Can a Christian support torture?

[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]

Setting Up Strawmen, Are We?

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.