|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 27, 2009 0:23:04 GMT -4
Now that we have settled the issue of water boarding, what is our position on the comfy chair as torture?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 27, 2009 0:29:10 GMT -4
I saw no reason to bring religion into it at all but you insist on bringing it up in order to attack me. I beleive insulting someone because of their religious beliefs (such as calling them "irrational") is a violation of the forum rules, isn't it? I agree that RAF is being unnecessarily hostile, but I think his point is valid, Jason. You can't just ignore your religious principles when they become an inconvenience. I can't understand how, as a religious person, you can condone torture. If that is not an example of immoral behaviour, then what is? Two men marrying each other is immoral, but torture is a-okay? That's not irrational?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 27, 2009 3:24:12 GMT -4
Jason Wrote:
And that was from the Jewish side of things, Jesus came into the picture and amended many of those rules - eye for an eye etc.
Jesus taught people to be Christians and to be PACIFISTS - turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Vengeance is mine said the Lord.
In other words don't strike out, take the abuse humbly and let the Lord deal with those who cause harm. That is the Christian way - not seek revenge, bomb the crap out of everyone and torture people.
That's why Bush was such a hypocrite.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 27, 2009 7:17:31 GMT -4
Now that we have settled the issue of water boarding, what is our position on the comfy chair as torture? Well, as long as you refrain from poking with the soft cushions...
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 27, 2009 8:14:54 GMT -4
I want to say that's what's irrational is how this talk has caused so much heated debate. Can people not simply accept differences in opinion? If this issue weren't causing harm to people, sure. However, the government has been doing something in my name that I won't countenance. I don't want my country known for what we've been doing. Further, imagine the wasted man-hours spend tracking down all the false leads! Frankly, I can't understand why you don't understand that this is not an "everyone can have an opinion" issue. For the most part, sure. Agree to disagree on a lot of things. However, this is a major issue. This is not like what you put on your pizza. This is how we as a nation are going to treat other human beings. Isn't that something that should incite passion? Well, I didn't mean that the topic shouldn't incite passion. If I did come across like that, then I didn't mean it. What I really meant is that those involved shouldn't go on about other people's religious beliefs, comparing them to Hoax Believers, ect. There can be a heated debate without having insults thrown at each other.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 12:08:19 GMT -4
And that was from the Jewish side of things, Jesus came into the picture and amended many of those rules - eye for an eye etc. Jesus taught people to be Christians and to be PACIFISTS - turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Vengeance is mine said the Lord. In other words don't strike out, take the abuse humbly and let the Lord deal with those who cause harm. That is the Christian way - not seek revenge, bomb the crap out of everyone and torture people. That's why Bush was such a hypocrite. Matt. 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Yes, that's Jesus telling his apostles to buy swords to defend themselves with. John 2: 13-15 "And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise." And yes, that's Jesus using a scourge against the money changers in the temple and tossing tables around. The other gospels tell that the apostles aided in this cleansing of the temple.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 12:43:16 GMT -4
I agree that RAF is being unnecessarily hostile, but I think his point is valid, Jason. You can't just ignore your religious principles when they become an inconvenience. I can't understand how, as a religious person, you can condone torture. If that is not an example of immoral behaviour, then what is? Two men marrying each other is immoral, but torture is a-okay? That's not irrational? It's the purpose behind torture that can sometimes justify it, just as it is the purpose behind killing that can sometimes justify it. Is killing not worse than torture? You can't recover from being killed like you can from being waterboarded, but would you therefore argue that it can never be right to kill? Killing someone for greed, or envy, or out of anger is obviously immoral. Killing someone in self defense, or to defend others, may not be. Torture works the same way. It's obviously immoral to torture someone because you enjoy inflicting pain, or to forward some immoral cause (torturing someone for, say, their PIN so you can rob them). It may be morally acceptable when it is done to protect and defend others, however. Anyone who says "your religion says you can't ever defend yourself with force" is taking too simplistic a look at my religion. Christians have never seen total pacifism as the proper behavior for all situations. It is the ideal to not kill when unnecessary, but Christian nations have maintained armies and armed police forces with no real moral difficulty. Jesus requires us to treat our enemies as we would be treated, and not to hold grudges when they treat us badly (to forgive). He does not require us to let our enemies slaughter us, or to suffer criminals to go unpunished.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 12:43:45 GMT -4
Now that we have settled the issue of water boarding, what is our position on the comfy chair as torture? Just don't tie me to a dishrack.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 27, 2009 13:55:30 GMT -4
I agree that RAF is being unnecessarily hostile... Um...I agree with your...um... agreement. I will therfore back off a bit. You have precisely expressed my opinion of the difficulities I have with Jason's "opinion's".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 27, 2009 14:39:11 GMT -4
Well, I didn't mean that the topic shouldn't incite passion. If I did come across like that, then I didn't mean it. You did, actually, but that can be the problem with words on a screen. There, I agree with you. I have, personally, tried to keep my points to the issue at hand, in part because I think they're all I need. There are other debates we've had where the comparison to Hoax Believers is apt--anything that involves denying huge amounts of evidence, such as not believing in evolution--but this is, at least in part, a moral issue. It is also, however, a factual issue in that the evidence shows that torture is a very poor way to gather any usable information. I do rather wish certain people would accept the facts of that. After all, we've thousands of years of evidence on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 27, 2009 17:37:31 GMT -4
Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been. Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.
In the spiritual sense - not literal.
All this does is highlight the fact that the bible can be interpreted to suit the reader.
You seem to take the stance that the teachings of Jesus condones violence and killing in certain instances.
And as a Christian I can't understand how you consider death worse than torture. Death is the pathway to heaven and eternal love. Torture can leave you mentally and physically scarred for life.
I'm agnostic and I get that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 18:01:56 GMT -4
At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. So is the garment they are supposed to sell in order to purchase the sword also spiritual? Oh it was quite literal. The centuries immediately after Christ's coming were very bloody, especially for the church. Which was my point in quoting those verses. Though I notice you didn't make any metion of my third text, with Jesus himself using a scourge to cleanse the temple. Essentially yes. Killing is generally a bad idea, but there are circumstances when it is warranted. Killing someone is worse than torturing them because we have no power at all to undo killing. We can help someone to recover from torture. Killing someone while they are in a state that won't lead them to heaven is effectively condemnnig them to a state of eternal endless torture in Hell for most Christians anyway (the LDS belief is a little different).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 18:19:03 GMT -4
Let me add, again, that I don't think this discussion needs to touch on religious reasoning at all. If I say my religion's okay with something that doesn't automatically mean that the nation should say it's okay, any more than if my religion doesn't like something that means the nation should outlaw it. If I can present a solid secular case for my point of view then who should care what my religious views are on the subject except those who share my religion? Attack the points I have presented if my argument is unsound, not at what you guess might be my religious reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 27, 2009 19:53:32 GMT -4
Let me add, again, that I don't think this discussion needs to touch on religious reasoning at all. If I say my religion's okay with something that doesn't automatically mean that the nation should say it's okay, any more than if my religion doesn't like something that means the nation should outlaw it. If I can present a solid secular case for my point of view then who should care what my religious views are on the subject except those who share my religion? Attack the points I have presented if my argument is unsound, not at what you guess might be my religious reasoning. I agree with you Jason. There are many Christians on this forum, yet somehow your beliefs are brought up by other members time after time. Sure, if the thread is religious in nature, one's beliefs come under a bit of scrutiny , but for most threads specific doctrines that people adhere to can be left out. I mean, Jay goes to church, but his beliefs seem to go unmolested here. But again, he perhaps wisely stays away from some of our more emotional threads. As far as Christianity being a "pacifist" belief system - don't kid yourself. It's been around for two thousand years and has fought hundreds of wars and tortured and killed millions. I'm not saying any of those actions were not justified mind you - I'm just saying that having an army, defending your country and having to kill others is a normal mechanism for any state - Christian or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 27, 2009 21:36:54 GMT -4
I agree with you Jason. There are many Christians on this forum, yet somehow your beliefs are brought up by other members time after time. That's because Jason has been far more vocal about his religion than the others and that makes him a lightning rod. Maybe it's not fair, but that's what happens when someone makes themselves stand out. I think it's fair to ask a religious person why they support something that is immoral. All while claiming to be more peaceful than other religions. I think it's the hypocrisy that annoys non-believers more than anything.
|
|