"I just believe that Jesus...would not enforce legislation to ban guns." Posted by: Peter S.

Why? Because he was so quick to resort to force himself?

psychorrhagia
Actually. I have been very happy ever since I stopped believing in a God of war and eternal torture. God is Love.

Kevin said he thinks torture should be illegal, but torture is in fact illegal. It is not legal by any branch of government or the military. The laws are clear and the phony "legal opinions " of lawyers like Gonzales and Addington do not change the law. These 3rd rate lawyers do not even cite case law or legal judgements.

Rumsfeld better not go to Spain or he will very likely be put on trial, as he should be.

Peter -- you really use these blogs to condemn the entire Christian faith?
Posted by: openeyes | September 13, 2008 8:49 PM

"Thanks for this thoughtful post on the torture poll. Having worked on it myself, I was surprised and saddened by some of the results, but encouraged by others." Dan


Dan--What is the worldview that leads a group at Mercer to sample "white southern Evangelicals." What is distinct in your mind about this group?

One of the more disturbing and encouraging pieces of information was not highlighted in Jimmy's summary. Among the sampled group, over half that related their view to scripture, rejected torture outright. I think it hard to identify a sample as Evangelical if their ethical stances have no relationship to scripture.

I am sure many do ID themselves as Evangelical--but this is a label with many meanings. So without explanation as to how it was used in the "science" and in the minds of those surveyed--it becomes quite meaningless (in my mind).

And there is no way this topic can be heard outside of the political climate/arguments of the last few years. So a question about ethical view of torture immediately carries all kinds of meanings about Iraq, 'war on terror,' George Bush, Guantanamo, etc. etc.

The survey itself demonstrates how context changes answers. Those conducting survey interpreted results as showing that 14% would shift their view when reminded of the Golden Rule. Another interpretation is simply that when first posed with the question they heard it in political terms. The more times the interviewer raised basic ethical principles, it shifted the meaning of the conversation and they responded in more pure ethical terms.

Don: "Trojans 35 Buckeyes 3
Yeah, and the Browns are probably going to get their butts kicked by the Steelers later this evening. Cincinnati already lost earlier today.
Not a good weekend for Ohio football teams."

As a fellow native Buckeye, I can barely see through the tears to type.

Canuckle, after your shot at Don, I'm tempted to wave the star-spangled banner and make snarky comments about Canada's similarity to Freedonia!! The problem is, the USA offers such an easy target for you to respond with snappy comebacks. :)

Trojans 35 Buckeyes 3

Yeah, and the Browns are probably going to get their butts kicked by the Steelers later this evening. Cincinnati already lost earlier today.

Not a good weekend for Ohio football teams.

D

Believe me, Don knows torture.

Trojans 35 Buckeyes 3

Deuteronomy 7= the Israelites are commanded to exterminate/annihilate the Canaanites and to "show them no mercy"

Matthew 15= Jesus shows mercy to the Canaanite woman's demon-possessed daughter

Deuteronomy 7= 7 nations are specifically marked out for genocide

Matthew 16= Jesus feeds the 4,000 on the Gentile side of the lake and there are 7 baskets left over, representing the 7 nations (just as 12 baskets were left over after the feeding of the 5,000 on the Jewish side of the lake, representing the 12 tribes)

Conclusion= Jesus reverses the Deuteronomy 7 command FROM "show them no mercy" TO "showing them mercy"

Application= I cannot see Jesus justifying torture under any circumstances. Jesus is pro-life from womb to tomb.

The challenge= how do we actually live the Jesus Way in the "real world"? In a world of violence, it seems clear WHAT we are supposed to do-- but it's unclear HOW we are supposed to do it.

Stay in One Peace,

Cool Runnings

"In a sense, though, you are right. Extremist rhetoric on both sides of the abortion issue have reduced a profound disgrace to a series of talking points. The politicization of torture has rendered the same result."

I agree. If one is opposed to torture, he/she should also be opposed to abortion. It should not be a political animal, but extremists on both the Left and Right are always the ones to get noticed in the News.

"Heck, I'm willing even to permit an INTELLECTUAL discussion."

You have left me with the impression that you want to blur and obfuscate the issues under the guise of an "INTELLECTUAL" discussion. Why don't you just come and and admit that water boarding constitutes torture?

"I'm not sure saying that "very few" people think this way or that consitutes utilizing a broad brush, at least not in such a way as to be problematic to my argument."

Of course it doesn't in your mind. Because then you would have to admit to being wrong.

I'm not sure saying that "very few" people think this way or that consitutes utilizing a broad brush, at least not in such a way as to be problematic to my argument.

Earlier you wrote:
"Very few people who wring their hands regarding the torture issue actually care one way or the other. It is simple a vehicle to bludgeon those who adhere to a different ideology."

My understanding of this is:
"Most people who wring their hands regarding the torture issue don't actually care one way or the other. It's simply a vehicle to bludgeon those who adhere to a different ideology."

Please clarify what you really meant, if it wasn't to say that most of those who express concern about torture are being insincere. Because that's how I understand what you wrote. Hence the "broad brush."

D

I cannot believe a poll that says 57% of white evangelicals in the South support torture. This by a majority white evangelical school there in the South.

Having read a few religious texts, let me guess a few numbers of my own to fight the deists with.

Passing them as a poll debauches everything from mathematics to fine heterosexuality.

Picking numbers from my ewomb, I guess:


0.12-0.13% of white evangelicals in the South verbally support torture.

31% of white evangelicals in the south verbally curse sinful Islam.

6.25% of white evangelicals in the South make recists comments over once every two years.

66% of Israeli Jews verbally curse sinful Islam.

2% of Israeli Jews make a racist comments over once every two years.

0.9% of Israeli Jews verbally support torture.

85% of polling questions include a NAND gate.

74% of American tenured professors have doubted the foundations of all education in the Coran sense.

74.104% of cvUS defense lawyers believe every poll they see for sentencing preposal.

62% of American elected officials believe God rote has; no;; politics.

Or, you can believe 666 talents of gold in Solomon's temple translate into burning hell. There is no poll monopoly none. The Federal Writers' Project was written in tongues and so were the best censuses. I fear for the 2010 when Louisiana and Florida are mith enplaced.

From what I gather, Sojourners teaches that Abortion isn't going to be solved through political means. Making it illegal will not eradicate it, in fact, it can make it worse.

Focusing on the root causes of abortion WILL have better chance of eradicating abortion.

The white southern evangelicals was justified. THAT IS WHO HE POLLED!

You skitted around the topic at hand by throwing something else into the mix. You are creating a Staw Man fallacy.

" 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7)

Jesus (and Isaiah) spoke directly to the practice of finding ways to ignore God. Sadly we often find excuses, exceptions, or simply say Jesus didn't mean what he said.

Igor

"Wow! Talk about painting with a broad brush!"

I'm not sure saying that "very few" people think this way or that consitutes utilizing a broad brush, at least not in such a way as to be problematic to my argument.

"Did it ever occur to you, Kevin, that perhaps some who, as you caustically put it, "wring their hands regarding the torture issue" are stating their actual belief and aren't concerned whether or not anyone's ideology is challenged by their thinking?"

Yes, and nothing I said presumes against this contradiction. But the majority of discussion related to torture centers around an endeavor to paint one group into the furthest possible corner. The purpose is to ridicule and discredit (see, for example, the post to which I was responding).

My fear is that real discussions about the nature of torture will be thrown overboard in favor of partisan pursuit.

"Maybe they actually believe it's wrong and immoral."

Of course. Of what use is it to paint an opponent into a corner if you are not convinced that the corner represent moral depravity? For the record, I think torture is immoral.

"Sort of like people who believe abortion is wrong and immoral."

It is "sort of like" that, isn't it? I believe that neither torture nor abortion should be legal, and I invite a discussion as to what an abortion entails and why it should be illegal. Heck, I'm willing even to permit an INTELLECTUAL discussion.

In a sense, though, you are right. Extremist rhetoric on both sides of the abortion issue have reduced a profound disgrace to a series of talking points. The politicization of torture has rendered the same result.

If my brush is so broad that I have glossed over the discussion that is taking place in this nation regarding torture, please alert me of evidence to the contrary.

Payshun: I have no argument that the Lord is a God of mercy. However, he also knows when souls have completely rejected him and there is no point for them to live on this earth anymore.

Jonabark: If you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Word, what hope have you? If you can't trust anything in the Word, why do you even believe in God? I am not trying to argue, I am honestly interested to know.

I don't claim to be a theologian, but I do strive to understand God's perspective. I just enjoy a little friendly banter with brothers and sisters in Christ!

Posted by: psychorrhagia | September 13, 2008 2:07 PM

Amen, sibling! Sorry if I come off harsh. As Don has pointed out, this is an imperfect medium.

My understanding from the Gospel of John is that Jesus came especially to reveal the heart of the Father. If the Father had been completely understood then there would be no need for Jesus to correct so many misconceptions when He was on earth.

Pastor Jeff

Also to Peter
There are rules of conduct for participation here. They allow for freedom of belief and argument, but require that we abstain from personal insults . An imprecise term, but i think it keeps things reasonably civil. I think your direct attacks on the logic of Christian faith are acceptable as long as they are not loaded with insulting language. You can say an idea is dumb, but not call people dumb, immoral etc. These rule also provide a good exercise in control as a writer /thinker.

psychorrhagia
"Do you deny that the Old Testament has any relevance to modern Christianity?"
The Old Testament was not dictated by God. It is a very flawed and human document with many historic inaccuracies and some deliberate falsifications.. What was written reflected the ideas, culture and times of the writers. If Jesus or Moses were alive today who would you trust to tell their story accurately? People have not changed. Much was written centuries after the events. Historical and textual analyses are worth reading. There is in fact no way to reconcile the teachings and example of Jesus with the OT scriptures. In fact there is no way to reconcile the different images of God that appear in the OT. The Bible never calls itself the"word of God". The modern invention of Biblical innerrancy is an invention to give power to those who wish to control the interpretation to suit their religious agenda and intimidate their followers.

Romans 13
Paul was a pharisee and remained proud of that and retained many of the teachings of the pharisees in his self proclaimed apostleship. It is obvious that he knew very little of what Jesus taught. The idea that Jesus teachings changed after his resurrection is ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration. Paul himself said that he would bind nothing on the Gentiles except they refrain from fornication and things strangled.So he does not claim divine truth for his every word. His teachings about government are Pharisee nonsense IMO. Most Christians follow Paul because most Christians don't really like Jesus, and Paul offers a much more user friendly religion.

psychorrhagia
"...it seems like "Do unto others" may be out of context if applied to governments."

For any "government" to do anything, individuals must act. This imagined distinction is false and has no scriptural or logical support. Why would a God who warned his people not to take a king, and then went on to describe in detail a list of the ruthless abuses of Kings, spend his energies sorting through the governments of the world choosing this king to punish that king and so on ad infinitum. Do you really believe this? If he is so busy with all this lesson teaching and raising of righteous rulers, what went wrong?

I am not saying that God's spirit cannot influence governments and nations, tribes and peoples. But he idea that all governments are appointed by God is false.

I'm among the sixteen percent who believe that torture could be justified in rare circumstances, and I believe that the "golden rule" does not rule out its use.

Please allow me to explain: Suppose you are a member of a terror cell with a weapon of mass destruction. Under extreme duress and pain, you reveal the location of the weapon. The weapon is captured, and your plan to kill thousands of innocents is thwarted.

Now, the pain was real and degrading -- which is why I can respect those who take a more absolutist position against torture, and why I believe the situations where it actually can be justified are quite rare. But there is a plus side to being tortured in this instance: the deaths of thousands of innocents are off of your head. A grievous evil (Can we agree that mass murder is worse than torture?) has been averted, an evil that you would otherwise be accountable for at the last judgment.

Now all this is assuming that one actually is a terrorist with useful information, and that torture will get one to talk. Unless both are true than the use of torture does neither you nor the interrogator any good. But this is more a practical objection than an ethical one -- the ticking time bomb scenario may not happen very often but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Which is why I say "rarely", not "always".

Taking the eternal view, I would have to say that if I were to fall in with a terror cell, it would be better for me if the cell were to fail than if it were to succeed, and the best thing that a Christian could do for me would be to discover and neutralize my plans. Even if it hurt.

LV

One other thing there is no discussion on what forms of torture are more acceptable than others. That's not even worthy of debate. Torture is wrong. So instead of trying to debate what forms are acceptable we should be saying no torture.

p