread.  If you wish to disagree with it, fine.  Christians disagree on all sorts of things that others believe were clearly revealed.  I believe when Jesus said "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies.  Do good to them that despitefully use you and persecute you" that covers torture.  You are clearly familiar with those verses and you fit in the category of Traditional Conservative and others who, absent a command that says "Thou shalt not torture" just don't see that Jesus covered torture.  Fine.  You have your opinion, I have mine.  But the "Jesus was tortured so that means torture is okay sometimes" argument simply holds no water.
> 
> Edit: And here is the ultimate problem with your torture argument.  I've seen apologists for papal persecution torture argue *in this very forum* that it was justified by the need to stop heresy because the "false teaching" could cause people's souls to be lost.  To be fair I've seen Calvinists use similar arguments to justify John Calvin's personal failure and the failure of the Dutch reform in this same regard.  And going further, Muslims use the same "logic" to justify killing people who abandon Islam.  "Maybe if this one infidel/heretic is tortured to death then other infidels/heretics will think twice about abandoning Jesus/Yahweh/Allah."  
> 
> In fact it's the same "logic" the priests who ordered Jesus' death used.  "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."  John 11:50  Now yes, ultimately Caiphas was fulfilling prophecy.  But ultimately Caiphas will also pay for his sin in the torture and murder of Jesus.  In fact everyone who was part of the torture and murder of Jesus and who did not repent will pay for that sin.  They will not be able to plead on the day of judgement "Well God ultimately wanted that to happen so what we did should be excused."


There we see that you've committed another logical fallacy of a "false analogy," jmdrake. Comparing torture to murder is simply comparing two different things. No one is arguing whether or not Christians should support *murder*; the topic is whether or not a Christian can support *torture*. Torture does not always end in death, and the basis for torture that I'm attempting to address is of the form that ensues the salvation of other people's lives.

Yes, I agree with you that Christians have supported evil policies in history, much to their own ignorance. But your argument against torture seems to argue, at the outset, that torture is evil, so therefore, it's evil by definition. But that just begs the question, and as of yet, I have not seen anyone in this thread give a Biblical case against the use of torture, without citing passages whose contexts have nothing to do with proving the evils of torture.

So, you may think that my case "holds no water," and that's okay. As I've said before, I'm not fully committed to the use or prohibition of torture, either way. But as a Christian, I have a responsibility to find out answers by appealing to God by the revelation of His holy word, in prayer and in wisdom. That's all I'm seeking to do in this discussion.

----------


## Theocrat

> It's not.  That's her point.  Jesus gave the instruction to "love your enemies" ad to "do good to them that hate you."  Those commands are fundamentally incompatible with torture.  Oh you say "But this may save lives."  Well those who burned heretics at the stake said they were doing it to "save souls."  What's the difference?


Those passages are not teaching civil pacifism, anyway, so her quoting of them is simply moot in this discussion.

----------


## jmdrake

> There we see that you've committed another logical fallacy of a "false analogy," jmdrake. Comparing torture to murder is simply comparing two different things. No one is arguing whether or not Christians should support *murder*;


I'm beginning to wonder if you just don't understand reasoning by analogy.  The whole point of making an analogy is to find something that your opponent agrees with you on and showing by analogy that its similar to something you and he disagree on.  If you were okay with murder than there would be no need to make that analogy.  In trying to make yourself look wise you are really making yourself look foolish Theocrat.

Two things happened at the crucifixion.  Jesus was tortured and Jesus was killed.  If you are going to misuse the fact that Jesus was tortured as reason that torture is okay, then by *correct* analogy, not "false" analogy, you must also accept that murder is okay.  The reasoning is the same even though the facts are slightly different.  And are you so ignorant that you don't know that people routinely die from being tortured?  If you torture someone and that person dies as a result you will be charged with murder.  So you can't get away with your silly "Well I'm not condoning murder" argument.  One of the Iraqi detainees that was tortured was basically crucified.  He was hung by his arms until he suffocated to death.  The interrogator didn't mean to kill him but he died anyway.  That's murder.

You and Matt Collins need to lay off the silly "logical fallacy" claims because neither of you have a clue as to what that actually means.  Whenever someone is making an analogy *by the very definition of the word analogy* there is a difference between the two things being compared.  That's why they are called "analogies."  When talking about abortion the analogy is often made that one wouldn't support killing a baby more prematurely at 5 months so why support the abortion of a fetus that is older than 5 months?  The pro abortion side falsely claims, as you are doing here, "false analogy" because they (rightly) point out that they aren't for killing premature babies.  But the analogy is not false because the same "It's not really a human" logic that allows someone to go along with abortion should also apply to a baby of the same age.  And by analogy the same "Torture is okay because Jesus was tortured" logic applies to "Murder is okay because Jesus was murdered" argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> Those passages are not teaching civil pacifism, anyway, so her quoting of them is simply moot in this discussion.


To someone as theologically and logically challenged as you it probably is moot.  Your problem is that you think taking a stand against torture is "civil pacifism."  It isn't.

----------


## staerker

> As Christians, do we support Christ's suffering on the cross? Was that not torture, yet, we glory in that punishment because of what it afforded to all of the world in providing complete atonement for sins so that those who believe in Jesus would not be tortured, themselves, by having to face the full wrath of God for the penalty of their sins eternally?


@10:24

----------


## Theocrat

> I'm beginning to wonder if you just don't understand reasoning by analogy.  The whole point of making an analogy is to find something that your opponent agrees with you on and showing by analogy that its similar to something you and he disagree on.  If you were okay with murder than there would be no need to make that analogy.  In trying to make yourself look wise you are really making yourself look foolish Theocrat.
> 
> Two things happened at the crucifixion.  Jesus was tortured and Jesus was killed.  If you are going to misuse the fact that Jesus was tortured as reason that torture is okay, then by *correct* analogy, not "false" analogy, you must also accept that murder is okay.  The reasoning is the same even though the facts are slightly different.  And are you so ignorant that you don't know that people routinely die from being tortured?  If you torture someone and that person dies as a result you will be charged with murder.  So you can't get away with your silly "Well I'm not condoning murder" argument.  One of the Iraqi detainees that was tortured was basically crucified.  He was hung by his arms until he suffocated to death.  The interrogator didn't mean to kill him but he died anyway.  That's murder.
> 
> You and Matt Collins need to lay off the silly "logical fallacy" claims because neither of you have a clue as to what that actually means.  Whenever someone is making an analogy *by the very definition of the word analogy* there is a difference between the two things being compared.  That's why they are called "analogies."  When talking about abortion the analogy is often made that one wouldn't support killing a baby more prematurely at 5 months so why support the abortion of a fetus that is older than 5 months?  The pro abortion side falsely claims, as you are doing here, "false analogy" because they (rightly) point out that they aren't for killing premature babies.  But the analogy is not false because the same "It's not really a human" logic that allows someone to go along with abortion should also apply to a baby of the same age.  And by analogy the same "Torture is okay because Jesus was tortured" logic applies to "Murder is okay because Jesus was murdered" argument.


Jmdrake, I understand what you're getting at, but once again, I need to reiterate to you that I am not arguing for whether or not Christians should support murder, and that is not the subject of this thread. It should be clear that the Bible repeatedly teaches against murder, so I don't need to use Christ's crucifixion as a model to support murder. However, unlike murder, the Bible does not teach against the use of torture, at least not explicitly. But that's what we need to find out in order to answer the question correctly in the OP. The infliction of pain upon an individual towards the goal of saving lives is what we're looking at, *not* the killing of an individual towards the goal of saving lives. There is a difference between inflicting pain and murdering someone, and if you can't see that, then we're going to be talking past each other every single time in this discussion.

----------


## Theocrat

> To someone as theologically and logically challenged as you it probably is moot.  Your problem is that you think taking a stand against torture is "civil pacifism."  It isn't.


My point is that the passage she cited had nothing to do with refuting nor answering the reply in which she responded to because Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" was not about how should the government treat its enemies (of the which torture is the disputed tactic of this discussion).

----------


## otherone

> Your problem is that you think taking a stand against torture is "civil pacifism."  It isn't.


It appears that lots of folks are looking for loopholes in the commandments.

_ Matthew 24:4-5 
And Jesus answered them, See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they will lead many astray.  
_

IMO, those who condone torture are committing the sin of pride:

_ Psalm 37
Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act. 
_

----------


## Brett85

> Back to torture versus self defense, torture is done against someone who is defenseless at that point.  When someone is actively trying to kill you, you can't exactly offer him a glass of water.  But when he's your prisoner you can.


The death penalty is justified all throughout the Bible, and that's an example of taking the life of someone who's completely defenseless.

----------


## Todd

> The death penalty is justified all throughout the _Old Testament_, and that's an example of taking the life of someone who's completely defenseless.


fixed.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, I understand what you're getting at, but once again, I need to reiterate to you that I am not arguing for whether or not Christians should support murder, and that is not the subject of this thread. It should be clear that the Bible repeatedly teaches against murder, so I don't need to use Christ's crucifixion as a model to support murder. However, unlike murder, the Bible does not teach against the use of torture, at least not explicitly. But that's what we need to find out in order to answer the question correctly in the OP. The infliction of pain upon an individual towards the goal of saving lives is what we're looking at, *not* the killing of an individual towards the goal of saving lives. There is a difference between inflicting pain and murdering someone, and if you can't see that, then we're going to be talking past each other every single time in this discussion.


It should be clear to you that the fact that you aren't arguing whether or not Christians should support murder is irrelevant.  In fact it's beyond irrelevant.  It actually supports my point.  You know that murder is wrong.  You know that Jesus was tortured and murdered.  So you can't turn around and say "Well the fact that God was pleased with Jesus being tortured means that torture must be okay" *unless* you are going to say that murder is okay.  You realize that murder is not okay because you read it in the Bible.  Therefore you can *not* use the "God was pleased with Jesus being tortured so torture is okay" argument.  I will keep pointing this out until the truth of this fact finally sinks in.

----------


## jmdrake

> The death penalty is justified all throughout the Bible, and that's an example of taking the life of someone who's completely defenseless.


I've already explained why the death penalty is not supported in the New Testament and I *thought* you understood that the first time, but I will explain it again.  When given the opportunity to enforce a capital crime, Jesus refused.  Some idiots try to argue "Well it's because they didn't bring the man along with the woman to be stoned."  But we're talking about *Jesus* here.  He could have said "I know she was sleeping with Mr. X.  I demand you bring Mr. X here so we can stone them both."  He didn't.  After everyone else left He said "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."  When Annanias and Safira were killed for lying to the Holy Spirit, it was the Holy Spirit that killed them, not Peter.  There is no place in the New Testament where the church either administered capital punishment or condoned it.  Now you might turn to Romans 13, but that doesn't prove your point either.  No where does Paul mention the sword of the state being used to kill a defenseless person.  So for all you know, Paul was talking about the policing power of the state as opposed to capital punishment.  But even that argument is weak as Paul wrongly claimed that the "Sword is not a terror to those who do righteously."  Paul himself was put to death by the sword of the state for doing righteousness.  The only way to fix up Paul's statement in Romans 13 is to assume he is saying that if you are killed by the state for righteousness then it's not a terror.  Well maybe it *should* not be a terror, but that's assuming that everyone who ever does something good and is killed by a tyrant for doing so has enough faith that he can rejoice in the evil being done to him.

Now why is it important to point out the old testament, new testament distinction?  See here:

Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 19:21 _Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot._

New Testament:
Matthew 5:38 - 48 _38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;_

It's funny that some of the same Christians who rag on Seventh Day Adventists for being "old testament Christians" when it comes to keeping the Sabbath, something done in the old and new testament, will turn around and go all old testament on issues like capital punishment.  (I've not seen you personally rag on SDAs so I'm talking in generalities here).  Why is it that people want to gloss over the *most important* teachings of Christ?  "Well the Bible says an eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth."  Yes the old testament taught that.  But Jesus came and taught a better way.

----------


## jmdrake

> My point is that the passage she cited had nothing to do with refuting nor answering the reply in which she responded to because Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" was not about how should the government treat its enemies (of the which torture is the disputed tactic of this discussion).


This thread is not talking about "the government" but rather the Christians who support it.  You have heard of vicarious righteousness?  Well there is vicarious evil as well.  Or more directly, vicarious violence.  Going back to your crucifixion analogy, those who cried out "Crucify him!  Crucify him!" never drove a nail into His body.  That did not absolve them of the guilt for given His murder their support.

----------


## Theocrat

> It should be clear to you that the fact that you aren't arguing whether or not Christians should support murder is irrelevant.  In fact it's beyond irrelevant.  It actually supports my point.  You know that murder is wrong.  You know that Jesus was tortured and murdered.  So you can't turn around and say "Well the fact that God was pleased with Jesus being tortured means that torture must be okay" *unless* you are going to say that murder is okay.  You realize that murder is not okay because you read it in the Bible.  Therefore you can *not* use the "God was pleased with Jesus being tortured so torture is okay" argument.  I will keep pointing this out until the truth of this fact finally sinks in.


Jmdrake, my argument has never been, "Well the fact that God was pleased with Jesus being tortured means that torture must be okay" in reasoning about a Biblical case for torture. Jesus wasn't tortured just for the sake of showing that He could endure pain, after all. My point in using Christ's crucifixion is an attempt to glean some principle for using the infliction of pain with the result of saving lives. So, if you're going to try to refute my argument, then quote me accurately.

That's why you keep going to the stupid notion that "God must be okay with murder because Jesus was murdered" approach because you do not even understand what I'm arguing. There is no truth to what you're saying because you're now committing the logical fallacy of a strawman. You're trying to tear down an argument that I have not even reasoned from, in the first place. If you weren't so emotional in your posts in this thread, and you stopped to think about what I'm getting at, then perhaps you would understand my point, jmdrake. But as it stands now, I can see that it will be difficult for you to do so, which means that I cannot take any of your posts seriously.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, my argument has never been, "Well the fact that God was pleased with Jesus being tortured means that torture must be okay" in reasoning about a Biblical case for torture. Jesus wasn't tortured just for the sake of showing that He could endure pain, after all. My point in using Christ's crucifixion is an attempt to glean some principle for using the infliction of pain with the result of saving lives. So, if you're going to try to refute my argument, then quote me accurately.


Theocrat, Jesus torture and death was a package deal.  You can't make the argument *that you did make* that Christian support of Jesus suffering on the cross for our sins is tantamount to supporting torture without also making the argument that Christian support of the murder of Jesus is tantamount to supporting murder.  And just so that you will quit falsely accusing me of "misquoting you", here is a direct quote of the nonsense you originally said.

_As Christians, do we support Christ's suffering on the cross? Was that not torture, yet, we glory in that punishment because of what it afforded to all of the world in providing complete atonement for sins so that those who believe in Jesus would not be tortured, themselves, by having to face the full wrath of God for the penalty of their sins eternally?_




> That's why you keep going to the stupid notion that "God must be okay with murder because Jesus was murdered" approach because you do not even understand what I'm arguing.


What is stupid is your original argument which I have just *accurately quoted* for you since you want to play childish games.  We are saved not merely through the suffering of Jesus.  We are saved through the suffering *and murder* of Jesus.  If my support for Jesus torture means I support torture than my support for Jesus' murder means I support murder.

----------


## Brett85

> fixed.


Is the Old Testament not part of the Bible?

----------


## Brett85

> I've already explained why the death penalty is not supported in the New Testament and I *thought* you understood that the first time, but I will explain it again.  When given the opportunity to enforce a capital crime, Jesus refused.  Some idiots try to argue "Well it's because they didn't bring the man along with the woman to be stoned."  But we're talking about *Jesus* here.  He could have said "I know she was sleeping with Mr. X.  I demand you bring Mr. X here so we can stone them both."  He didn't.


I don't see how that's an example of Jesus condemning the death penalty, of Jesus saying that the death penalty is no longer justified.  You could just as easily make the argument that it shows that Jesus didn't believe in using force against people for victimless crimes, which is what the woman in the story engaged in.  She didn't do anything to harm anyone else, and thus didn't deserve to die or really be punished at all.  So you could argue that Jesus was just introducing the non aggression principle there, that someone who didn't aggress against others shouldn't be punished.  Would Jesus have stopped the people from stoning that woman if she had murdered someone?  I doubt it.  The death penalty is certainly justified in the Old Testament, and I don't see any verse in the New Testament that reverses that teaching and suddenly makes the death penalty off limits.

----------


## otherone

> I don't see how that's an example of Jesus condemning the death penalty, of Jesus saying that the death penalty is no longer justified.  You could just as easily make the argument that it shows that Jesus didn't believe in using force against people for victimless crimes, which is what the woman in the story engaged in.  She didn't do anything to harm anyone else, and thus didn't deserve to die or really be punished at all.  So you could argue that Jesus was just introducing the non aggression principle there, that someone who didn't aggress against others shouldn't be punished.  Would Jesus have stopped the people from stoning that woman if she had murdered someone?  I doubt it.  The death penalty is certainly justified in the Old Testament, and I don't see any verse in the New Testament that reverses that teaching and suddenly makes the death penalty off limits.


From what did the OT judges derive their authority?
What criteria demanded capital punishment?

----------


## Brett85

> From what did the OT judges derive their authority?
> What criteria demanded capital punishment?


They derived their authority from God.  Do you want a list of verses in the Old Testament that justify capital punishment?

----------


## Brett85

> It's funny that some of the same Christians who rag on Seventh Day Adventists for being "old testament Christians" when it comes to keeping the Sabbath, something done in the old and new testament, will turn around and go all old testament on issues like capital punishment.  (I've not seen you personally rag on SDAs so I'm talking in generalities here).  Why is it that people want to gloss over the *most important* teachings of Christ?  "Well the Bible says an eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth."  Yes the old testament taught that.  But Jesus came and taught a better way.


I don't have a problem with the SDA church.  I don't agree with them on every single theological issue, but theologically I probably agree with them more than any other Christian denomination.  For instance, I believe they're the only Christian denomination that believes in soul sleep and annihilationism, which I also hold to.

----------


## otherone

> They derived their authority from God.  Do you want a list of verses in the Old Testament that justify capital punishment?


Right.
And that same authority gave them a NEW law.  The pharisees were preoccupied with the law of Moses, too.

The Mosiac law said stone the adulteress; the new law said you have no moral authority to kill...only god does.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see how that's an example of Jesus condemning the death penalty, of Jesus saying that the death penalty is no longer justified.  You could just as easily make the argument that it shows that Jesus didn't believe in using force against people for victimless crimes, which is what the woman in the story engaged in.  She didn't do anything to harm anyone else, and thus didn't deserve to die or really be punished at all.  So you could argue that Jesus was just introducing the non aggression principle there, that someone who didn't aggress against others shouldn't be punished.  Would Jesus have stopped the people from stoning that woman if she had murdered someone?  I doubt it.  The death penalty is certainly justified in the Old Testament, and I don't see any verse in the New Testament that reverses that teaching and suddenly makes the death penalty off limits.


You said the death penalty was _supported_ throughout the Bible.  To prove that point you need to find _support_ for it in the New Testament.  So your support for it is....?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have a problem with the SDA church.  I don't agree with them on every single theological issue, but theologically I probably agree with them more than any other Christian denomination.  For instance, I believe they're the only Christian denomination that believes in soul sleep and annihilationism, which I also hold to.


Cool.  FTR Adventists don't agree with Adventists on every theological issue.    Happy New Year by the way.

----------


## moostraks

> Those passages are not teaching civil pacifism, anyway, so her quoting of them is simply moot in this discussion.


So says you...

Of what is government comprised?

----------


## moostraks

> Yep.  the Bibilical references for the heart of the matter have been posted ad naseum in this thread.  But I have yet to see one where it's explicitly said to save others lives by means of evil.


I haven't followed the thread completely but figured as much. Some folks need it repeated ad nauseum and maybe the seed will stick? It does seem as though there is some attempt to split hairs and gloss over the entire tone of the teaching of the New Testament in order to justify torture because people lack trust in the Creator and think by bending the rules a bit and ignoring the commandment to Love, one is safe because of some semantic loophole they will justify themselves by.

----------


## pcosmar

> denomination that believes in soul sleep and annihilationism, which I also hold to.


So it is OK to torture because there is no eternal damnation.

----------


## Brett85

> So it is OK to torture because there is no eternal damnation.


I think that it's always immoral to use torture as a punishment, and most Christians believe that the unsaved will be tortured simply as a punishment, and that the torture will last for all eternity.  But that's irrelevant anyway, because I don't reject the doctrine of eternal torment because it seems harsh, but because I believe it's completely unbiblical.  I don't think it's taught anywhere in the Bible.  If I felt that the Bible taught eternal torment, than I would believe it, even though I don't like it.

----------


## Brett85

> You said the death penalty was _supported_ throughout the Bible.  To prove that point you need to find _support_ for it in the New Testament.  So your support for it is....?


Fair enough.  I should've been more careful with my language and just said that the death penalty is supported in the Bible.  Happy New Year.

----------


## Todd

> Is the Old Testament not part of the Bible?


Sure it is....and have you ever heard of the New Covenant?   The OT is about the "Law" as it exists without Jesus sacrifice.  Who here would you like to live under that law?  I sure wouldn't.  

And I believe Jesus negated a lot of what was taught in the OT.   Alot of which is posted in this now over 400 post thread and still awaiting a biblical reference for those justifying torture.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've tried to address this thread 3 or 4 times since it was created but I never posed a reply.  I can't answer the poll.  I want to say an unequivocal "no" but I think the poll responses are too limiting.  You cannot as a Christian support or endorse torture, but I also allow that some actual Christians may be suffering under extraordinary deception...which means that you could not make a hard judgement that if "Person A" says it was OK to torture in the GWOT then they are necessarily "not a Christian" (aye, in all _probability_ they are 'not a Christian' at this point, however) because they may be under extraordinary deception.  They have been deceived into believing that the enemies of America are the enemies of God, they have been deceived into believing that torture is not really torture but enhanced interrogation, and they have been deceived into believing that the enemy are not really people but manifest demons with extraordinary powers.
> 
> There is no excuse for allowing oneself to be deceived when there is all the evidence in the world to dispatch the myth available at everyone's fingertips.  However, I also think we have all been deceived into one thing or another at some point in our journeys, so I am not about to make a claim that suffering under extreme deception or delusion is sufficient to effect the loss of one's salvation.
> 
> Now, a proper argument can be made that any soul which is truly regenerate could not be deceived to this level.  Sure, assuming 'ordinary' growth in Christ.  What we have in America today is a nationwide church filled with the saved and the unsaved alike, and those who ARE saved are literally babies still on milk.  Some people, forty years in the American church and still babies just on milk.  A lot of that is their fault and it questions their regeneration, but also a lot of that is the churches and the state's fault for making a false idol out of the US government, and demonstrating to these people that "this is how things are."  The false note leads legitimately to that kind of stunted growth, so there is just no way I could cut a soul off from God *UP TO NOW* for being given in paradigm to the government church which they trust.
> 
> However, right about now I think will emerge the call to "come out of her." I think that's actually in progress right now, and that the call is already there but it is not really evident as of yet.  So, from this point forward hearing will become magnified again and there will be no excuse whatever for deception and such things.
> 
> It is interesting to try and parse this discussion, because I think we are actually standing right on top of that division point.  So you look off at this angle and it looks a lot different than if you look off at that angle.  So it makes it more difficult to nail it down. But what I mean by that is we are right at the moment in time where the call to "come out of her" (leave the established church) will become manifest I believe.  I also believe it will manifest individually for every regenerate soul that is within the church.  A quiet exodus will follow, after which the _nominal_ 'church' will be nothing but dead, and the living will have come out and had the scales lifted from their eyes.
> ...


This, this, THIS! is the post I was looking for.  THANK YOU!  FINALLY someone hits on the real issues here.  I can't +rep you right now, but I think you deserve four or five at the very least for this post.  Well done.

The whole "America's enemies are God's enemies" issue hits on a critical point for me.  Its one thing to say that you would torture someone to save a family member in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, though I still think its wrong.  Its another thing to be in such idolatry of a nation that you will assume that it is always right.

I do not understand how Christians can be statolaters.  And the major churches in America is full of them.

What do you think the call to "come out of her" would look like?  And, how do I know if my church is just wrong on some important issues vs being "outside of Christ" so to speak.  I tend to think my  church is in the former category, but then, my church really doesn't participate in the empire.  It isn't united in opposition to it, but we don't celebrate it either.  I have a hard time thinking of those churches that institutionally celebrate the empire as anything but demonic, even if they say good stuff at times.

This entire nation is screwed up.  So many people, even those who are fairly well-grown in Christ in other areas, just totally brainwashed by statolatry.




> Even then, Mr. Spock was *volunteering* to sacrifice his life for the good of the ship.  That's perfectly fine from a libertarian / liberty point of view.  Spock volunteered to die for the ship.  Jesus volunteered to be tortured and die for the earth.  Mary volunteered to be an unwed mother.  Force is the issue here.


This is a valid point.  I've seen Spock quoted to support utilitarian statism a couple times, actually.  Good point on the quote being taken out of context

And theo, honestly, your argument in this entire thread is downright retarded.  I'm honestly surprised to see that out of you, but its true.  This is the kind of thing that's so bad I'd snap and call the person an idiot *face to face* for saying it.  





> Those passages are not teaching civil pacifism, anyway, so her quoting of them is simply moot in this discussion.


"civil pacifism" is a term that reflects a degree of idolatry of state in and of itself, IMO.  Either its OK to use violence in some circumstances or not.  But calling yourself "the government" doesn't magically change that.  Which is really all modern human governments are.  Its not like God is directly annointing the king's anymore.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Survey says: "The beatings shall continue until the morale improves."*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This, this, THIS! is the post I was looking for.  THANK YOU!  FINALLY someone hits on the real issues here.  I can't +rep you right now, but I think you deserve four or five at the very least for this post.  Well done.
> 
> The whole "America's enemies are God's enemies" issue hits on a critical point for me.  Its one thing to say that you would torture someone to save a family member in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, though I still think its wrong.  Its another thing to be in such idolatry of a nation that you will assume that it is always right.
> 
> I do not understand how Christians can be statolaters.  And the major churches in America is full of them.
> 
> What do you think the call to "come out of her" would look like?  And, how do I know if my church is just wrong on some important issues vs being "outside of Christ" so to speak.  I tend to think my  church is in the former category, but then, my church really doesn't participate in the empire.  It isn't united in opposition to it, but we don't celebrate it either.  I have a hard time thinking of those churches that institutionally celebrate the empire as anything but demonic, even if they say good stuff at times.
> 
> This entire nation is screwed up.  So many people, even those who are fairly well-grown in Christ in other areas, just totally brainwashed by statolatry.


I know I've droned on about it enough you must have heard it at least once, but I cannot stress enough the impact of the 501(c)3 tax status on this.  It sounds like a technical issue or some overly formal transgression that may not appear to do much 'where the rubber meets the road' but it _does_.  The 501(c)3 tax status turns the government into an idol that is worshipped (often unbeknownst) above God.  

The Johnson Amendment allows donors to write donations off on their taxes.  Money that would otherwise go to Uncle Sam now goes to the 501. Therefore it is technically funded by tax money.  Since the US Government funds the organization with tax money, it may now regulate the speech of that organization.  In the case of 501c chartered churches, the US Government regulates what kinds of speech may come out of the pulpits.

The pastor, seeing extra money to fund their projects, says, "I wasn't planning on talking about that stuff anyway." but it's not a pastor that decides what comes from a pulpit of God, it's God.  You can't accept that extra regulation on speech from the pulpit without placing government _above_ God.  Idolatry.

Acceptance of a 501(c)3 charter for a church fundamentally sets the US government above God.  In so doing, the US government has (in their perception) taken on the character of what they believe to be God.  It is taking the place of God even while they believe themselves to be Christian.

It has done so in secret, with only a few people even understanding the curse aroused under 501(c)3, a sin like leaven in bread, where you can dab a little over on one spot and before you know it it has leavened the entire loaf.

Because the modern American church is fundamentally premised on the idolatry of the US Government as a principle of it's very existence, is it any wonder they conflate America with God?  America's enemies are God's enemies?  Can you see how this IRS regulation over the pulpit _creates_ this?

Statolaters.  How can it possibly be that sooooo many Christians idolize the state when they seem ok in other areas? Because soooooo many Christians idolize the state _and they don't even know it._  What is the Johnson Amendment if not a voluntary agreement to statolatry?  What percentage of US churches are 501(c)3 organizations?  Nearly all of them.  

So _nearly all American Christians are statolaters by definition_ before you even start to look at their doctrines.  Even if they are in that position unaware, that entire state of being promote further statolatry, leading to the justification of such things as torture.

It sounds absurdly technical and overly simplistic. but almost all of this roots down to the Johnson Amendment.  501(c)3 is the taproot pumping the idolatry of government straight into your Christian neighbor's mind. Every Sunday and Wednesday, sure as a bureaucratic clock.

Now, what do I think the call will look like?  I think it's addressed to every soul like a fingerprint.  Like a series of decisions where you are shown something, and you are called to discern it, and either it is OK or it is NOT OK.  If it is NOT OK then you start looking for the exit right?  And it's not just one thing but a series of things over time.  Over a journey.  Torture is one of these things.  To support torture as a nominal Christian one must necessarily idolize the state.  A heart moved by Christ will see the Christians around them supporting torture and choose either to be around them, or to come out from among them.  I believe that God is _increasing the awareness_ of issues like torture and dragging them specifically through the "Christian Right" on purpose to inspire just that kind of discernment.  I believe these spiritually wedging issues like torture (and many different issues) will become louder and more often, increasing the opportunity for discernment and thus increasing the volume and frequency of the call to "come out of her."

Each individual will hear their own unique call in the circumstances that surround them, and in the decisions each of them have to make as a result of those circumstances.  These statolators will be led to decidedly unchristlike behaviors whereupon those who would be in Christ have a decision to make.

At the _end_ of all of that, then, when it is time for the last of the lit souls to light out of the dead church is when I think the call will become extraordinarily obvious in a manner I do not yet perceive, thereby catching even the most gullible soul, yet having accomplished pretty much the entire exodus in silence.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think that it's always immoral to use torture as a punishment,


But you think it is OK to use torture to make some say something,, any thing that you want to hear them say.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But you think it is OK to use torture to make some say something,, any thing that you want to hear them say.

----------


## Brett85

> But you think it is OK to use torture to make some say something,, any thing that you want to hear them say.


I've argued that I don't view torture as being immoral in every single situation.  Is killing someone immoral in most situations?  Yes, but not every situation.  Is getting in a fist fight with someone immoral in most situations?  Yes, but not every situation.  So why is a different form of violence, torture, immune from situational ethics when the morality of other types of violence depends on the particular situation at hand?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I've argued that I don't view torture as being immoral in every single situation.  Is killing someone immoral in most situations?  Yes, but not every situation.  Is getting in a fist fight with someone immoral in most situations?  Yes, but not every situation.  So why is a different form of violence, torture, immune from situational ethics when the morality of other types of violence depends on the particular situation at hand?


God commanded the Israelites to kill.  Has God ever commanded the Israelites to torture?

----------


## pcosmar

> God commanded the Israelites to kill.


Who did He command them to kill? and Why?

But Torture has no use. It is not ever been a good tool for information gathering,, and has generally been used for coercing confessions.
It has no good or useful purpose.

You kill enemies in war.. Even in a just War. 

 Israeli was commanded to kill the offspring of fallen angels. They were corrupted hybrids.

----------


## Brett85

> God commanded the Israelites to kill.  Has God ever commanded the Israelites to torture?


Not that I know of.  Did he ever command them not to torture?  And what basis is there to believe that torture is somehow worse than killing?  It seems to me like killing is worse.  (Although I think it may depend on the severity of the torture)

----------


## pcosmar

> Not that I know of.  Did he ever command them not to torture?  And what basis is there to believe that torture is somehow worse than killing?  It seems to me like killing is worse.  (Although I think it may depend on the severity of the torture)


Did He command them to torture?  NO. No where.

What is your biblical basis for support of torture?

I can accept torture as present reality, but not support it. I understand it is a reality and I oppose it.
Just as I accept that murder is a reality,, but do not support it.
I am wondering,, on what scriptural basis do you support it?

----------


## Brett85

> Did He command them to torture?  NO. No where.
> 
> What is your biblical basis for support of torture?
> 
> I can accept torture as present reality, but not support it. I understand it is a reality and I oppose it.
> Just as I accept that murder is a reality,, but do not support it.
> I am wondering,, on what scriptural basis do you support it?


I don't personally think the Bible really says anything about whether or not it's immoral to use torture to get information to save the lives of others.  That's the specific subject we're talking about.  So I really don't know what God thinks about it.  Speaking for myself personally, I've taken the position that I'm opposed to torture as a general rule, but wouldn't rule it out in some sort of ticking time bomb situation in which we had no other choice.  I'm not in favor of an actual CIA torture program where we use torture on a regular basis.  This is partly because we run the risk of torturing innocent people when our government has a policy of just using torture on every single person we capture, every time.  So my position on this is not the same as Dick Cheney's position, despite what you're claiming.  It's just that unlike others, I'm not going to say that it would actually be immoral for a CIA officer to use torture in every single hypothetical situation.  I'm not even arguing that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as always being immoral.  If I were a member of a jury, I wouldn't vote to convict a CIA agent who used torture to save the lives of thousands of Americans.  As far as the morality of it is concerned, I wouldn't think that the morality of it should be much different than the morality of taking someone else's life.  The Bible teaches that the morality of taking someone else's life depends on the exact situation at hand.  Sometimes it's morally justified, and sometimes it isn't.  I don't really see why God would view the morality of another kind of violence, torture, as being completely different from the morality of killing, which depends on the specific situation at hand.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't personally think the Bible really says anything about whether or not it's immoral to use torture to get information to save the lives of others.  That's the specific subject we're talking about. .


But torture is of no use for that. 
It does not work,, never has throughout history.

It is used to coerce confessions, , usually from innocent victims.  Regardless of the alleged reasons used to justify it,, it is simply cruelty for cruelty sake.
Why do you support that?

If you want to get information,, Civility, Subtlety and a few beers will get you far more real information.

----------


## Brett85

> But torture is of no use for that. 
> It does not work,, never has throughout history.
> 
> It is used to coerce confessions, , usually from innocent victims.  Regardless of the alleged reasons used to justify it,, it is simply cruelty for cruelty sake.
> Why do you support that?
> 
> If you want to get information,, Civility, Subtlety and a few beers will get you far more real information.


I doubt if it's quite that simple.  I think the studies show that there are times that it works and times that it doesn't work.  But, what I've said is that it should only be used in situations in which there's no other options left.  Generally, it shouldn't be used.  Maybe, like you said, 99.9% of the time it would be more effective to get information by using civility, subtlety, and having a few beers with them.  

But what if you have a situation where there's a terrorist attack that's going to occur within three hours unless you get the information to stop the attack, and you've already used the technique of rapport building to get the information like you described and that hasn't worked?  What are you going to do then?  Just sit back and let the attack happen?  There's no guarantee that using torture in that situation would be successful in getting the necessary information to stop the attack, but there would a 100% guarantee that the terrorist attack would occur if you just sat back and did nothing.  So I don't see why sitting back and doing nothing in that situation would in any way make sense.

----------


## otherone

> Regardless of the alleged reasons used to justify it,, it is simply cruelty for cruelty sake.
> Why do you support that?


Where does the bible say cruelty is wrong?

----------


## pcosmar

> Where does the bible say cruelty is wrong?


in so many words,, not that I am aware of..




> The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.






> He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.





> 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Enough, you princes of Israel; put away violence and destruction, and practice justice and righteousness Stop your expropriations from My people," declares the Lord GOD.





> "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.





> A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.





> Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless.





> 'Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.





> For the ruthless will come to an end and the scorner will be finished, Indeed all who are intent on doing evil will be cut off;


It's more like a theme.




> "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"





> "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know I've droned on about it enough you must have heard it at least once, but I cannot stress enough the impact of the 501(c)3 tax status on this.  It sounds like a technical issue or some overly formal transgression that may not appear to do much 'where the rubber meets the road' but it _does_.  The 501(c)3 tax status turns the government into an idol that is worshipped (often unbeknownst) above God.  
> 
> The Johnson Amendment allows donors to write donations off on their taxes.  Money that would otherwise go to Uncle Sam now goes to the 501. Therefore it is technically funded by tax money.  Since the US Government funds the organization with tax money, it may now regulate the speech of that organization.  In the case of 501c chartered churches, the US Government regulates what kinds of speech may come out of the pulpits.
> 
> The pastor, seeing extra money to fund their projects, says, "I wasn't planning on talking about that stuff anyway." but it's not a pastor that decides what comes from a pulpit of God, it's God.  You can't accept that extra regulation on speech from the pulpit without placing government _above_ God.  Idolatry.
> 
> Acceptance of a 501(c)3 charter for a church fundamentally sets the US government above God.  In so doing, the US government has (in their perception) taken on the character of what they believe to be God.  It is taking the place of God even while they believe themselves to be Christian.
> 
> It has done so in secret, with only a few people even understanding the curse aroused under 501(c)3, a sin like leaven in bread, where you can dab a little over on one spot and before you know it it has leavened the entire loaf.
> ...


The church I attend is 501C3, so I guess by this definition even I'm a statolater.  Which is odd since I don't believe the state should exist

The main disagreement I would have with you on the "government funded" bit is that there is a fundamental difference between the government not getting to steal X amount of money, and the government actually doleing out Y amount of money from someone else.

That said, if the government is regulating what can be said from the pulpit through 501C3, that is definitely a problem, and a good argument for not having one.

THAT said, its really not up to me at the moment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I (finally) reluctantly voted yes in my own poll.'

BUt I do not see how a Christian could not see problems with giving government the kind of broad authority it has today to torture.

Also, it seems to me that being tortuted would be far worse than being killed.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, it seems to me that being tortuted would be far worse than being killed.


I think it would depend on the severity of the torture.  I don't think that torture that doesn't have lasting physical consequences would be worse than getting killed, or as bad.  But I think that getting your arms and legs cut off would be worse than being killed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The church I attend is 501C3, so I guess by this definition even I'm a statolater.  Which is odd since I don't believe the state should exist


I would be more surprised if it weren't a 501 than if it were, that's how deeply this infection has pervaded the American church.  You will notice that I do not capitalize the 'c' in Church when I am talking about the American church.  That is intentional.  I do capitalize the 'c' when I talk about the Remnant Church.

But yeah, that's exactly what I am saying.  How many people out there have NO intention to idolize the state, and yet their own church that is feeding them subtly places the government above God, thereby sneaking this poison into their food unknown.  




> The main disagreement I would have with you on the "government funded" bit is that there is a fundamental difference between the government not getting to steal X amount of money, and the government actually doleing out Y amount of money from someone else.


The fact of the matter is that 501 doesn't deprive the government of tax revenue.  Income tax is just a sham for controlling people anyway.  According to the case law and the rationale for the ability to make such regulatory demands on the pulpit, is that all the income that is written off of income taxes to donate to a 501, is technically tax money.  That's the government's justification for regulating speech from the pulpit.  That's why 501(c)3 exists.  I am pretty sure Lyndon Johnson was even caught admitting this was his purpose "to shut the churches up" from the political process.  You can't regulate speech from a Church, but make a portion of their revenue tax money and you can regulate them as much as you want.




> That said, if the government is regulating what can be said from the pulpit through 501C3, that is definitely a problem, and a good argument for not having one.


No 'if' about it.  Government is regulating speech from the pulpit.  It's more subtle than it used to be, but Lyndon Johnson's intent was to shut the Church out of the political process and he was 100% successful.  You have heard "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."  That quote is discussing this exact kind of sin.  You are affected by the sin of statolatry by simply being in a 501 church even if you yourself do not idolize the state.




> THAT said, its really not up to me at the moment.


Look, if anything, this 501 thing is a bigger deal than even I am making it out.  You have got to look at this more deeply.  This is the deception that the American church is suffering under.  501's are not Churches of God, they are churches of American government.  You wonder why it appears that 99% of Christians are statolators?  THAT'S WHY.  I believe it is more impossible for a 501(c)3 church to be a Church of God, than it is for a Christian to nominally "support" torture.  You can't form a church with a charter proclaiming "we worship the state above God" and still consider that to be a Church of God.  A church of State sure, a Church of God? No way.

I understand that from outside of the revelation or the discernment, it looks like I am talking about something minor, like a spelling error or a mistake in grammar.  Something small, technical, and not all that greatly affecting.  I am telling you that perception is in error.  The 501(c)3 tax status is a MAJOR MAJOR problem and when you do some significant critical examination of statolatry in the American church and how it relates to the tax status, I believe that you will ultimately be forced to agree with me, even if you really do not want to.

I understand that it may not be up to you at the moment, that family is almost certainly involved.  Your family is being infected by this poison also.  It is soooooo critical to find a non 501 church now.  We are at the point today where it is better to be unchurched than it is to be in a 501.  This is why I believe that the call to 'come out of her' is about to seriously manifest, and it will divide brother from brother, parent from child.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think it would depend on the severity of the torture.  I don't think that torture that doesn't have lasting physical consequences would be worse than getting killed, or as bad.  But I think that getting your arms and legs cut off would be worse than being killed.


You are looking at this from the wrong perspective.  How bad is a sin does not come from the perspective of the victim, but from the perspective of the sinner.  From the perspective of the victim sure murder may be worse than torture, but from the perspective of the _sinner_, torture requires a far more sadistic heart than murder.  From the perspective of the _sinner_, torture is clearly worse than murder.  Since the perspective of the sinner is the one that matters in the Judgement, well, there you go.

----------


## Brett85

> You are looking at this from the wrong perspective.  How bad is a sin does not come from the perspective of the victim, but from the perspective of the sinner.  From the perspective of the victim sure murder may be worse than torture, but from the perspective of the _sinner_, torture requires a far more sadistic heart than murder.  From the perspective of the _sinner_, torture is clearly worse than murder.  Since the perspective of the sinner is the one that matters in the Judgement, well, there you go.


Why would torture be worse than murder from the perspective of the sinner?  I see no evidence at all in the Bible that that's the case.  Murder seems to be the worst sin according to the Bible.  It was the only sin that Jesus specifically mentioned that one could commit that would cause them to miss out on eternal life.

----------


## Crashland

> You are looking at this from the wrong perspective.  How bad is a sin does not come from the perspective of the victim, but from the perspective of the sinner.  From the perspective of the victim sure murder may be worse than torture, but from the perspective of the _sinner_, torture requires a far more sadistic heart than murder.  From the perspective of the _sinner_, torture is clearly worse than murder.  Since the perspective of the sinner is the one that matters in the Judgement, well, there you go.


That depends. If the murderer believes that the person they are murdering will go to hell, then I think it is far more sadistic to attempt to inflict that on someone, than to torture them. If the murderer doesn't believe that though, then torture would be more sadistic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump for Sola_Fide.  I am curious about his opinion on this issue.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Bump for Sola_Fide.  I am curious about his opinion on this issue


I think the title should be "Should a Christian support torture?", because we all know a Christian can sinfully "support" all kinds of things that he shouldn't for a time in his life....things that he needs to be corrected on.  But I think the Christian worldview stands against statism and all the barbarism that comes along with it, including torture.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the title should be "Should a Christian support torture?", because we all know a Christian can sinfully "support" all kinds of things that he shouldn't for a time in his life....things that he needs to be corrected on.  But I think the Christian worldview stands against statism and all the barbarism that comes along with it, including torture.


Fair enough.  I wrote "can" on purpose because I was asking if supporting torture is in and of itself proof that someone isn't saved.

To broaden the question a bit, where's the line?  How much barbarism can you support before we say you aren't saved?  I get how you can derive fiscal liberalism and social conservatism from the Bible (I think those are bad arguments, but nonetheless) but I do not get this whole neocon phenomenon

----------


## pcosmar

> To broaden the question a bit, where's the line?  How much barbarism can you support before we say you aren't saved?


To broaden it a bit more,, How can someone who has been convinced and convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit,, and accepted the offer of salvation turn around and condemn someone else to torture? or support the suffering inflicted?

I do not believe it to be likely.

----------


## Brett85

> I get how you can derive fiscal liberalism and social conservatism from the Bible (I think those are bad arguments, but nonetheless) but I do not get this whole neocon phenomenon


For the record, it's not necessarily the case that the issue of foreign intervention and the issue of torture are directly related.  For instance, Pat Buchanan opposes foreign intervention but supports torture.  The same goes for Michael Scheuer.  John McCain opposes torture but supports foreign intervention.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For the record, it's not necessarily the case that the issue of foreign intervention and the issue of torture are directly related.  For instance, Pat Buchanan opposes foreign intervention but supports torture.  The same goes for Michael Scheuer.  John McCain opposes torture but supports foreign intervention.


Torture is worse because its pretty much the core of moral relativism.  People try to cop out of this by saying "torture isn't directly mentioned in the Bible" but nobody really believes this argument.  Every single American Christian would condemn me if I were to just torture someone in my basement, even if it were legal, and even if the person agreed to let me torture him.  Yet these same people would parrot the whole "well, the Bible doesn't directly condemn torture" argument.

That said, the issues of indiscriminate killing and torture are closely related, even if some people support one and not the other.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To broaden it a bit more,, How can someone who has been convinced and convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit,, and accepted the offer of salvation turn around and condemn someone else to torture? or support the suffering inflicted?
> 
> I do not believe it to be likely.


I don't get how.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To broaden it a bit more,, How can someone who has been convinced and convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit,, and accepted the offer of salvation turn around and condemn someone else to torture? or support the suffering inflicted?
> 
> I do not believe it to be likely.



They can't do it _rightly_, but they may do it _wrongly_.

First, maybe they think torture is not really torture.  Second, maybe they think the people being tortured are not really people.  Third, maybe they think the state is god.

This comes back to idolatry of the state though, and if someone is a statolater, then are they really a Christian at all?  See, if the state is god, after all, then the state can do whatever it darn well pleases.  Torture or otherwise.

Support for torture seems to me to be an effect of statolatry, so maybe the root question is, can someone be a statolater and still be a Christian?

At first blush my first instinct is to say, "no," but then I look at Israel worshipping the golden calf, and see that those who did were not expunged, they were eventually redeemed.  So maybe my first instinct is off.  We know that a Christian can be in error and still be a Christian.  The error requires repentance, of course, but the condition of error does not automatically reduce salvation.  

Also problematic for my first instinct of "statolatry = not Christian" is that the vast majority of Christian statolaters are completely unaware that they are idolizing the state.  If someone is committing an error/sin and they are totally unaware that they are committing said error/sin, while it may be held against them for reward, can it be held against them for salvation?

And to reverse direction AGAIN, we do know that there will be souls who were completely unaware of their position outside of Christ, who WILL have it held against them for salvation.  At the Bema Seat of Christ, souls that totally believed they were preaching/prophesying/doing miracles in the Name of God will be told "Go away from Me, I never knew you."

----------


## Brett85

> Torture is worse because its pretty much the core of moral relativism.  People try to cop out of this by saying "torture isn't directly mentioned in the Bible" but nobody really believes this argument.  Every single American Christian would condemn me if I were to just torture someone in my basement, even if it were legal, and even if the person agreed to let me torture him.  Yet these same people would parrot the whole "well, the Bible doesn't directly condemn torture" argument.
> 
> That said, the issues of indiscriminate killing and torture are closely related, even if some people support one and not the other.


I just disagree.  I don't see how torturing someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in any way as bad as say placing sanctions on Iraq during the 90's which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 innocent people.

----------


## Brett85

> Every single American Christian would condemn me if I were to just torture someone in my basement, even if it were legal, and even if the person agreed to let me torture him.


The reason why they support torture is because they believe that it has national security implications and saves lives.  You can disagree with that and argue that torture isn't effective and doesn't save lives, but it just isn't the case that people support torture simply because they believe in being cruel to other people.

----------


## Todd

> The reason why they support torture is because they believe that it has national security implications and saves lives.  You can disagree with that and argue that torture isn't effective and doesn't save lives, but it just isn't the case that people support torture simply because they believe in being cruel to other people.


You can say what you want about people who support torture don't believe in being cruel to others, but yes they do believe that because it's the means to their end.  


I would argue that "The Christian" focus shouldn't be on "National" anthing.  His goal is something more.   If he is exceedingly worrying about the "Nation", then he's completely missed the point of Christ.    


This thread needs to die

----------


## Brett85

> You can say what you want about people who support torture don't believe in being cruel to others, but yes they do believe that because it's the means to their end.


You can argue that they believe in being cruel to others, but I don't believe that they support torture simply for the reason of being cruel to others.  That may be a result of what they advocate, but it's not the reason why they advocate the policy.  They advocate the policy because they believe it saves lives.

----------


## Brett85

> This thread needs to die


I agree.  Unfortunately, people continue to bump the thread and restart the discussion.

----------


## Todd

> You can argue that they believe in being cruel to others, but I don't believe that they support torture simply for the reason of being cruel to others.  That may be a result of what they advocate, but it's not the reason why they advocate the policy.  They advocate the policy because they believe it saves lives.


I really don't care what they believe.   BELIEVING something doesn't make it moral or right.  I know people who think that beating the hell out of their kids with bruises makes them mind.  

What's that old quote?  No matter how great the strategy sometimes you have to pay attention to the results.   
These "Christians" need to pay attention to "results".

----------


## jmdrake

> I just disagree.  I don't see how torturing someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in any way as bad as say placing sanctions on Iraq during the 90's which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 innocent people.


It's a case of known results versus unknown results.  I don't know if there were excess deaths of children resulting from the embargo on Cuba for instance.  And had the embargo on Iraq not includes chlorine, a so called "dual use" item that's not only used for chemical weapons, but also to treat drinking water, the deaths of the Iraqi children might not have happened.  What is unspeakably evil is Madelyn Albright declaring after the fact that the price was "worth it."  In the case of torture, you know ahead of time the harm that you are going to do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just disagree.  I don't see how torturing someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in any way as bad as say placing sanctions on Iraq during the 90's which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 innocent people.


Yeah, you're right.



> The reason why they support torture is because they believe that it has national security implications and saves lives.  You can disagree with that and argue that torture isn't effective and doesn't save lives, but it just isn't the case that people support torture simply because they believe in being cruel to other people.


I wasn't saying its BECAUSE they want to be cruel to other people.  I'm saying that when they present their argument that "the Bible doesn't condemn torture" they are actually lying becuase:




> Every single American Christian would condemn me if I were to just torture someone in my basement, even if it were legal, and even if the person agreed to let me torture him.


So, they are CLAIMING that they are OK with it because "the Bible doesn't condemn it" but in reality they realize the Bible does condemn it but they want to get around it because "the greater good."

----------


## otherone

> So, they are CLAIMING that they are OK with it because "the Bible doesn't condemn it" but in reality they realize the Bible does condemn it_ but they want to get around it because "the greater good."_



Exodus 32:4
_He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
_

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, you're right.
> 
> 
> I wasn't saying its BECAUSE they want to be cruel to other people.  I'm saying that when they present their argument that "the Bible doesn't condemn torture" they are actually lying becuase:
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are CLAIMING that they are OK with it because "the Bible doesn't condemn it" but in reality they realize the Bible does condemn it but they want to get around it because "the greater good."


Okay, playing devils advocate here.  I don't think most Christians would object to a person volunteering to be waterboarded in order to ascertain whether or not waterboarding is torture.  I personally know someone who was waterboarded for that very reason and I don't think ill of him or the person who did it to them.  So, for me anyway, volunteering makes a *huge* difference.  That said, I don't think it's morally right to knowingly do something that permanently maims or kills the volunteer.

----------

