Following Jesus Means Opposing Torture

[Christian Liberty]

But the problem is still that you have never cited a verse which says that an agent of the government is disobeying God whenever force is used against someone in order to get information to prevent a terrorist attack. I personally believe that it's immoral in most situations, but not all situations. But I recognize that it's a grey area that Christians can disagree on. Some conservative Christians are much more militant than me and basically say that torture is never immoral if the purpose is to get information. Other liberal Christians and hardcore libertarians say that torture is always immoral in every situation. The truth is that the Bible says absolutely nothing about the issue, so it's a grey area where Christians have to rely on their conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine what the correct position is.

Can a Christian support torturing people for fun?


This argument of "the Bible never talks about it" is old. There may not be such a "thou shall not torture" text, but Biblical principles can be used to assess every issue.

See here:

http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Torture1.pdf

 

[Christian Liberty]

Who cares if its an "agent of the government" first of all? What if it wasn't?

 

[Brett85]

Can a Christian support torturing people for fun?

They can, but I believe it would be a sin for them to support that, because that would be an example of initiating violence against someone, and it would never have the purpose of the defense of others. I think the Bible is clear that initiating violence against someone when there's no defensive purpose at all is immoral. But I think it's a much more grey area when it comes to using violence against someone in defense of the lives of others.

 

[jmdrake]

They can, but I believe it would be a sin for them to support that, because that would be an example of initiating violence against someone, and it would never have the purpose of the defense of others. I think the Bible is clear that initiating violence against someone when there's no defensive purpose at all is immoral. But I think it's a much more grey area when it comes to using violence against someone in defense of the lives of others.

Is it immoral for a Christian to support crucifixion as a form of torture? http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-crucified-captive-in-abu-ghraib-prison/14133 Anyway, here is the deal. Your Christian walk is supposed to make you more and more like Christ each day. So sure a Christian can "sin" by enjoying torture but that should start to bother him at some point. And ultimately this "Christians can support torture as long as it is necessary" logic is what led to the brutality of the inquisition. After all, the inquisitors weren't merely trying to save people's temporal lives, but they were trying to save their "immortal souls." Taking your logic to the extreme, torturing a heretic preacher to the point where he recanted might save a million souls from eternal hell.

 

[Christian Liberty]

They can

This statement strongly opposes basically everything you've written in the religion subforum.

If one rejects lordship salvation, if one denies that works are an inevitable result of faith, than this is reasonable. In that doctrinal paradigm, even if someone lives just like the world or even worse, they're still saved.

On the other hand, if one believes in Lordship Salvation than this is ridiculous. If we must believe in Christ as Savior AND Lord than I do not see how someone who supports torturing people for fun is doing that.

I don't actually know where the line is. On another website I basically all but did have someone arguing that if one doesn't "get" libertarianism that they never really "got" the gospel. And I didn't agree with that either. Then again, you've also said that a Christian can believe homosexuality is OK as long as they don't do it, so I guess this is consistent with that. I find certain moral propositions so horiffying that I believe they are clearly inconsistent with a profession of saving faith.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is it immoral for a Christian to support crucifixion as a form of torture? http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-crucified-captive-in-abu-ghraib-prison/14133 Anyway, here is the deal. Your Christian walk is supposed to make you more and more like Christ each day. So sure a Christian can "sin" by enjoying torture but that should start to bother him at some point. And ultimately this "Christians can support torture as long as it is necessary" logic is what led to the brutality of the inquisition. After all, the inquisitors weren't merely trying to save people's temporal lives, but they were trying to save their "immortal souls." Taking your logic to the extreme, torturing a heretic preacher to the point where he recanted might save a million souls from eternal hell.

Only for Arminians

Even ignoring the fact that it is torture and therefore evil, there's something exceptionally disturbing to me about using the method of Christ's execution to execute a criminal, solely because that's the way Jesus died. I am not saying there is something morally quantifiable about that, but I feel that way nonetheless.

 

[Brett85]

Is it immoral for a Christian to support crucifixion as a form of torture? http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-crucified-captive-in-abu-ghraib-prison/14133

I think that torture, particularly the kind you described, should be against the law. No civilized nation should actually have things like that be legal. Then if it actually needed to be done to save lives, the President could authorize it and then accept the consequences of his decision, which would include jail time. Jury nullification could also come into play if the torture indeed actually saved millions of lives.

But as to whether it's a sin for a Christian to support the form of torture that you described, I think it depends on their motive for why they support it. If a Christian is supporting torture simply to get back at or "get even" with terrorists, then that would clearly be sinful. But if they support it because they want to save the lives of millions of innocent people, then it would seem like their heart would be in the right place, even if they were incorrect on the substance of the issue. I think it depends on the reasoning regarding why they support it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There are also verses in the Bible that gives justification for the government to exist, particularly in Romans. If the government is to exist, then individuals have more of a job than to simply love him and love our brother. And loving others isn't a national defense policy. The U.S government has a responsibility first and foremost to protect the liberties of the American people. If people are dead, then they have no liberty. So we have to keep that perspective in mind when discussing this issue, that the Bible does indeed justify the existence of the state and of leaders. You can make the argument that torture is always immoral in every situation and should never be used, or that it's ineffective and shouldn't be used, but for people to keep making statements that "we just have a responsibility to love others" isn't correct. The Bible also says that we have many other responsibilities as well, such as taking care of our family. The Bible condemns men who refuse to take care of their families. It's not the case that loving God and loving others are our only responsibilities.

Mr. A, who is acting alone, does action X.

Mr. B, who is a government agent, also does action X.

What's the moral difference?

I don't see where in Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 it says there is a moral difference.

Also, the government at that time was not punishing evil or rewarding good, they were not rulers according to that passage. Nor is the US government, which is itself an agent of evil.

The only way for "rulers" to actually follow that passage would be to exclusively punish evil and reward good. No doing anything else, including plundering the people or forbiding other "rulers" to compete with them for business.

This article is relevant:

http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/romans-13/

 

[otherone]

If a Christian is supporting torture simply to get back at or "get even" with terrorists, then that would clearly be sinful. But if they support it because they want to save the lives of millions of innocent people, then it would seem like their heart would be in the right place, even if they were incorrect on the substance of the issue. I think it depends on the reasoning regarding why they support it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think that torture, particularly the kind you described, should be against the law. No civilized nation should actually have things like that be legal. Then if it actually needed to be done to save lives, the President could authorize it and then accept the consequences of his decision, which would include jail time. Jury nullification could also come into play if the torture indeed actually saved millions of lives.

But as to whether it's a sin for a Christian to support the form of torture that you described, I think it depends on their motive for why they support it. If a Christian is supporting torture simply to get back at or "get even" with terrorists, then that would clearly be sinful. But if they support it because they want to save the lives of millions of innocent people, then it would seem like their heart would be in the right place, even if they were incorrect on the substance of the issue. I think it depends on the reasoning regarding why they support it.

That strikes me as very utilitarian/virtue ethics type reasoning.

But the Bible is divine command deontological, IMO.

 

[otherone]

TC, it's the crux of the issue.
Could you do what Abraham did?

FF...could you?
TC?

 

[jmdrake]

Only for Arminians

Even ignoring the fact that it is torture and therefore evil, there's something exceptionally disturbing to me about using the method of Christ's execution to execute a criminal, solely because that's the way Jesus died. I am not saying there is something morally quantifiable about that, but I feel that way nonetheless.

LOL

I think that torture, particularly the kind you described, should be against the law. No civilized nation should actually have things like that be legal. Then if it actually needed to be done to save lives, the President could authorize it and then accept the consequences of his decision, which would include jail time. Jury nullification could also come into play if the torture indeed actually saved millions of lives.

But as to whether it's a sin for a Christian to support the form of torture that you described, I think it depends on their motive for why they support it. If a Christian is supporting torture simply to get back at or "get even" with terrorists, then that would clearly be sinful. But if they support it because they want to save the lives of millions of innocent people, then it would seem like their heart would be in the right place, even if they were incorrect on the substance of the issue. I think it depends on the reasoning regarding why they support it.

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.

 

[Brett85]

That strikes me as very utilitarian/virtue ethics type reasoning.

But the Bible is divine command deontological, IMO.

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.

 

[jmdrake]

TC, it's the crux of the issue.
Could you do what Abraham did?

Not seeing the relevance to th thread, But I'll answer the question. Absolutely not. I wouldn't tie up my child and begin to offer him as a sacrifice even if I thought I heard God tell me that. I would assume I had gone crazy or that an evil spirit was tempting me. 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. I wouldn't do what Joshua did either to the Caananites nor what Saul did, but failed ultimately to do, to the Amalakites. Thankfully we now have a full revelation of Christian principles to test the impressions that we get that we may think are from God. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. So what about Abraham, Joshua and Saul? Well I didn't live back then so that's not my main concern. I fully expect God to explain that all to me when I get to heaven.

 

[Brett85]

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.

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.

 

[otherone]

Not seeing the relevance to th thread, But I'll answer the question. Absolutely not. I wouldn't tie up my child and begin to offer him as a sacrifice even if I thought I heard God tell me that. I would assume I had gone crazy or that an evil spirit was tempting me.

I mean as Abraham heard the word of God...could you do it...if you knew it was God?

thx for answering, btw.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

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

 

[jmdrake]

I mean as Abraham heard the word of God...could you do it...if you knew it was God?

I will always assume under such circumstances that my senses are deceiving me and it's not God. "To the law and to the testimonies, if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them." The Bible teaches against "passing your child through the fire" so any being telling me He is God and that He wants me to sacrifice my child can't be God. Abraham's test came before that law was written.

 

[otherone]

Abraham's test came before that law was written.

Would you have done it before that law was written? Put yourself in Abraham's shoes.

 

[jmdrake]

Would you have done it before that law was written? Put yourself in Abraham's shoes.

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.