Agreed, Beer.

I just don't think it's all that surprising -- most Christians I have known follow their beliefs only to a point. If their or their family's safety is at risk, most would simply react without any thought to what the bible or Christ teaches to do in that situation. If you convince Christians their lives are at risk and the only way to keep them safe is to torture others, I would be shocked if more than a tiny percentage actually worry about the biblical ramifications. They just want to be placated and told they are safe. They are only humans just like the rest of us -- what would be surprising to me is if their actions were actually consistent with biblical teachings. The percentage of Christians who live as if they actually believe Jesus is the son of God and our only chance at salvation is vanishingly small.

Disagree completely. My church gives sacrificially in both money and time to the needy and charity.

We visit folks in the hospital and prisons. We cook food and comfort the bereaved.

Atheists tend to cherry pick issues to point out perceived hypocrisy of Christians to bolster their arguments.

And that is okay. We need to be prodded sometimes.

Peace and Merry Christmas

quote:

---

I agree that they do, but that doesn't explain 'why torture?', of all things. There are plenty of things that are subject to valid debate and some real ambiguity, but this one seems like such a no-brainer to me. Seems like there's something else going on than being lazy/inconsistent bible readers.

---

While the OP article focuses on Evangelicals, Catholics also do this. All the discussions I've been privy to boil down to "What exactly is torture?" These discussions tend to involve a lot of euphemistic word-smithing and mental gymnastics to get around the fact that many of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" (look, another euphemism!) are plainly torture. War is hell, but we're supposed to be better than that.

quote:

---

Atheists tend to cherry pick issues to point out perceived hypocrisy of Christians to bolster their arguments.

---

Bloodthirst is kind of a big issue.

quote:

---

My church gives sacrificially in both money and time to the needy and charity.

We visit folks in the hospital and prisons. We cook food and comfort the bereaved.

---

That's fantastic. The whole point of the OP is that many people do these things while still being in favor of our government torturing people.

None of the Christians I know are blood thirsty. I don't think the Pope, Billy Graham, etc. are blood thirsty.

So we will disagree. Very sorry that obviously Christian actions have turned you away from Christ.

Agree Baron. But woody did a lot of generalization of Christian actions that did not seem connected with the issue at hand.

Christians aren't perfect. Nobody is. And that is exactly the message of Christ.

Maybe not bloodthirsty, but scared. Maybe many have bought the canard that has been sold to them by the political leaders they follow that torture is warranted and necessary to keep us all safe.

quote:

---

None of the Christians I know are blood thirsty. I don't think the Pope, Billy Graham, etc. are blood thirsty.

So we will disagree. Very sorry that obviously Christian actions have turned you away from Christ.

---

Maybe bloodthirsty is strong, but virtually all the Christians I know, are very revengeful when it comes to this issue. It may be semantics to call it highly revengeful instead of bloodthirsty, but I think all you need to do is spend 20 minutes on FB to learn what most Christians want and approve of what was done to these guys.

quote:

---

None of the Christians I know are blood thirsty. I don't think the Pope, Billy Graham, etc. are blood thirsty.

So we will disagree. Very sorry that obviously Christian actions have turned you away from Christ.

---

You should meet more Christians - or reconsider your definition of blood thirst.

I like Jesus just fine.

quote:

---

Atheists tend to cherry pick issues to point out perceived hypocrisy of Christians to bolster their arguments.

And that is okay. We need to be prodded sometimes

---

Christians do lots of good in the world as well. A lot of Christians are fantastic people -- in fact a large portion of my close relationships are with strong believing Christians. I am not trying to act as if non-believers or any other group behave better as a whole than Christians -- just that I don't think most Christians really put their beliefs in action when its inconvenient or dangerous to do so. That doesn't mean they are bad people, just that they are only people -- nothing more. We all behave in ways that are in disagreement with our own beliefs and philosophies.

As with anything politics often plays a role. I know for me it's easy to view torture as "complex interrogation techniques" that will ultimately protect us all. However if I saw the actual interrogation I would likely feel a sense of dread at the methods we use to protect ourselves. I've never been there so I have no idea what exactly is being done. My positive leanings towards it derive from pundits telling me it is necessary. Is that true? Probably not.

My personal worldviews are often at odds with true biblical teachings. What can I say? I'm a sheep being tossed around like a leaf in the wind.

Glad to heat that 7thgen.

And despite what I said about family stuff I am not an advocate of torture.

And I agree it is easy to be a Christian when things are convenient. But I also don't think Christians are supposed to go looking for problems or imagine persecution when there is none.

I believe God wants us to be happy.

quote:

---

aggiegamecock,
Can you please post the teaching of Christ that you believe my views are incompatible with?

---

I have already told you that you'd make a terrible shepherd. He used that analogy enough that you should be able to find them on your own. I would certainly give you all credit for loving your neighbor as yourself though, as you wouldn't attempt to protect either from harm if violence were necessary.

I'm sure a great many would watch and say, "truly he loves Christ to watch his neighbor raped and abused and to not lift a finger. What an utterly selfless man!" You're like a dog with a bone. You define anyone as wishing to do harm to any person as an enemy, surely the broadest definition I have ever heard.

quote:

---

As with anything politics often plays a role. I know for me it's easy to view torture as "complex interrogation techniques" that will ultimately protect us all. However if I saw the actual interrogation I would likely feel a sense of dread at the methods we use to protect ourselves. I've never been there so I have no idea what exactly is being done. My positive leanings towards it derive from pundits telling me it is necessary. Is that true? Probably not.

My personal worldviews are often at odds with true biblical teachings. What can I say? I'm a sheep being tossed around like a leaf in the wind.

---

Political views and social norms play a large part, maybe the only part.

One might read the Bible and conclude that women are inferior to men. This was the social norm for thousands of years and I presume most Christians at these times felt the Bible supported this stance. Today, the social norm in western countries is one where women are regarded with more equality and I think most Christians conveniently feel that the Bible supports this stance. If, in 50 years, torture is no longer supported by either social norm or political party, its support will fall by the wayside accordingly among Evangelicals as well.

The Bible says what it says and hasn't changed substantially in a long time. However, what is considered 'moral' by Christians has evolved substantially on so many topics, like women's rights, according to the culture of the day. I am not in the least surprised to hear that so many Evangelical Christians support torture and I have no doubt that Christian morality will continue to evolve with society completely independently of what the Bible actually says.

quote:

---

quote:

---

aggiegamecock,
Can you please post the teaching of Christ that you believe my views are incompatible with?

---

I have already told you that you'd make a terrible shepherd. He used that analogy enough that you should be able to find them on your own. I would certainly give you all credit for loving your neighbor as yourself though, as you wouldn't attempt to protect either from harm if violence were necessary.

---

I am trying to find the sections you are alluding to. I see John 10:11 where Christ said that He is "the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays His life down for the sheep", which I certainly agree with.

I found this site, and cannot find the verses you seem to be referencing: http://www.openbible.info/topics/shepherd

But, I'm not sure what this has to do w/ torturing human beings that Christ commanded we love. Torture has shown to produce poor results, as people will typically say whatever you want them to in order to stop the torture. In the Senate report, KSM was tortured for intel on a plot that the CIA later determined to not be real. I get it that you don't agree w/ my views on violence, but this thread is about torture, which is entirely incompatible w/ Christ's teachings. If you wish to discuss other issues, you are more than welcome to email me. I posted my email earlier in this thread.

gamecock,

quote:

---

I'm sure a great many would watch and say, "truly he loves Christ to watch his neighbor raped and abused and to not lift a finger. What an utterly selfless man!"

---

Fortunately, this is not what I believe. But, this thread is about torture, not my views on pacifism. Please stay on topic and please stop misrepresenting my views. If you want to discuss other issues, please email me. I believe the subject of torture, especially with regards to how Christians should view it, is an important one that I'd like to not derail.

quote:

---

gamecock,

quote:

---

I'm sure a great many would watch and say, "truly he loves Christ to watch his neighbor raped and abused and to not lift a finger. What an utterly selfless man!"

---

Fortunately, this is not what I believe. But, this thread is about torture, not my views on pacifism. Please stay on topic and please stop misrepresenting my views. If you want to discuss other issues, please email me. I believe the subject of torture, especially with regards to how Christians should view it, is an important one that I'd like to not derail.

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile. I doubt any study of evangelicals would find they consider it something to do to someone for no reason or for fun. I would warrant their justification would be purely based on preventing threat or harm to those you would consider innocent; protection, as it were, using violence. It is not so easy to dissociate your views from the subject as you like.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As with anything politics often plays a role. I know for me it's easy to view torture as "complex interrogation techniques" that will ultimately protect us all. However if I saw the actual interrogation I would likely feel a sense of dread at the methods we use to protect ourselves. I've never been there so I have no idea what exactly is being done. My positive leanings towards it derive from pundits telling me it is necessary. Is that true? Probably not.

My personal worldviews are often at odds with true biblical teachings. What can I say? I'm a sheep being tossed around like a leaf in the wind.

---

Political views and social norms play a large part, maybe the only part.

One might read the Bible and conclude that women are inferior to men. This was the social norm for thousands of years and I presume most Christians at these times felt the Bible supported this stance. Today, the social norm in western countries is one where women are regarded with more equality and I think most Christians conveniently feel that the Bible supports this stance. If, in 50 years, torture is no longer supported by either social norm or political party, its support will fall by the wayside accordingly among Evangelicals as well.

The Bible says what it says and hasn't changed substantially in a long time. However, what is considered 'moral' by Christians has evolved substantially on so many topics, like women's rights, according to the culture of the day. I am not in the least surprised to hear that so many Evangelical Christians support torture and I have no doubt that Christian morality will continue to evolve with society completely independently of what the Bible actually says.

---

This is an excellent explanation for many religious people's beliefs and values. When one has an overriding need to be consistent (which we all do) there are only two possible outcomes. We either find ways to interpret our sources to match how we already feel or we change how we feel. The second one is difficult to do consciously and also requires accepting our own inconsistency for at least a brief moment.

gamecock,
Then I go back to my original request of you. Please show how you can reconcile torture with Christ's teachings. What teachings of His would allow for it? I've provided several of His teachings that would prohibit such actions. His teachings do not allow for the use of torture.

Yes. If you want to have an actual discussion you both need to provide specific textual support for the stances you take. That is how theologians have done it for centuries.

quote:

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile.

---

Consequentialism. You've all but said the ends justify the means. Problem is, they don't. Doing evil to prevent evil is a poor justification. And with regards to the report itself, it is terribly ineffective. It's the same logic in justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic by an (allegedly) prolife individual.

quote:

---

quote:

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile.

---

Consequentialism. You've all but said the ends justify the means. Problem is, they don't. Doing evil to prevent evil is a poor justification. And with regards to the report itself, it is terribly ineffective. It's the same logic in justifying the bombing of an abortion clinic by an (allegedly) prolife individual.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

gamecock,

quote:

---

I'm sure a great many would watch and say, "truly he loves Christ to watch his neighbor raped and abused and to not lift a finger. What an utterly selfless man!"

---

Fortunately, this is not what I believe. But, this thread is about torture, not my views on pacifism. Please stay on topic and please stop misrepresenting my views. If you want to discuss other issues, please email me. I believe the subject of torture, especially with regards to how Christians should view it, is an important one that I'd like to not derail.

---

On the contrary you oversimplify, as have most with regards to torture in this thread. The purpose of said techniques is paramount to this discussion. Imminent threats or danger, or potential situations where massacres or the murder of other human beings is being plotted would seem to merit consideration or disucussion of it. To separate the two is futile. I doubt any study of evangelicals would find they consider it something to do to someone for no reason or for fun. I would warrant their justification would be purely based on preventing threat or harm to those you would consider innocent; protection, as it were, using violence. It is not so easy to dissociate your views from the subject as you like.

---

quote:

---

Maybe not bloodthirsty, but scared. Maybe many have bought the canard that has been sold to them by the political leaders they follow that torture is warranted and necessary to keep us all safe.

---

I think aggiegamecock may be a data point supporting my hypothesis.

quote:

---

I would disagree with the poster who said I would theoretically gain the world but lose my soul by doing anything to save my family.

I disagree as my soul and salvation are secure. Nothing can separate me from Christ.

---

Following up because I haven't had time to get back here until now.

Here is what I was alluding to: Matthew 16:

quote:

---

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

---

I am not stating anything about your salvation, as I interpret much of the language as figurative in regards to actually losing one's salvation...but one cannot mistake the seriousness of taking up your cross (ie, the object of YOUR death) and carrying it with you. This is where it gets real.

I saw an interesting thought experiment on facebook the other day. Would people that support torture now be okay if it were the Taliban waterboarding US soldiers to get information to save their fellow Taliban members? Would they be okay with a news story about a US soldier dying of hypothermia as he was chained to a wall while being held so they could extract life-saving information via "enhanced interrogation"?

Were the Vietnamese justified to torture US soldiers since they were trying to save Vietnamese lives? What makes torture committed by the US any different than what would rightly draw the outrage of Americans, especially Christians in America, committed by another country or group? If they are doing it to save the lives of the members of their group or nation, then how could those defending the US actions turn around and condemn others?

quote:

---

Why? You refuse to reconcile yours. How effective a shepherd you would be if you did not kill the wolf or the lion or bear!

---

Your comment is telling about your viewpoint: To call them a "wolf or bear" is to not call them a sheep. Therefore, you are denying them their humanity.

The issue with the torture debate is that these aren't lions or bears...but other sheep. Where does it advocate killing other sheep as a shepherd?

quote:

---

I saw an interesting thought experiment on facebook the other day. Would people that support torture now be okay if it were the Taliban waterboarding US soldiers to get information to save their fellow Taliban members? Would they be okay with a news story about a US soldier dying of hypothermia as he was chained to a wall while being held so they could extract life-saving information via "enhanced interrogation"?

Were the Vietnamese justified to torture US soldiers since they were trying to save Vietnamese lives? What makes torture committed by the US any different than what would rightly draw the outrage of Americans, especially Christians in America, committed by another country or group? If they are doing it to save the lives of the members of their group or nation, then how could those defending the US actions turn around and condemn others?

---

Remember, it's ok because we are "One nation under God". God just likes us more.

quote:

---

Remember, it's ok because we are "One nation under God". God just likes us more.

---

Well, only since 1954. Before that, He liked us equally.

Torture is wrong. But to equate the US armed forces with the Taliban and/or North Vietnamese is wrong also IMHO.

quote:

---

Torture is wrong. But to equate the US armed forces with the Taliban and/or North Vietnamese is wrong also IMHO.

---

If the intent of the torture is to extract information to save the lives of their fellow citizens/soldiers, then what's the difference? If the NV made a US soldier stand in a stress position with broken legs in order to extract information to save the lives of other North Vietnamese, then why is that different that the US forcing detainees to stand in stress positions with broken legs in order to extract information from them that they believe could save the lives of others?

It's a slippery slope you go down when one tries to rationalize torture, even for the sake of getting what you perceive to be life-saving information. Of course, this also operates under the assumption that the one being tortured actually has the information you are wanting, which is a major assumption to make when trying to justify torturing another human being.

I am not equivocating torture. I am talking about equivocating the Taliban with US armed forces.

There is a huge moral difference to me.

Torture being committed by the US is no less immoral than the very same acts being committed by the Taliban or North Vietnamese. If you use "extraction of life-saving information" as the justification, then you open the door for others to do the same. I'm not saying US soldiers = taliban. I'm pointing out the problem created by trying to rationalize evil.

Fine. I just don't like any analogy comparing the Taliban or North Vietnamese to our fine service folks who have had nothing to do with torture.