Can a Christian support torture?

[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.