 |
Hello Christians:
The other day, Hannity said that he'd torture the Gitmo detainees himself, if he could, and he finished by saying, "and I'm a Christian". I guess he meant that torture isn't against anything Christianlike..
However, I started to think about how Jesus was crucified. Isn't crucifixion torture? I think it is. Wasn't Jesus tortured to death?? I think he was.
I don't understand, then, how a Christian can be OK with torture. Tell me where I'm wrong.
excon
There are lots of things that christians say they believe in and then there you see their actions that contradict their stated belief. Look no further than this site to see proof.
There are many who call themselves Christian but, for a variety of reasons, are not who the world should look to as good examples of Christians.
KKK members call themselves Christians.
There are others (who call themselves Christian) who to to gay parades with banners saying "Faggots go to Hell"...
These are NOT ones who are examples of "Christian".
I do not lump Hannity with the above, but he, in my opinion, is another example of one who is not a good example of a Christian.
A good Christian, in my opinion:
a. Treats others as He wishes to be treated,
b. Judges not lest he be judged,
c. Recognizes that he himself is not without imperfections,
d. Forgives others of their imperfections as he himself wishes to be forgiven for his own imperfections.
I'm sure I've left some out, but those are some of the basics.
http://www.gearbits.com/images/thumbs-up.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Thanks for the thumbs up, Need-ShamWowGuy :)
I should add:
My opinion is not new. It's what Christ taught in our Scriptures and what the historic Christian faith has taught for over 2000 years. Those who teach otherwise are... well, I'll resist typing the variety of adjectives that I'm thinking...
OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children. But luckily you were able to capture one of these bad guys. What would YOU as average Joe citizen do to ensure the safe return of your child? Would you torture the bad guy to get the information needed to safely return your child? Or would you let the bad guy go in hopes that he would have a softening of heart and give your child back safely? What if this gang wanted your child for a prostitution ring? Or wanted to sell them into slavery? Where would you stand then? People that have never held a gun or shot another person during war or in anger have no real perception of how evil people can be.
Hello Rick:Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Those are the traits I always thought Christians aspired to.
Although, I suppose there's always been a militant branch who hang their hats on, "an eye for an eye".
To me, that viewpoint is uncomfortably similar to Radical Islams viewpoint.
excon
Hello 450:Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Here's the deal...
Some of you on the right confuse liberalism with weakness. You're wrong.
PERSONALLY, because that's the plane you want to discuss this on, I'm not a very nice fellow. I wouldn't be kind to people who inflicted harm on my family. In fact, I'm really no different than YOU in that regard.
Nonetheless, as much as I believe in vigilantism, I don't want my COUNTRY to be vigilantes. I want my country to be BETTER than me. That's LIBERALISM.
Fortunately for us both, we don't have to make those decisions any more. The founders of this great country of ours took that burden OFF our shoulders when it enacted laws aimed at justice - not vengeance. I'm willing to give up that part of me to my government... In fact, we've ALL made that agreement with the government.
So, however I'd act under your pretend scenario, has nothing to do with how I want my GOVERNMENT to act.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
One of my chlldren?
Well, let's see...
It's never happened - and it's not related to Hannity - but I'll wing it anyway:
I'm not sure that I'd be able to confirm that the bad guy I caught was responsible, but if I knew FOR SURE that he was involved, I'd do whatever it took to get the information as to how to get my kid back.
... but yep, I know what so many of you reading this are thinking: How would I know FOR SURE that this bad guy is responsible and knows the info.
I guess that if I SAW him do it I'd know... but other than that, I cannot give an easy answer.
Does that leave me in the same boat as most of you? :)
Well, that's true. But what's the point of this question? That people who want to become saints are imperfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Sure. But we strive to achieve perfection. As Jesus said:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
So, what would Jesus do?
Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
But does this apply in this situation? I say no. Jesus also said:
Luke 6:31 (King James Version)
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Therefore, ask yourself, if you were kidnapped, would you want to be rescued?
I say yes. Therefore this rule applies. When evil is committed unto a neighbor, that neighbor should be assisted and where possible protected from that evil.
Therefore, we are empowered to do what is ethically possible to retrieve that kidnapped child, whether it be our child or someone else's.
Would we use torture to achieve that goal?
I personally believe that the child who has been kidnapped is being tortured. If not physically, at least mentally. Therefore, I believe that torture should be permitted as a legal recourse in such a situation.
Perhaps others have a different opinion and can defend it.
Hello again, De:
All that Christian stuff, and you'd still pull somebody's fingernails out.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Jesus would do.
excon
Come on Ex Christians LOVE Violence look at the Crusades.
You aren't, Hannity is.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't think any "Christian" can be for torture.
G&P
Sorry, but this is utter tosh. What you are suggesting is that we only have two options; torture, or "let the bad guy go". I have a suspicion that you realize this is an unreasonable representation of the options available, why then do you do this? It is most definitely NOT an accurate representaion of the "real world".Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Secondly, you are assuming that the use of torture will necessarily lead to a favourable outcome. Could you please enlighten me as to how you know this? Second sight perhaps? This would seem to be at odds with a vast amount of empircal evidence which shows that the use of torture is in fact counter productive, and will often result in false information being acted upon, thus wasting precious rescources. Why do think that fine investigative organizations such as the F.B.I and Scotland Yard frown upon the use of such techniques?
This in itself should render all ethical arguments unnecessary, however even if we were to accept the ludicrous idea that torture is a more effective method of interrogation, we would still find ourselves on very shakey grounds ethically.
For example, we all accept that to inflict physical harm on a human is acceptable if it leads DIRECTLY to the stopping of a harmful act, such as a policeman shooting a gunman, or subduing a dangerous and troublesome criminal with pepperspray, etc. This is not what we are talking about here. Here we are concrened with obtaining information, which might THEN lead to the stopping of the harmful act. If we take this as being acceptable, we should also say that torture as a means of obtaining a confession from someone we "know" as a murderer is also acceptable. This will surely stop another harmful act. And if it is o.k for a murderer, why not other people who we "know" are capable of causing death, like drink-drivers? If we are to be consistent, it would then be acceptable to subject them to torture, as a means of stopping harm in the future.
If it were so that we could see all the future consequences of our actions, we would have no need for morality or ethical principles at all. The argument that torture is acceptable because "I love my kids/country/whatever" is pathetic, and should be treated with nothing but contempt.
Hello Tok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Greenie **
excon
Greetings excon:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It has just occurred to me that I have in fact offered no thoughts on Hannity, or those who call themselves Christians for that matter. Hannity is a scare mongering, self-righteous imbecile. His religion has nothing to do with it. Christians are themselves a fairly diverse bunch. Some, like the happy clappy fundies that seem to have "kidnapped" Christianity, I despise. Others, who have contributed to many of the great advances of mankind (civil rights, ending slavery/aparthied etc) as well as great thinkers like Wittgenstein and Aquinas, or even the Vicar at the Anglican Church my mother attends, who is always up for a civil debate/conversation on any number of topics, I have great respect for.
Personally, I'm agnostic, and on the subject of Christ as a person, I would agree with Nietzsche - "Christ was the only Christian".
Who cares? Ya know, I'm a "happy clappy fundie" you "despise" and we have never even met. Being a Christian fundie, I TRY not to run around insulting people because they don't believe like I dO. I mean, I COULD call all agnostics babbling BAFFOONs if you are any indication of what they are like. But I'm smarter than that.:D Plus I wouldn't want to ruin your imagine of me... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Note,
Sorry ex, didn't mean to hijack your thread... but it needed to be said.
It's really interesting how that some of you can bash Hannity (and others) without batting an eye.
Especially when you are so quick to defend your own position and call anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite.
Interesting!
Does this mean that you believe him to be a fine upstanding person?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
NK,
I like Hannity. I don't agree with everything he says but I think he is a fine upstanding person and I don't hate him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever... now see how TOLERANT I am...
No one here is hating him because he calls himself a Christian or Catholic or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Well whathisface.. said he despised fundie's... I don't call that LOVE.
I just find it very interesting that Christians in general are the ones who are called intolerant... thats all I am sayng. I'm not trying to get off thread, don't want exy mad at me.
You show a lack of respect for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Well quite, however I would be very surprised if you in fact knew what an agnostic even is. That said, you have raised a valid criticism. I should rather have said that I despise the movement itself, rather than the people it preys upon. This was a mistake on my part, and I apologise for any confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Why would you be surprised that I would know what an agnostic is? Because I'm blonde, female, stupid or Christian? Or is it all of the above?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Incidentally NK... I was in a hurry when I called him whathisface... wasn't about lack of respect I just didn't recall his name and I had someone at the door. Having said THAT... hows about HIS lack of respect for others... or are you just down on Christian funides that have a brain and an opinion too?
It is not my call to label him. He is what he is, love him or hate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It's not your call either.
I notice that you frequently take swipe at Christians. The hypocrisy of the leftstream media totally eclipses anything you can find in any church.
But then, I suppose it is proper to hold people who claim to be Christians to a higher standard.
And it seems to be proper to hold republicans to a higher standard.
And the left doesn't hold dems to any standard, because they have none, and some on the left have said as much.
But yet you post about Obama all the time. In your post above you labeled all democrats have having no standards. Following your own advice would be a good thing, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Look at you labeling people here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1689785
You deny the accuracy of my statement in that post?
What I am saying about this thread is that when the left disagrees with anyone claiming to be Christian, they immediately paste the hypocrite label on that person. Just because you don't like their opinion doesn't make them a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy is when you "manage" news to suit yourself rather than facts, then throw the hypocrisy charge at the opposition.
The mainstream media (which is losing ratings) does it all the time.
A hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". Hypocrisy can happen based on many belief systems that are compromised; it just happens that the cases that crop here are people who tout their christian values but act differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Again, I notice that your context for hypocrisy seems to be limited to Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You don't see this as too narrow a context?
Let me ask you a direct question.
Do you see hypocrisy in the news services? Yes or no.
You fail at comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
No. What they do is not defined as hypocrisy (see definition in my previous quote).Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I believe that most people understand that Fox is a GOP talking point organization. They do as expected.
Your reply is kind of what I expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If the other news outlets are so dependable, why is Fox beating them all hollow in the ratings? Why is the NYT on the verge of bankruptcy? Could it be that the public is becoming aware of just how hypocritical and slanted they are?
What they give a pass for to their guys, they will demonize their opposition for, including all manner of vile and profane innuendos and will even manufacture stories if none are available.
That's the way I see it, and remember, perception is everything, right??
That's not even close to what this thread is about...Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Hannity says he would torture Gitmo detainees and tries to somehow justify it by saying "and im a Christian". And you still believe he is an upstanding person.
Should we assume you too think torture is good? Oh, no, that's right. You don't agree with everything he says. But to me a torturer is far from a fine upstanding person. Wouldn't you agree?
I think it is imortant to look at the subtext of Hannity's statement. For example, when he says "....and I'm a Christian.", what he is really saying is "... and I'm a good person.". This means he has taken the ludicrous position that his assertion must be "good" a priori, and that he need not bother with any meaningful justification. This tendency is all to common in the MODERN evangelical movement, and is the main reason why I avoid engagement with such people.
They make a complete mockery of the fine Christian orders that have contributed so much to western intellectual and philosophical development. Decartes, Aquinas, St Augustine, Hobbes, Locke, these great Christian thinkers would be ashamed of what the fundie lunatics have done to their great tradition.
Hello:
So, he's saying that torture must not be bad, because I, a good Christian person, would do it, and wouldn't think twice about it??
Yup. He didn't even think once about it... I'm still waiting for a Christian to speak about the torture of Jesus Christ... and then tell me that they think torture is cool.
excon
So 30 second spurts of waterboarding under the supervision of a physican to make sure no actual harm is done can be equated with crucifixion?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Do you understand crucifixion, or are your comments pure hyperbole?
SkellQuote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Please don't answer for me... you don't know me. I already apologized to ex for "hijacking" his thread.. if he didn't have a problem.. why do YOU? OH! I know... it is because I'm a Christian! (oops did I go and answer for YOU?) AND because I don't dislike Hannity. NK used the word "upstanding".. and I repeated it. Honestly? I don't KNOW Hannity nor what kind of person he REALLY is. I am NOT willing to stand in judgement of anyone for a comment. Last time I checked this was America and we could voice our opinions... right or wrong, politically correct or not.
Ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No one thinks that torture is cool... ok I shouldn't speak for everyone. But NORMAL people don't. If I had lost someone on one of the airplanes or in the twin towers, or better yet SURVIVED the twin towers... I'd be a whole lot more interested in how to prevent another attack than I would in whether water boarding is torture. Good Grief, if you are stupid enough to come to our country and kill our people... let me rephrase.. TORTURE and KILL our people... well you get what you get. Last I check THEY still have BREATH! I'd love to be able to do a survey on the people on fire and the ones that plummeted to their deaths jumping off the twin towers, or suffering in agony while the plane was crashing.. and asked THEM if they think waterboarding is torture? Better yet... lets give THEM the choice?? water boarding... or fall to your death on fire? GEEE? Wonder what they would pick?
If Jesus hadn't suffered and died, I couldn't and wouldn't be a Christian. It is his death, burial and resurrection that I believe in. I do NOT believe that torture is cool but it was NECESSARY because God allowed it. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I don't know why it has to be that way but it does. I don't think comparing the Lord Jesus to this is beneficial.
Yeah, torture all the "terrorists," even if we're not sure they have anything to do with terrorism. They're the right color and culture. WWJD? Thought he groaned something about forgiving enemies when he was on the cross.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
WG,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You can't have it both ways... our nation has fought and won wars... we weren't exactly forgiving our enemies THEN... so I guess we were wrong fighting for our country in the revelutionary war, and then all the ones that followed. Guess we shouldn't even had stopped Hitler.. heck, we should have simply "forgiven" him. Give me a break.
And just sos you know... WG... wWOULDjd... and wWILLjd.. gonna be two different things in his Kingdom.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM. |