Can a Christian support torture?

Is it possible for a Christian to support torture?


  • Total voters
    35
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.
 
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.

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:p

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.
 
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.
 
But you think it is OK to use torture to make some say something,, any thing that you want to hear them say.

:confused:
:(

NNK9AR8.gif
 
But you think it is OK to use torture to make some say something,, any thing that you want to hear them say.

:confused:
:(

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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.'"
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top