[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[RickJ]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[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...

[450donn]

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.

[excon]

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.

Hello Rick:

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

[excon]

OK, so lets for a minute put this discussion into the real world. Lets pretend that some group kidnapped one of your children.

Hello 450:

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

[RickJ]

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.

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? :)

[De Maria]

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.

Well, that's true. But what's the point of this question? That people who want to become saints are imperfect?

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.

[excon]

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

[spitvenom]

Come on Ex Christians LOVE Violence look at the Crusades.

[inthebox]

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

You aren't, Hannity is.

I don't think any "Christian" can be for torture.





G&P

[Tokugawa]

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.

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".

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.

[excon]

It is most definitely NOT an accurate representaion of the "real world".

Hello Tok:

Greenie **

excon

[Tokugawa]

Hello Tok:

Greenie **

excon

Greetings 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".

[classyT]

Greetings excon:

Some, like the happy clappy fundies that seem to have "kidnapped" Christianity, I despise.

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:

Note,

Sorry ex, didn't mean to hijack your thread... but it needed to be said.

[galveston]

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!

[NeedKarma]

It's really interesting how that some of you can bash Hannity (and others) without batting an eye.

Does this mean that you believe him to be a fine upstanding person?

[classyT]

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...