Following Jesus Means Opposing Torture

[otherone]

I'm not quite sure how to do that as I'm not Abraham. But if I had been, I would have failed that particular test.

Thank you. Me too.

God asked Abraham to trust him, to obey him, and Abraham was rewarded.
Does God ask us to trust him and obey him today? What does he command us to do today? Love our neighbor? What if that could lead to the death of our Isaacs?
Do you trust him? Do you trust his word?

You wrote: But a question of faith for the Christian is "If this is potentially wrong, do I trust Jesus to work out the outcome for the best if I don't do it?"

 

[jmdrake]

Thank you. Me too.

God asked Abraham to trust him, to obey him, and Abraham was rewarded.
Does God ask us to trust him and obey him today? What does he command us to do today? Love our neighbor? What if that could lead to the death of our Isaacs?
Do you trust him? Do you trust his word?

You wrote: But a question of faith for the Christian is "If this is potentially wrong, do I trust Jesus to work out the outcome for the best if I don't do it?"

I see what you're saying. The difference is that I truly see the good in not torturing people. If torture is a sin, and I believe it is, then I have both a humanistic moral reason not to do so as well as a Biblical reason. Now someone can say "Well not obeying God if He tells you to kill your child is a sin too." Okay. I'd rather risk that particular sin then. Back to the Abraham example, he lied twice about his marital status to Sarah to save his own skin. I wonder sometimes if he had passed those tests if God might not have sent the Isaac test. Those are the tests I would like to think I would pass. The willingness not to compromise God's standard to save my own skin.

 

[Brett85]

So the torturer uses a broom handle? No pleasure gained as he's not "lying with mankind as with womankind." Okay then?

I wouldn't say that it's "ok" and that there's no moral problem with it, but a situation could arise where it could be seen as the lesser of two evils.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, there's never a case where gay rape or gay sex of any kind is justified in the Bible, but there are a lot of examples where violence is justified. The Bible doesn't preach non violence in all situations.

Nor is torture ever justified at any point in the Bible. Ever. You'd have a better argument for genocide from the Bible than for torture.

Well, I don't believe that every single theological issue is black and white. I believe that every issue mentioned in the Bible is black and white, but I don't believe this issue is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so I view it as more of a grey area.

You know... I'm starting to feel more and more sick of the church in America precisely because most people are as relativistic as you on this issue, if not more so. I don't say that to personally attack you, I'm just tired of it. And its not just this issue, its almost every issue. Most Christains in America are anti-life and anti-liberty, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to spend my entire life fellowshipping with them. I am going to break at some point. I already have in many ways.

 

[Brett85]

Nor is torture ever justified at any point in the Bible. Ever. You'd have a better argument for genocide from the Bible than for torture.

Torture is justified many times in the Bible. Even the punishments that people received for crimes in the Old Testament often involved torture, specifically physical beatings.

 

[Brett85]

You know... I'm starting to feel more and more sick of the church in America precisely because most people are as relativistic as you on this issue, if not more so.

I'm not in favor of moral relativism. I'm just not in favor of adding things to the Bible that aren't actually there. The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.

 

[Brett85]

Most Christains in America are anti-life and anti-liberty, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to spend my entire life fellowshipping with them. I am going to break at some point. I already have in many ways.

Well, maybe they're uncomfortable worshipping with someone who doesn't even believe that the government should exist? Believing that there should be no government at all is likely far more of an unbiblical view than anything they support.

 

[pcosmar]

I'm not in favor of moral relativism. I'm just not in favor of adding things to the Bible that aren't actually there. The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.

Take that up with the Author.

and i disagree. the answers to all questions are found there.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Torture is justified many times in the Bible. Even the punishments that people received for crimes in the Old Testament often involved torture, specifically physical beatings.

That isn't inherently torture. In fact, the number of beatings was limited to 40 in part for this reason, because torturing someone is wrong.

You could even push this and claim "spanking is torture" but that isn't accurate. Did you read the article I linked? It leads to that issue.

I'm not in favor of moral relativism. I'm just not in favor of adding things to the Bible that aren't actually there. The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.

Yes, it does. By definition.

Well, maybe they're uncomfortable worshipping with someone who doesn't even believe that the government should exist? Believing that there should be no government at all is likely far more of an unbiblical view than anything they support.

Wait, you think anarcho-capitalism is a more unbiblical view than neoconservatism?

Yikes...

It depends on how you define "government." If you're using it in the broad theological sense, I definitely don't believe in "no governmnent."

In fact, saying I believe in limited government provided on the market would probably be more accurate than saying I believe in "no government."

Then again, that kind of gets into the differences of anarchism as a political philosophy (opposition to rulers) and anarchism the populace typically thinks of the word (chaos, rioting in the streets, etc.) They aren't the same thing, which you of all people should know by now.

That said, this is definitely a two way street. They have as little in common with me as I do with them.

 

[Brett85]

Take that up with the Author.

and i disagree. the answers to all questions are found there.

The answers to all questions? Really? So what's the moral answer to a question like whether or not it's moral to watch an R rated movie? Or what about smoking cigarettes? Or gambling? Or living with someone before marriage? (I mean a couple who lives together before marriage who aren't having sex) Or a number of other issues?

 

[Brett85]

Wait, you think anarcho-capitalism is a more unbiblical view than neoconservatism?

Well, probably about the same, actually. I just think that Romans 13 makes anarcho capitalism seem very unbiblical. Not that I have the view that some Christians have that we should just obey the government no matter what, but I think that Romans 13 certainly justifies the existence of the state and of leaders.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

FF...could you?
TC?

I will say that if i KNEW knew it was God, I think I could because in His eternal-mindedness and insight which I cannot share it somehow makes everything better in eternity where it actually counts. But something on that order at least for me could not be a 'tikly voice' but more like the heavens break open and a host of angels come down with a Man on a white horse who says it or something on that order. Even then God ever forbid it, but if you totally 100% know that it's God that commands, the one with the eye on Eternity, then somehow whatever He commands is better for all of us in eternity. For all i know in a year or so the child would take on horrible evil and erase his own name from the book of life, and so this thing would bring his unstained essence to eternity, in effect saving his life. I wouldn't know, but God always knows. So I am human, and I fail. I would never presume to be as strong as Abraham, but if somehow there were certain perfect knowledge that this was the actual command of the actual Living God, given my understanding of God's perspective as it compares to mine, then I think I would have an extremely good chance at obeying Him.

However, like I said, that would take more than what I have customarily regarded as a rumination of the Spirit. More than just a still small voice. Maybe someone has such faith to do such a thing from the still small voice, I am honestly not ashamed to admit that I do not. Nevertheless, God forbid it, God forbid all of it. Just talking about such things makes my skin itchy. If I say it does that mean I'm going to have to prove it one day? Or is that just the extraordinary burden of a teacher when elucidating points of Law?

WHY was Abraham's aborted sacrifice an act of faith? because he believed that it was God. Once he believed that it was truly God, the rest of it made sense, as heartbreaking though it was. I do not believe that I have even a fraction as much faith as did Abraham, which is why I would probably need the full chariots and circus business to actually believe it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Torture is justified many times in the Bible. Even the punishments that people received for crimes in the Old Testament often involved torture, specifically physical beatings.

acknowledging and enduring the existence of something is not the same as justifying or endorsing it. The punishments levied in the Torah were meant as a balance to the amount of 'spiritual wrongness' and were intended less to actually be executed and more to be exonerated at the feast of Atonement.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

ie "this is what you deserve for doing that. Now aren't you glad there is a scapegoat?" They were 'guilty and awaiting punishment' until the Feast, whereupon they were free and righteous again. The whole thing was set up as a lamp in the first place, not a club to beat people to death.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL



I kind of covered this last time, but sin for a Christian involves a lack of faith. It's interesting that you wouldn't cross the line of gay rape as a torture technique regardless of the consequences of not doing it. The same is true for denying faith. I don't believe the Jesus who said "return not evil for evil" judges sin the same way you do. Yes He can and does forgive all manner of sin. Forgiveness was offered to those who crucified him and the Roman centurion accepted it. But a question of faith for the Christian is "If this is potentially wrong, do I trust Jesus to work out the outcome for the best if I don't do it?" I don't believe the crucifixion torturer is in any better or worse position than the gay rape torturer spiritually speaking.

Not necessarily. "Sin" means "to miss the mark". Hence, there are "degrees" of sin (i.e. blasphemy is not on par with murder, etc).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Take that up with the Author.

and i disagree. the answers to all questions are found there.

Yup. There is nothing new under the sun-just variations on old stuff. They're just not always clear-hence the need for the Church and our Church Families.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The answers to all questions? Really? So what's the moral answer to a question like whether or not it's moral to watch an R rated movie? Or what about smoking cigarettes? Or gambling? Or living with someone before marriage? (I mean a couple who lives together before marriage who aren't having sex) Or a number of other issues?

I am not saying there is a "thou shall not" there but Biblical principles could be applied to all of the above. I'm not saying I am necessarily right on all of them, but I don't think we can just refuse to even try to apply Biblical principles to those issues just because there isn't a direct command.

Well, probably about the same, actually.

So, in your mind, a system that says it is never OK to initiate force, but only to use force in self-defense or defense of other people, is equally as immoral as a system that says its OK to bomb innocent people in other countries and destroy people's live for breaking arbitrary government edicts?

Wow...

I mean, I get why someone would say they don't think anarcho-capitalism "works" but to say that a non-aggressive system is actually IMMORAL? Wow...

I just think that Romans 13 makes anarcho capitalism seem very unbiblical. Not that I have the view that some Christians have that we should just obey the government no matter what, but I think that Romans 13 certainly justifies the existence of the state and of leaders.

"leaders" is a really, really broad term. "government" is pretty broad to.

I think its a great thing that you think civil disobedience can be a good thing. That's a start.

But, isn't even the need for civil disobedience proof that a monopolistic court system doesn't work?

 

[Christian Liberty]

ie "this is what you deserve for doing that. Now aren't you glad there is a scapegoat?" They were 'guilty and awaiting punishment' until the Feast, whereupon they were free and righteous again. The whole thing was set up as a lamp in the first place, not a club to beat people to death.

I'm not saying "beat people to death" but are you arguing that the OT laws were never actually supposed to be enforced?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This whole idea that you should actually take up big giant stones and actually kill ordinary violators with them was a perversion of the Law.

Romans 7:7-13 NASB

7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

It was in fact, sin itself that converted the Law from a lamp of life into a weapon of death. Mary Magdalene was convicted to death by the sins of rotten people 'wanting to see that wretched whore die.' Without the sinfulness of the stone-throwers, Magdalene would not have been in danger. Which, as it happens, was the point of the story. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[Christian Liberty]

FF...could you?
TC?

Probably not.

But, I don't believe God would tell someone to do that, today, since the Bible had now been written and murder is very clearly prohibited. If "god" told me to murder, I would say "get behind me Satan, because I know what the Bible says."