NationStates Jolt Archive

A new study revealed that there is a correlation between church attendance and the willingness to support torture. Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we'd think that this would be a negative correlation, that church attendance would indicate one is less likely to support interrogation through torture, right?

Well, guess again:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?
Uh, read the Old Testament?

Uh, read the Old Testament?
Or heard of the Crusades?

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.

OP fails, the differences are fairly small really, especially when we consider that some religious people (including evangelicals) oppose it more often than the nonreligious.

.....
So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.....

Not quite. Not all religious people are Christians, and not all Christians are church-goers. Since the study apparently deals with church-goers, it would be more correct to say that the more you go to church, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, nonchurch-going Christians, people of other faiths, and the generally non religious? Not so much...

The whole 'the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil,' thing is apparently irrelevant.

If it's based on the Old Testament, then surely support for torture must be highest among synagogue-attending Jews.

Or heard of the Crusades?

The Pope actually gave to orders to the knights to stop the atrocities, and they basically said: "Fuck you".


Anyway, loltastic, NA.

A new study revealed that there is a correlation between church attendance and the willingness to support torture. Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we'd think that this would be a negative correlation, that church attendance would indicate one is less likely to support interrogation through torture, right?

Well, guess again:



source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

exscuse me... but
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

not all "Judeo Christians" fall into Evangelicals.

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.

Love thy neighbor as they love Christ. Which means torture thy neighbor as was Christ.
I swear all your religious issues could be solved with a job for the CIA.

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture.


Not quite. It's more like "the more you go to specific Christian Churches, in America, where the vast majority of conservative republicans are church goers, there is 10% increase in the probability that you support torture against terrorists"

This is a first, Neo Art is getting spanked from his own source and own thread.

A new study revealed that there is a correlation between church attendance and the willingness to support torture. Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we'd think that this would be a negative correlation, that church attendance would indicate one is less likely to support interrogation through torture, right?

Well, guess again:



source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)


So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?



Gee..because polls correctly reflect the feeling of every single person? I mean, its not like I can bastardize all of Atheism by taking my own poll on atheists who commit genocide. For instance, I polled three historical figures. All three of them were mass murderers. That's 100%! And they were all atheists, thus all atheists are genocidal maniacs. I'm reporting you to the UN!


Seriously though, take you trolling elsewhere, troll face McTrollster.



As for the article. It probably forgets to take into account that this is in America only, where the religious are mostly political idiots, and hypocrites. Talk to believers elsewhere, you know, ones that are actually tortured for their faith in places like the PRC, the former USSR, Belarus, Colombia, etc. See how they feel about torture. In fact, just look at what Christian basic teachings say about such things. You might be able to cherry pick one or two verses, but theologically speaking, its not there.

Gee..because polls correctly reflect the feeling of every single person? I mean, its not like I can bastardize all of Atheism by taking my own poll on atheists who commit genocide. For instance, I polled three historical figures. All three of them were mass murderers. That's 100%! And they were all atheists, thus all atheists are genocidal maniacs. I'm reporting you to the UN!


Seriously though, take you trolling elsewhere, troll face McTrollster.

You do know that there is a methodology behind polling, and that if a poll is done correctly then it does, in fact, tell you something about what people think? I'm not necessarily saying that this poll is correct, but you can't dismiss it on the basis that it's a poll. You have to point out errors in the methodology.


As for the article. It probably forgets to take into account that this is in America only, where the religious are mostly political idiots, and hypocrites. Talk to believers elsewhere, you know, ones that are actually tortured for their faith in places like the PRC, the former USSR, Belarus, Colombia, etc. See how they feel about torture. In fact, just look at what Christian basic teachings say about such things. You might be able to cherry pick one or two verses, but theologically speaking, its not there.

You say 'cherry picking' as if it's specific to the interpretations that you don't like. But really, all Christians have to cherry pick, because the Bible contradicts itself so often that it is impossible to base a coherent belief system on it without throwing a lot of it out.

White US evangelical Christians somewhat approve of the torture of terrorists?

Well, blow me down!

While true this poll does have a specific focus, my point remains. It would seem the most vocal group in America that advocates the idea that the origins of our morality are bard on those values. What group is that? Evangelicals.

Now I akrd a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses? If so, how? If not, what can explain this, and what does it do for the claim that religious folks in general are more moral?

Does a support for torture conflict with evangelical values, and, in that vein, do those values reflect judeo christian values in general?

OP fails, the differences are fairly small really, especially when we consider that some religious people (including evangelicals) oppose it more often than the nonreligious.

The difference between 54% and 40% (4 in 10 of those with no religious affiliation) is a fairly major divergence. Certainly enough to consider statistically significant.

You can argue that some religious people would 'oppose it more often(?)' than the nonreligious... but the source suggests that it's only about a 5% difference that way, and only in one of the denominations. Only 12% of evangelicals back that view.

Now I akrd a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses? If so, how?
I think one could relatively easily take the argument Aquinas makes in favour of Just War-- basically, if the good outweighs the harm then war is sufferable -- and apply that to torture.

Indeed, that's pretty much the ticking bomb argument in a nutshell.

not all "Judeo Christians" fall into Evangelicals.

No, but Evangelicals should be somewhat reflective of Judeo-Christian thought, shouldn't they?

Especially since Evangelicals tend to portray their faith as being the most scripturally intensive.

While true this poll does have a specific focus, my point remains. It would seem the most vocal group in America that advocates the idea that the origins of our morality are bard on those values. What group is that? Evangelicals.


I don't think they say that religion is the basis of morality, they say God is, there is a difference. But the Bible specifically talks of an innate sense of morality (normally described today as conscience), that all humans have, even 'gentiles'. Many prominent Christian theologians stress the importance of conscience as a faculty all people posses from distinguishing good from bad.


If not, what can explain this

My completely unscientific and unprovable opinion:

Neocon republicans are stubborn generally.
People who are stubborn are much more unlikely to disregard values they were brought up with
The majority of neocons in the US had a Christian upbringing.
Thus neocons are also more likely to be Christian.

Essentially it's a correlation between stubbornness and torture support.

You do know that there is a methodology behind polling, and that if a poll is done correctly then it does, in fact, tell you something about what people think? I'm not necessarily saying that this poll is correct, but you can't dismiss it on the basis that it's a poll. You have to point out errors in the methodology. The fact that is was 700 some odd people, and they only gave the results of white Christians of certain denominations makes it seem as if they polled in such a way to get a desired result. That is essentially what I was doing with my sarcasm. :)



You say 'cherry picking' as if it's specific to the interpretations that you don't like. But really, all Christians have to cherry pick, because the Bible contradicts itself so often that it is impossible to base a coherent belief system on it without throwing a lot of it out.

Incorrect. I bet if I ask you to post a contradiction, it will be one verse saying one thing and another verse saying another. Picking two verses that simply appear to say different things is cherry picking because it does not give context of the verse, with in a chapter, book, or theme with in the bible. For instance, I can probably quote a verse that says God is a warrior, and then one that says God is love. OMG CONTRADICTION CHRISTIANS r t3h idiots!!!1 No, not really. Because, we don't look at picture as a whole.

Take this as an example as to why context is necessary in understand Scripture. Say that I am painting a picture. You come and see that I have painted a naked toddler . If you only looked at what I had painted up to that point, you would maybe think that I am a pedophile. However, if the complete picture was painted at that time, you might then see that I was painting a picture of a mother giving her child a bath. See how context is important?

I think one could relatively easily take the argument Aquinas makes in favour of Just War-- basically, if the good outweighs the harm then war is sufferable -- and apply that to torture.

Indeed, that's pretty much the ticking bomb argument in a nutshell.

Woah woah woah woah. JWT has thresholds and rules, it's not merely a utilitarian approach (I'm pretty sure Aquinas would have been vigorously opposed to utilitarianism anyway). Importantly, one of the thresholds is that it's an absolute last resort, and that all other peaceful resolutions that were pursued have failed. I think the vast majority of people have that belief, not just Christians.

While true this poll does have a specific focus, my point remains. It would seem the most vocal group in America that advocates the idea that the origins of our morality are bard on those values. What group is that? Evangelicals.

Now I akrd a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses? If so, how? If not, what can explain this, and what does it do for the claim that religious folks in general are more moral?

Does a support for torture conflict with evangelical values, and, in that vein, do those values reflect judeo christian values in general?

Christ has never advocated the harm of humans, by humans. People advocate harm of other humans, because they are fallible beings that believe the lies of other fallible beings. Jesus says in Matthew chapter 7 that there will be people who claim to be spiritual, and religious, yet he will deny them before the father, because they were not really spiritual in the first place. This is in context of his sermon on the mount, where he warns people about being religious hypocrites.

I think one could relatively easily take the argument Aquinas makes in favour of Just War-- basically, if the good outweighs the harm then war is sufferable -- and apply that to torture.

Indeed, that's pretty much the ticking bomb argument in a nutshell.

It's a good thing that Aquinas isn't God, or anything like that. His opinion really doesn't amount to much, when squared up to what Christ says. :)

It's a good thing that Aquinas isn't God, or anything like that. His opinion really doesn't amount to much, when squared up to what Christ says. :)

It's pretty important to Catholics though.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

Is it your belief that if you have the choice of actively hurting 1 person, or passively killing 100 people, that the correct moral choice is to be passive?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue here.

Christ has never advocated the harm of humans, by humans. People advocate harm of other humans, because they are fallible beings that believe the lies of other fallible beings. Jesus says in Matthew chapter 7 that there will be people who claim to be spiritual, and religious, yet he will deny them before the father, because they were not really spiritual in the first place. This is in context of his sermon on the mount, where he warns people about being religious hypocrites.

This was actually (arguably) the point of the thread....

Is it your belief that if you have the choice of actively hurting 1 person, or passively killing 100 people, that the correct moral choice is to be passive?


What Would Jesus Do?

Now I akrd a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses?

I honestly don't see why not, if you were somehow certain that someone had information about an impending attack, I can see the application of the just war principle to torture the fuck out of him/her.

Woah woah woah woah. JWT has thresholds and rules, it's not merely a utilitarian approach (I'm pretty sure Aquinas would have been vigorously opposed to utilitarianism anyway).
The 'thresholds and rules' amount to a rather utilitarian approach, though. Sure, there's got to be a decent reason to go to war, and once at war soldiers must act appropriately, but all the criteria behind whether or not war should be waged is largely based on good outweighing harm.

Importantly, one of the thresholds is that it's an absolute last resort, and that all other peaceful resolutions that were pursued have failed. I think the vast majority of people have that belief, not just Christians.
Yeah, I'd agree.

I also think the above chimes with the ticking bomb argument.


It's a good thing that Aquinas isn't God, or anything like that. His opinion really doesn't amount to much, when squared up to what Christ says.
Problem being, Christ said bugger all about a number of important theological issues, while Aquinas had a lot to say.


What Would Jesus Do?
He'd zap 'em (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebxD2rF6Ejk).

I also think the above chimes with the ticking bomb argument.


Perhaps, although it would contradict the idea of soldiers having to behave responsibly.

The fact that is was 700 some odd people, and they only gave the results of white Christians of certain denominations makes it seem as if they polled in such a way to get a desired result. That is essentially what I was doing with my sarcasm. :)

Ah, but you didn't say that. You just said (or implied) that polls are meaningless.



Incorrect. I bet if I ask you to post a contradiction, it will be one verse saying one thing and another verse saying another. Picking two verses that simply appear to say different things is cherry picking because it does not give context of the verse, with in a chapter, book, or theme with in the bible. For instance, I can probably quote a verse that says God is a warrior, and then one that says God is love. OMG CONTRADICTION CHRISTIANS r t3h idiots!!!1 No, not really. Because, we don't look at picture as a whole.

Take this as an example as to why context is necessary in understand Scripture. Say that I am painting a picture. You come and see that I have painted a naked toddler . If you only looked at what I had painted up to that point, you would maybe think that I am a pedophile. However, if the complete picture was painted at that time, you might then see that I was painting a picture of a mother giving her child a bath. See how context is important?

No amount of context, however, can explain away the fact, for example, that Luke places the birth of Jesus about a decade after Matthew does. (We can tell this by the fact that Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of the Roman client king Herod I, who died in 4 BCE, but Luke has him born during the Census of Quirinius, which was around 6 or 7 CE)

And that's just a single of example of internal inconsistency. That's not even taking into account how Christians who accept science have to cherry pick and discard Genesis, because the 6-day creation didn't happen, nor did the Great Flood.

I suspect this has more to do with political affiliation and current events than religious beliefs or teachings. But I wonder if anyone bothered to ask this question before GITMO?

Hmmm....

It's a good thing that Aquinas isn't God, or anything like that. His opinion really doesn't amount to much, when squared up to what Christ says. :)

The difference is, Aquinas at least attempted to be consistent. :tongue:

About the poll, I doubt it has much or even anything at all to do with the specifics of any religion. An increased likelihood to accept the opinion of an authority figure probably accompanies church-going behavior. That's probably a better explanation.

Perhaps, although it would contradict the idea of soldiers having to behave responsibly.
Good point.

Incidentally, it's not as if I think the ticking bomb argument is any good, I'm just noting that one can conceivably reconcile the teachings of Christ in the Bible with rather dubious military techniques.


And that's just a single of example of internal inconsistency. That's not even taking into account how Christians who accept science have to cherry pick and discard Genesis, because the 6-day creation didn't happen, nor did the Great Flood.
Unless you're demanding that all Christians be Biblical literalists, I don't see the problem.

One can happily hold the Bible to be a collection of documents written by varying authors with comparatively poor knowledge of cosmology, evolution, biology, etc., yet still be a committed Christian.

Good point.

Incidentally, it's not as if I think the ticking bomb argument is any good, I'm just noting that one can conceivably reconcile the teachings of Christ in the Bible with rather dubious military techniques.


That's assuming that JWT is reconcilable with the Bible of course though.

Unless you're demanding that all Christians be Biblical literalists, I don't see the problem.

One can happily hold the Bible to be a collection of documents written by varying authors with comparatively poor knowledge of cosmology, evolution, biology, etc., yet still be a committed Christian.

Yeah. They have to choose parts of the bible they accept and discard those they don't. I didn't say they had to do so haphazardly; I'm sure many apply a reasonable standard when deciding which parts they think are accurate and which parts are not.

A new study revealed that there is a correlation between church attendance and the willingness to support torture. Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we'd think that this would be a negative correlation, that church attendance would indicate one is less likely to support interrogation through torture, right?

Well, guess again:



source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

Piece of cake. The Lord our God is one God. We shall love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our might. We shall love our neighbors as our selves. We imagine that our neighbors want to be protected from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers and therefore take the sin of eradicating said mother-fuckers off the face of the planet, all the while praying for forgiveness.

You do know that there is a methodology behind polling, and that if a poll is done correctly then it does, in fact, tell you something about what people think? I'm not necessarily saying that this poll is correct, but you can't dismiss it on the basis that it's a poll. You have to point out errors in the methodology.
The poll is made of fail:

Only 742 people were polled. It states that Americans were polled but from what areas/regions. How representative is that?

The demographics are extremely limited.

The MOE is not listed or explained.

Age of respondent is a factor (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=520)?

Colour of respondent could be a factor but the pollsters chose to keep it "white"......It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small
Therefore the headline could have been:

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the YOUNG, WHITE faithful
Better still, let's just call the poll irrelevant instead?

The poll is made of fail:

Only 742 people were polled. It states that Americans were polled but from what areas/regions. How representative is that?

The demographics are extremely limited.

The MOE is not listed or explained.

Age of respondent is a factor (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=520)?

Colour of respondent could be a factor but the pollsters chose to keep it "white"......
Therefore the headline could have been:


Better still, let's just call the poll irrelevant instead?

Again, I was not necessarily defending the poll, merely saying that you can't dismiss a poll just because it's a poll.

This is a first, Neo Art is getting spanked from his own source and own thread.
Oh well, "so much for christian love" :p

Again, I was not necessarily defending the poll, merely saying that you can't dismiss a poll just because it's a poll.
I didn't say that you were defending the poll, merely filling in the blanks that I felt necessary to dismiss this poll. :)

While true this poll does have a specific focus, my point remains. It would seem the most vocal group in America that advocates the idea that the origins of our morality are bard on those values. What group is that? Evangelicals.

Now I akrd a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses? If so, how? If not, what can explain this, and what does it do for the claim that religious folks in general are more moral?

Does a support for torture conflict with evangelical values, and, in that vein, do those values reflect judeo christian values in general?
False premise, NA. You rely on the presumption that their position on such issues as torture are directed by their religious belief. Now, I can understand why a person would make that mistake, seeing as that is what these torture-supporting evangelicals claim all day and all night to anyone within earshot.

But when we skip over what they say and examine what they DO, we see pretty clearly (at least I do) that in fact, their support of torture and their religious affiliation are both directed by something else, i.e. a fear of the world and a wish to be shielded from the dangers they imagine by an overarching power that can smite their enemies. Emphasis on the smiting, the way daddy smites a bee before it can sting the baby.

I put it to you that there is a good possibility that the people who support torture do not do so based on their religious belief, nor do they do it in spite of their religious belief. Rather, they both support torture and profess their particular religion(s) for the same (separate) reason -- because both are "daddy power". Evidence in support of this assertion is the observable phenomenon of all these torture-supporting evangelicals loudly emphasizing the angry, avenging, punishing, judging aspects of their god over all the love and acceptance and forgiveness aspects of the same god. They are not following "Christian belief." They are following a divine protector.

Piece of cake. The Lord our God is one God. We shall love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our might. We shall love our neighbors as our selves. We imagine that our neighbors want to be protected from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers and therefore take the sin of eradicating said mother-fuckers off the face of the planet, all the while praying for forgiveness.
What if the homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers are your neighbors? How are you supposed to feel about them then?

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow an evangelical relgion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture. Conversely, atheists, agnostics, and the generally non religious? Not so much.

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

Fixed, but for crying out loud Neo what do you expect imperfect humans are imperfect.

Hey 40% of people who don't affilate with any sort of religion also support it I guess that just goes to show how bad all atheists are too.

Love thy neighbor as they love Christ. Which means torture thy neighbor as was Christ.
I swear all your religious issues could be solved with a job for the CIA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpg/300px-Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/abu-ghraib-torture-7152441222188360.jpg

No, but Evangelicals should be somewhat reflective of Judeo-Christian thought, shouldn't they?

Especially since Evangelicals tend to portray their faith as being the most scripturally intensive.

So you're saying that those that interpret literally their scripture to the highest degree, and only those, are indicative of all other sects that fall under their overarching denomination?

Please, tell this to the millions of Muslims that aren't out killing themselves in the name of Allah.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpg/300px-Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/abu-ghraib-torture-7152441222188360.jpg

Jesus has a small penor :eek2:

Remember that the suspected terrorists are almost always non-christian, and non-christians are always (an have always been) fair game. Remember the burning times weren't all that long ago.

Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbour"

Someone lied to you.

The Pope actually gave to orders to the knights to stop the atrocities, and they basically said: "Fuck you".


Anyway, loltastic, NA.

Really? For all of them? Or were they just that slow to catch on.

I put it to you that there is a good possibility that the people who support torture do not do so based on their religious belief, nor do they do it in spite of their religious belief. Rather, they both support torture and profess their particular religion(s) for the same (separate) reason -- because both are "daddy power". Evidence in support of this assertion is the observable phenomenon of all these torture-supporting evangelicals loudly emphasizing the angry, avenging, punishing, judging aspects of their god over all the love and acceptance and forgiveness aspects of the same god. They are not following "Christian belief." They are following a divine protector.
Daddy power?

Southern Evangelicals Less Likely to Support Torture When Presented with the Golden Rule (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/torture/2008/09/southern-evangelicals-less-likely-to.html)

A new poll released Thursday (Sept. 11) finds that nearly six in 10 white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified, but their views can shift when they consider the Christian principle of the golden rule.

The poll, commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, found that 57 percent of respondents said torture can be often or sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists. Thirty-eight percent said it was never or rarely justified.

But when asked if they agree that "the U.S. government should not use methods against our enemies that we would not want used on American soldiers," the percentage who said torture was rarely or never justified rose to 52 percent.

"Presenting people with this argument and identifying with the golden rule really does engage a different part of people's psyche and a part of their heart, their soul, and really does shift their views on torture," said Robert Jones, president of Public Religion Research, which was commissioned to conduct the poll.
As David Gushee notes in the article:

....people can change their minds about this issue if it is discussed from a moral standpoint.

"Opinion on this question is movable," he said.

Really? For all of them? Or were they just that slow to catch on.

He repeatedly told them to stop killing non-combatants.

The Crusades were about looting, religion was just a pretense. In theory they were a strike against Muslims (who routinely struck against Christians), but theory ends with fact, as the Crusaders slaughtered, robbed, and raped plenty who were not Muslims.

Daddy power?

Southern Evangelicals Less Likely to Support Torture When Presented with the Golden Rule (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/torture/2008/09/southern-evangelicals-less-likely-to.html)

Yeah, that's from the same organization (http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=16465) you just criticized. And, erm:

The telephone poll of 600 white evangelical Christian adults in 14 Southern states was conducted Aug. 14-22 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Soo...

The poll is made of fail:

[...]

The demographics are extremely limited.

[...]

Colour of respondent could be a factor but the pollsters chose to keep it "white"......
Therefore the headline could have been:

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the YOUNG, WHITE faithful

Better still, let's just call the poll irrelevant instead?

(edited the previous quote somewhat - cut out a couple of lines). It's funny how there's a double-standard when a poll agrees with a person, instead of when it disagrees with a person, no?

He repeatedly told them to stop killing non-combatants.

The Crusades were about looting, religion was just a pretense. In theory they were a strike against Muslims (who routinely struck against Christians), but theory ends with fact, as the Crusaders slaughtered, robbed, and raped plenty who were not Muslims.

Today we'd call them Blackwater.

What if the homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers are your neighbors? How are you supposed to feel about them then?
If I'm protecting my loved ones, my non-homicidal-suicidal neighbors, myself, I have no problem in choosing who is more important in this world. I'd feel awful about having to snuff them, and I'd be praying for forgiveness :hail: .

If I'm protecting my loved ones, my non-homicidal-suicidal neighbors, myself, I have no problem in choosing who is more important in this world. I'd feel awful about having to snuff them, and I'd be praying for forgiveness :hail: .
So, then you do not actually follow the teaching of "love thy neighbor as thyself" at all, do you? You only apply it to the neighbors/people you like.

So, then you do not actually follow the teaching of "love thy neighbor as thyself" at all, do you? You only apply it to the neighbors/people you like.

Shh...
We aren't supposed to call them on the whole hypocrisy thing.

Shh...
We aren't supposed to call them on the whole hypocrisy thing.
Oh, we're not? I'm sorry. I thought they wanted us to, the way they make it so obvious and all...

today we'd call them blackwater.

:eek:

So, then you do not actually follow the teaching of "love thy neighbor as thyself" at all, do you? You only apply it to the neighbors/people you like.

Maybe he hates himself?

Oh, we're not? I'm sorry. I thought they wanted us to, the way they make it so obvious and all...

Yes, but we are assumed to be as blind and stupid as they, therefore, we aren't even supposed to notice.

Piece of cake. The Lord our God is one God. We shall love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our might. We shall love our neighbors as our selves. We imagine that our neighbors want to be protected from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers and therefore take the sin of eradicating said mother-fuckers off the face of the planet, all the while praying for forgiveness.

Why is torture necessary, again?

I love how people try and use the bastardised and patriotic ridden 'Christianity' of America with Christianity in general.

Please, what it claimed to be 'Christianity' in the US is anything but that.

I'm going to make a few points here and then call it a day. First off the Christians often support torture of terrorists because they look into the future a bit and compare it to the past. Think about it - would you rather torture a suspected terrorist and find out later he was innocent or back off and find out he knew something after his organization has killed hundreds if not thousands of people. It's not malicious, it's just looking out for a greater number of lives as opposed to the individual comfort of a few. Second of all I'm going to have to say that Pirated Corsairs - you should really check your sources on this one: "You say 'cherry picking' as if it's specific to the interpretations that you don't like. But really, all Christians have to cherry pick, because the Bible contradicts itself so often that it is impossible to base a coherent belief system on it without throwing a lot of it out.". In truth there is no document in the history of mankind as credible as the Bible. The Japanese - by the way they're on islands separated by thousands of miles from the place the Bible was written - have documents that talk about a great flood at the same time the Bible does. Confident atheists such as C.S. Lewis have tried to fault the Bible only to convert after their attempt, and after all the attempts atheists have made they've only come up two possible falacies and even those have been discredited by practiced theologians. Pretty impressive for a document that's been tried and tested for over 5,000 years. Look it up guys. Thirdly if we're going to talk about the deaths caused by Christians let's be fair and check out the atheists too. All the religious wars in the past several thousand years have not come close to the death toll brought about by atheists in the last century. Let's start in the arena of WWI - that was a war of imperialism - not religion. At the first battle (Battle of the Somme) over 60,000 men died on one side in the first day of fighting. By the end of the war - it came to about 37 million - including civilians. I wonder if the Crusades came close to that number? Now let's move on to WWII - gosh do I even need to go into this with you? Hitler was not only atheist - he HATED those of religion. Then we'll go Stalin - he was an atheist. His death toll went even higher than Hitler's believe it or not - you just don't hear about it as much. This is all not even counting the number of dead in other situations with a majority of atheists including the People's Liberation Army and those countless groups in Africa who go so far as to even draft children into their armies on threat of death. Easily many times the death count religion has caused. People have their flaws. Religion has its dark moments too. But I don't think it's fair to the Jews to villainize the attacks of relgion many years ago when they've been killed in droves of millions within the last sixty years by atheists. I look forward to a reply :)

In truth there is no document in the history of mankind as credible as the Bible.

My brain stopped there.

Yeah, that's from the same organization (http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=16465) you just criticized. And, erm:

Soo...

(edited the previous quote somewhat - cut out a couple of lines). It's funny how there's a double-standard when a poll agrees with a person, instead of when it disagrees with a person, no?
Did I say I support either poll? Earlier I also linked to another Pew Research poll that suggests that their methodology is less than sound. If anything it goes to support my contention that the poll is flawed on a number of levels. The biggest problem here is that the OP takes a news item (based on a flawed poll) that states this:

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
And turns it into a topic titled:

so much for christian love
An open thread to bash Christians.

So you're saying that those that interpret literally their scripture to the highest degree, and only those, are indicative of all other sects that fall under their overarching denomination?


Err.... no.

I'm saying that those who claim to stick most closely to the scripture should be expected to adhere most closelt to what it teaches... but good luck with that rather enormous strawman.

My brain stopped there.
So did the writer's, I suspect. I wish he had stopped instead just before that part where he suggested there would be something wrong with not preferring to find out we had tortured an inocent person.

My brain stopped there. Seriously do check it out a bit! People like to tell themselves the Bible is discredible without actually looking into it. They don't want to believe it's real. Think for yourself though - look into it - you'll find that I'm not lieing to you :)

Seriously do check it out a bit! People like to tell themselves the Bible is discredible without actually looking into it. They don't want to believe it's real. Think for yourself though - look into it - you'll find that I'm not lieing to you :)
I have looked into it. If you are not lying, then you are mistaken.

Seriously do check it out a bit! People like to tell themselves the Bible is discredible without actually looking into it. They don't want to believe it's real. Think for yourself though - look into it - you'll find that I'm not lieing to you :)

I've read the xtian bible from front to back, and it fails as fantasy, let alone as an historical document. It does excel as a rulebook for the mindless sheep. As a way to keep the ignorant in line it is un-excelled (although the koran is in the same league and rapidly catching up).

I'm going to make a few points here and then call it a day. First off the Christians often support torture of terrorists because they look into the future a bit and compare it to the past. Think about it - would you rather torture a suspected terrorist and find out later he was innocent or back off and find out he knew something after his organization has killed hundreds if not thousands of people. It's not malicious, it's just looking out for a greater number of lives as opposed to the individual comfort of a few.

First of all, format your fucking post so that, you know, it's readable.
Secondly, torture doesn't fucking work.

Second of all I'm going to have to say that Pirated Corsairs - you should really check your sources on this one: . In truth there is no document in the history of mankind as credible as the Bible.

Oh?
So the earth was created 6,000 years ago?
The entire earth was flooded 4,000 years ago?
Do you have evidence for all of this?


The Japanese - by the way they're on islands separated by thousands of miles from the place the Bible was written - have documents that talk about a great flood at the same time the Bible does.

1) Source?
2) Even if it is true, so what? Is there geological evidence that there was such a flood?
3) Let's say there was a great flood that covered the earth. You would expect to not find such documents, because all of the Japanese would be dead, not having been on the ark.


Confident atheists such as C.S. Lewis have tried to fault the Bible only to convert after their attempt, and after all the attempts atheists have made they've only come up two possible falacies and even those have been discredited by practiced theologians. Pretty impressive for a document that's been tried and tested for over 5,000 years.

Okay, what are the two "falacies" (is that even a word?) that you are talking about and show how they can be debunked.


Look it up guys. Thirdly if we're going to talk about the deaths caused by Christians

We weren't, but okay.


let's be fair and check out the atheists too. All the religious wars in the past several thousand years have not come close to the death toll brought about by atheists in the last century. Let's start in the arena of WWI - that was a war of imperialism - not religion. At the first battle (Battle of the Somme) over 60,000 men died on one side in the first day of fighting. By the end of the war - it came to about 37 million - including civilians. I wonder if the Crusades came close to that number?

1.) This has to do with atheism how? Last I knew, Imperialism != atheism.
2.) Crusaders didn't have nearly the destructive power that armies had in WWI. You just can't compare them. Technology progresses, you know.


Now let's move on to WWII - gosh do I even need to go into this with you? Hitler was not only atheist - he HATED those of religion.

This is untrue, and you should ask whoever told you this why they lied to you. Hitler was nominally Catholic, though probably not very pious. He did, however, often praise Germany's Christian heritage in his public speeches. Hell, ever read a Nazi belt buckle? It says "Gott mit uns."


Then we'll go Stalin - he was an atheist.

This one is actually true. However, it brings me to an important point: Stalin was an atheist, but the people he killed were not killed in the name of atheism; they were killed in the name of Communism.


His death toll went even higher than Hitler's believe it or not - you just don't hear about it as much. This is all not even counting the number of dead in other situations with a majority of atheists including the People's Liberation Army and those countless groups in Africa who go so far as to even draft children into their armies on threat of death.

And those groups in Africa are not only atheists but are motivated by atheism?


Easily many times the death count religion has caused. People have their flaws. Religion has its dark moments too. But I don't think it's fair to the Jews to villainize the attacks of relgion many years ago when they've been killed in droves of millions within the last sixty years by atheists. I look forward to a reply :)

Ball's in your court, mate. But this time learn to format a post; a huge block of text is a pain in the ass to read.

So did the writer's, I suspect. I wish he had stopped instead just before that part where he suggested there would be something wrong with not preferring to find out we had tortured an inocent person.

Saying that the writer's brain stopped after he wrote that implies that it was working before. :tongue:

Seriously do check it out a bit! People like to tell themselves the Bible is discredible without actually looking into it. They don't want to believe it's real. Think for yourself though - look into it - you'll find that I'm not lieing to you :)

I read it; the possibility of a flood does not validate that whole book. And if the book is true, letter for letter, then we are ruled by an oppressive God, one which happily slaughters innocents.

I like Christ's teachings, but I cannot accept much of the Bible as "fact".

Why is torture necessary, again?

While we'd love to live in a pleasant world, the doctrine of self-defense allows for war and violence. The expansion of the doctrine, to protect the non-combatant population, to save their lives, requires action upon the behalf of the innocent by the Christian, which can include war and torture.

And if that doesn't float your boat, if you're Darwinistic, then think of it as "survival of the fitest". The life of your tribe versus the life of the tribe of your enemies. This is enlightened self interest.

So did the writer's, I suspect. I wish he had stopped instead just before that part where he suggested there would be something wrong with not preferring to find out we had tortured an inocent person.

Yes. "First off the Christians often support torture of terrorists because they look into the future a bit and compare it to the past." I should have known right-off the bat something was not right.

While we'd love to live in a pleasant world, the doctrine of self-defense allows for war and violence. The expansion of the doctrine, to protect the non-combatant population, to save their lives, requires action upon the behalf of the innocent by the Christian, which can include war and torture.

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."

-Napoléon Bonaparte

And if that doesn't float your boat, if you're Darwinistic, then think of it as "survival of the fitest". The life of your tribe versus the life of the tribe of your enemies. This is enlightened self interest.

I am sorry, but I do not support that. I have, y'know, scruples, even if I am not "enlightened". I will not stoop to fucking-over every other people for the benefit of mine.

While we'd love to live in a pleasant world, the doctrine of self-defense allows for war and violence. The expansion of the doctrine, to protect the non-combatant population, to save their lives, requires action upon the behalf of the innocent by the Christian, which can include war and torture.
Justify how the "innocent" are protected by torturing other people, as opposed to doing other things to keep them from harming the "innocent."

Further, explain how Christ advocated Christians doing evil in order to "protect" innocence.

And if that doesn't float your boat, if you're Darwinistic, then think of it as "survival of the fitest". The life of your tribe versus the life of the tribe of your enemies. This is enlightened self interest.
No, it is not. "Enlightened self interest" is when you do something good for someone else because you know it will also bring something good to you. Like when a company owner pays and treats his employees well, because he knows that happy employees are more productive and more productivity = more profit.

What you're talking about is not "enlightened self interest." It IS a lame and transparent excuse for being a bastard.

Yes. "First off the Christians often support torture of terrorists because they look into the future a bit and compare it to the past." I should have known right-off the bat something was not right.
Well, it stands to ...um... I'm going to say "reason" even though that word wouldn't apply to his argument outside crazy-town. See, they look to the future and they see a world in which nobody gives a shit what they think. Then they look to the past and they see "Christian" institutions like the Inquisition, which tortured with aplomb and abandon, and everybody cared what those bastards thought. So they conclude that torture is good because when Christians do it, people tend to pay attention to them.

I'm just guessing that's what he's thinking.

Justify how the "innocent" are protected by torturing other people, as opposed to doing other things to keep them from harming the "innocent."

Further, explain how Christ advocated Christians doing evil in order to "protect" innocence.


No, it is not. "Enlightened self interest" is when you do something good for someone else because you know it will also bring something good to you. Like when a company owner pays and treats his employees well, because he knows that happy employees are more productive and more productivity = more profit.

What you're talking about is not "enlightened self interest." It IS a lame and transparent excuse for being a bastard.

Well, Bastard that I am, if I protect my neighbor and myself from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers, I'd say I was doing us both a good turn. You see, I really am an adopted natural bastard.

Remember that the suspected terrorists are almost always non-christian, and non-christians are always (an have always been) fair game. Remember the burning times weren't all that long ago.

True. Gotta love mass paranoia.

Well, Bastard that I am, if I protect my neighbor and myself from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers, I'd say I was doing us both a good turn. You see, I really am an adopted natural bastard.

Guess what? Torture does not do that. Have you ever thought of using prison for criminals, instead of killing them? *gasp*

And what makes someone a "mother-fucker"? I would say torturing his fellows helps.

Well, Bastard that I am, if I protect my neighbor and myself from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers, I'd say I was doing us both a good turn. You see, I really am an adopted natural bastard.

Are you just illiterate or something? You aren't protecting your neighbor because torture does not fucking work.

Are you just illiterate or something? You aren't protecting your neighbor because torture does not fucking work.

But it is fun. :)

But it is fun. :)

Oh, so you're into that sort of thing, eh?

Well, as long as it's consensual and everybody remembers the safety word...

Are you just illiterate or something? You aren't protecting your neighbor because torture does not fucking work.

Of course, it works. If it had never worked, it wouldn't have been used throughout history.

Of course, it works. If it had never worked, it wouldn't have been used throughout history.

Um, most of its use was for punishment or fun...so, what the fuck are you talking about? Does this mean genocide "works", too?

Of course, it works. If it had never worked, it wouldn't have been used throughout history.

What a silly argument.
Human sacrifice was used in many cultures to try to prevent natural disasters, but it doesn't work.

Now, I'll grant that torture is great at getting confessions-- whether the person did what they are accused of or not. But it is not a reliable way of obtaining intelligence. When somebody is being tortured, they'll tell the torturers whatever they want to hear. People confessed under torture to being witches and casting spells, you know.

Oh, so you're into that sort of thing, eh?

Well, as long as it's consensual and everybody remembers the safety word...

Safety words: "I love Jesus Christ and accept him as my savior".

And what makes someone a "mother-fucker"?

Someone who fucks mothers I presume.

Bring on those MILF's

Well, Bastard that I am, if I protect my neighbor and myself from homicidal-suicidal mother-fuckers, I'd say I was doing us both a good turn. You see, I really am an adopted natural bastard.
A bastard yes. Also a hypocrite and a liar, as I notice you have abandoned any attempt to justify your claim that your position is that of a good Christian and you are now just crowing about how proud of yourself you are.

Don't the Christians have some rules against pride, too? And I seem to remember something about something involving the words "vain" and "boasting" too...

And you can keep your good turns. I don't need any help from the likes of you, and trust me, if you presumed to do anyone such a "good turn," I would never rest in my efforts to see you rot in prison for the rest of your life for it.

Guess what? Torture does not do that. Have you ever thought of using prison for criminals, instead of killing them? *gasp*

And what makes someone a "mother-fucker"? I would say torturing his fellows helps.
Very true. Good point.

Are you just illiterate or something? You aren't protecting your neighbor because torture does not fucking work.
He's not listening because he's too busy playacting.

Oh, so you're into that sort of thing, eh?

Well, as long as it's consensual and everybody remembers the safety word...
The other night, Rachel Maddow had as a guest a former SERE instructor who administered torture to US military personnel as training for resisting torture. He was jumping on the Waterboard Sean Hannity for Charity bandwagon. He unseriously offered to waterboard Hannity and promised that by the time he was done, Hannity would understand that waterboarding most certainly is torture. He also said that it most certainly will make the victim talk -- it will make them say absolutely anything and everything the torturere wants them to, whether it is true or not. He promised Rachel that, in just a few minutes, he could get Hannity to spill his bank account numbers, social security number, and -- my favorite -- "his wife's safe word in the bedroom."

Um, most of its use was for punishment or fun...so, what the fuck are you talking about? Does this mean genocide "works", too?
Obviously, PE, torture works to get the torturer off, sexually. Duh. What did you think? I mean, why else would they do all this wanking over it?

I have looked into it. If you are not lying, then you are mistaken.

Oh is that what he meant when he said lieing.

Oh is that what he meant when he said lieing.
I took a guess.

The Japanese - by the way they're on islands separated by thousands of miles from the place the Bible was written - have documents that talk about a great flood at the same time the Bible does.
Um... No they don't. Nothing even close. There is a legend that Jesus escaped from the cross with his brother and came to Aomori Prefecture where he took a Japanese wife and died though (This is an actual Aomori legend).

A bastard yes. Also a hypocrite and a liar, as I notice you have abandoned any attempt to justify your claim that your position is that of a good Christian and you are now just crowing about how proud of yourself you are.

Don't the Christians have some rules against pride, too? And I seem to remember something about something involving the words "vain" and "boasting" too...

"The Seven Deadly Sins" are not a part of the Christ's teachings. That is a later church development. My current understanding is that "pride" is not so much a sin as "undeserved pride or ARROGANCE".

And I am not a "good" Christian. I am a Struggling Sinner. A conflicted, fairly honest and struggling sinner, living in a fallen world. I have a lot to answer for.

So, what's your excuse or reason why?

Of course, it works. If it had never worked, it wouldn't have been used throughout history.

Most of torture's glorious history has been devoted to entertainment, and the creation of false witnesses. It really is good at getting people to admit whatever you want them to admit, even if it's rather less good at actually finding truth.

A new study revealed that there is a correlation between church attendance and the willingness to support torture. Now, since we've heard so much about religion being the basis for morality, and how religion, especially judeo christian religion, is centered around the premise of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you",

So, what say you NSG? How can the idea of supporting torture possibly be reconciled with judeo christian moral codes?

Oh yes it can.

1.have a definition of neighbour that doesn't include the ones being tortured;
2.have a definition of love that includes the use of torture: example, "it's for their own good so they can see their error and redeem themselves"
3.claim that you would have other people torture you if you were a terrorist

So easy. I think that Torquemada was a master in such dialectics.

So, it would appear, in a lose sense, the more you follow a religion that sets as its premise that we should love each other, be kind to one another, and work to stop evil, the more likely you are to support torture.

It would appear, in a loose sense, that you enjoy using the results of one study to support a bias you already had against the religious segment of the population.

If you would like to make sweeping generalizations, you could at least have the courtesy to use data from many studies conducted over a long period of time. Also, you could include the violent acts committed by large groups of Hindus, Buddhists, etc, not to mention the atrocities committed by atheist communists under regimes like Stalin's.

But for you, this isn't about promoting a well-reasoned point of view based on hard facts, but rather just another way to incite anti-religious bigotry, right? Well, that's what I got from it :wink:

Does a support for torture conflict with evangelical values, and, in that vein, do those values reflect judeo christian values in general?Well, what are evangelical values? I think it comes down to what's more important - the nationalistic bent the (American) evangelicals expouse*, or their desire to take the bible literally.

Though it must be said that AFAIK, there's nothing in the bible strictly prohibiting torture - it happily advocates capital punishment and genocide, and although it does (AFAIK) not mention torture, it seems quite likely that rules meant to be observed between 1. civilians and 2. christians don't apply to 1. non-christians and 2. combatants. 'Love thy enemy' has virtually never been interpreted as 'Not fighting him', but always as 'Not hating him'. A friendly contest between adults trying to smash each other's heads in, but no hurt feelings afterwards, that's all.

If we go with this view - as we damn well should, given two millenia worth of precedence -, there's no conlict, nor hypocrisy involved in the evangelical's views concerning torture.

As far as reflection goes... Well, which timerame? If we take the largest christian denomination - catholicism -, then we've a small problem. You see, catholic doctrine, in a nutshell, is 'If something is in the Bible, and the Pope disagrees, the Pope is right.

What this means is that Catholic doctrines change over time**. The catholic church of 500 A.D is not the same as the one rom 1000 A.D., which is rather different from the one existing circa 1500 A.D, which has changed mightily in the time between then and 2000 A.D.

Modern Evangelism may reflect - in its more commonly perceived attitudes, though not in its overall theology - Catholicism circa 1500 reasonably well. Catholicism circa 2000 on the other hand, it's quite removed from.

* A nationalistic bent is, of course, not unknown to other variations of the christian faith. However, there may be a difference in that the nationalism these other variations have shown at times tended to be opportunistic, or even forced, whereas it appears that for the American Evangelicals, it's something almost innate to their faith, which is new.

** Actually, from Pope to Pope. Hilariously, Copernicus was encouraged by the Pope to publish. Galileo, though not suffering as bad or unreasonable a treatment as is commonly thought, nonetheless got to deal with a much less understanding Pope. After Copernicus.

As far as reflection goes... Well, which timerame? If we take the largest christian denomination - catholicism -, then we've a small problem. You see, catholic doctrine, in a nutshell, is 'If something is in the Bible, and the Pope disagrees, the Pope is right.

A similar statement holds true for almost all Christians: "'If something is in the Bible, and I disagree, I am right".

How many Christians do you know that kill their child if it uses profanity ? Or that kill fortune tellers at fairs ? That consider having a shrimp and lobster dinner a greater crime than rape or slavery ? Who stop people with glasses from entering the church ? That think it is perfectly fine to own a Hebrew slave for 6 years, as well as to enslave any offspring he produces ?

For most Christians, adhering to the actual Biblical morals is something that is only done when it is convenient. It is far more common to just make up your own stuff and pretending that is what God and Jesus actually meant.

A similar statement holds true for almost all Christians: "'If something is in the Bible, and I disagree, I am right".A key difference you should damn well have noticed before making yet another lolchristians comment - the biblical literalist is a hypocrite, since, well... Biblical literalist. Catholicism explicitly rejects the concept of biblical literalism. Thus, not hypocritical.

That aside, pretty sure that at least some of course examples are explicitly rejected by Jesus, and thus, do not apply to christians. Now, of course, this doesn't stop Evangelicals from using some of them (Usually fag-related), anyway, but... See above, re: Hypocrisy.

A key difference you should damn well have noticed before making yet another lolchristians comment - the biblical literalist is a hypocrite, since, well... Biblical literalist. Catholicism explicitly rejects the concept of biblical literalism. Thus, not hypocritical.

You mean: thus, the summum of hypocrisy. However, with the Pope the Catholics have at least delegated the task of cherrypicking to someone who has actually studied the material. Which makes them slightly better.

You also seem to be a bit confused about what literalism means. Someone who states "Genesis is a metaphor because..." is not taking the Bible literally, but can still be a good, non-hypocritical Christian.
Someone who claims "when God says 'hate population group X he really means 'respect population group X'" and then still cites God as the highest being is .. well... I will let you fill that in.

How is it hypocrisy? They're saying 'The bible is not to be taken literally. Therefore, we're... Not taking it literally.

Where do you see the hypocrisy?

How many Christians do you know that kill their child if it uses profanity ? Or that kill fortune tellers at fairs ? That consider having a shrimp and lobster dinner a greater crime than rape or slavery ? Who stop people with glasses from entering the church ? That think it is perfectly fine to own a Hebrew slave for 6 years, as well as to enslave any offspring he produces ?
About as many Christians who think the OT is more important than the NT.

i.e., none at all.

For most Christians, adhering to the actual Biblical morals is something that is only done when it is convenient. It is far more common to just make up your own stuff and pretending that is what God and Jesus actually meant.
Utter bollocks.

The vast majority of Christians I know, and I'd wager the majority of Christians in the world, follow the teachings of Christ and the Ten Commandments to the best of their ability. As I've said above, there's nothing hypocritical in disregarding those parts of the Bible that don't fit with one's conception of Christianity, unless one is a Biblical literalist.

I'd, hesitantly, call myself an Aristotelian in my ethical outlook. Yet I don't view barbarians or females as lesser persons, as Aristotle did, nor do I agree with much of Aristotle's cosmology, etc. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You also seem to be a bit confused about what literalism means. Someone who states "Genesis is a metaphor because..." is not taking the Bible literally, but can still be a good, non-hypocritical Christian.
Someone who claims "when God says 'hate population group X he really means 'respect population group X'" and then still cites God as the highest being is .. well... I will let you fill that in.Something tells me that you've trouble with literacy in general, given that you're somewhat... Disconnected from what I wrote.

exscuse me... but


not all "Judeo Christians" fall into Evangelicals.

lol....JuNii owned Neo Art on the first page of the thread with Neo Art's own source in the OP! :D

<snip>

And those groups in Africa are not only atheists but are motivated by atheism?

<snip>

Actually, one of the nastiest groups, the Lord's Resistance Army, are led by an evangelical Christian. Just thought I'd throw that in.

About as many Christians who think the OT is more important than the NT.

i.e., none at all.


Utter bollocks.

The vast majority of Christians I know, and I'd wager the majority of Christians in the world, follow the teachings of Christ and the Ten Commandments to the best of their ability. As I've said above, there's nothing hypocritical in disregarding those parts of the Bible that don't fit with one's conception of Christianity, unless one is a Biblical literalist.

I'd, hesitantly, call myself an Aristotelian in my ethical outlook. Yet I don't view barbarians or females as lesser persons, as Aristotle did, nor do I agree with much of Aristotle's cosmology, etc. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

As a Christian, I agree completely.

About as many Christians who think the OT is more important than the NT.

i.e., none at all.


Utter bollocks.

The vast majority of Christians I know, and I'd wager the majority of Christians in the world, follow the teachings of Christ and the Ten Commandments to the best of their ability. As I've said above, there's nothing hypocritical in disregarding those parts of the Bible that don't fit with one's conception of Christianity, unless one is a Biblical literalist.

I'd, hesitantly, call myself an Aristotelian in my ethical outlook. Yet I don't view barbarians or females as lesser persons, as Aristotle did, nor do I agree with much of Aristotle's cosmology, etc. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Well stated old Chum :)

And what makes someone a "mother-fucker"? I would say torturing his fellows helps.
*shrugs*
Fucking a mother?

*shrugs*
Fucking a mother?

Naturally, I am speaking in the figurative sense, since NSG is full of the intellectual, poetic type.

Now I asked a question here, so ill ask again. Is a support for torture somethning that can be reconciled with the values this faith espouses? depends on the faith. was the poll on the general use of torture or did they site examples? Given the realities of what is going on, when someone mentions torture, you picture Gitmo. some people support Gitmo and what's happening there, others don't. I don't think 'Faith' plays any role.

If so, how? If not, what can explain this, and what does it do for the claim that religious folks in general are more moral? can't answer that since I never claimed that religious folks in general are more moral.

Does a support for torture conflict with evangelical values, and, in that vein, do those values reflect judeo christian values in general? again, Christianity... scratch that, RELIGION in general will give people what they want to get from it. if you want a reason to hate, Religion can give lots of reasons to hate. if you want a reason to forgive, Relidion can give lots of reasons to forgive. It's like science. if you want a better way to take more lives, Science will give you the means. if you want better ways to save lives, Science can also provide those means. Religion, like Science, like a gun, sword or car, is a tool. how it's used depends on the one using it.


No, but Evangelicals should be somewhat reflective of Judeo-Christian thought, shouldn't they?

Especially since Evangelicals tend to portray their faith as being the most scripturally intensive.wrong. why? simple. that's like saying Catholics should be like Baptists, who should be like Protestants, who should be like...

each denomination has their own 'take' on the Bible and the lessons learned there in. what the Evangelicals do does not reflect the Baptists, nor the Protestants, nor the Catholics...

Wow. I'm flabbergasted. Amazed. I would never have guessed. *yawn* Like ever atheist in the world - and most of everyone else, for that matter - hadn't already worked this out?
YAY HUMANISM!

wrong. why? simple. that's like saying Catholics should be like Baptists, who should be like Protestants, who should be like...


No it isn't. Not even close.

If the Evangelicals argue that they, themselves, are taking a pure approach to the scripture, then by their OWN lights, divergence from the scripture should be hypocrisy.


each denomination has their own 'take' on the Bible and the lessons learned there in. what the Evangelicals do does not reflect the Baptists, nor the Protestants, nor the Catholics...

Catholics do not consider the scripture the sum of imparted knowledge, so that's got no real place in the same consideratione as evangelicals, anyway - because it's not just about a 'take' on the scripture... as is also true with Mormons. Catholics effectively have more 'revealed' religion than non-Catholics.

But the point is - if Protestants claim to follow the Bible faithfully, unless you can show a verse where the Bible (specifically, perhaps, Jesus?) advocates torture - or creates a direct parallel that excuses it - then Protestants would SEEM to be going against the Bible, by their OWN assessment of the Bible. As Baptists would be condemened according to THEIR own traditions, etc.

You're creating something of a strawman with your 'different beliefs' argument - the hypocrisy is judged by adherence of each denomination to their OWN interpretations of scripture.

I thought this was a Nun-Orgy, :(

I thought this was a Nun-Orgy, :(

When I first saw the thread, I didn't think it would be that...





... But I really, really hoped.

No it isn't. Not even close.

If the Evangelicals argue that they, themselves, are taking a pure approach to the scripture, then by their OWN lights, divergence from the scripture should be hypocrisy. but we're not talking about that. I stated that 'not all "Judeo Christians" fall into Evangelicals.' thus it doesn't matter what 'Evangelicals' say they do it's still just a fraction of the entirety of the Religion called Christianity.

Catholics do not consider the scripture the sum of imparted knowledge, so that's got no real place in the same consideratione as evangelicals, anyway - because it's not just about a 'take' on the scripture... as is also true with Mormons. Catholics effectively have more 'revealed' religion than non-Catholics.

But the point is - if Protestants claim to follow the Bible faithfully, unless you can show a verse where the Bible (specifically, perhaps, Jesus?) advocates torture - or creates a direct parallel that excuses it - then Protestants would SEEM to be going against the Bible, by their OWN assessment of the Bible. As Baptists would be condemened according to THEIR own traditions, etc.

You're creating something of a strawman with your 'different beliefs' argument - the hypocrisy is judged by adherence of each denomination to their OWN interpretations of scripture.wrong again. I'm not arguing the validity of scripture nor which interpretation is correct, other posters are, but not I.

what I get from the Bible? treat others the way you would like to be treated. so, since I don't want to be 'tortured' for any reason, I won't torture anyone.

however, seeing how the term "laying the rod on a child's back" was commonly mis interpreted to mean 'Whip your child'... is it hard to see how some can say 'torture is supported by the Bible'?

I thought this was a Nun-Orgy, :(

it is a None-Orgy. ;)

"The Seven Deadly Sins" are not a part of the Christ's teachings. That is a later church development. My current understanding is that "pride" is not so much a sin as "undeserved pride or ARROGANCE".
Dodge and cop out. Nothing but an excuse for behaving in violation of your own rules.

And I am not a "good" Christian. I am a Struggling Sinner. A conflicted, fairly honest and struggling sinner, living in a fallen world. I have a lot to answer for.
You most certainly do, starting with the top of the list -- your support of torturing people, which is one of the world's most evil and heinous crimes.

So, what's your excuse or reason why?
What? My excuse for not following Christian doctrine and rules? Easy -- I'm not a Christian.

Or did you mean my excuse for not wanting to torture people? That one's easy, too -- it's because I'm not an evil bastard.

Or perhaps you meant my excuse for not trying to weasel out of responsibility for wanting to torture people (which I don't) by making up self-serving definitions of "Christian" (which I'm not) so that the generally accepted rules of that religion won't apply to me (which they don't)? Easy again -- I'm not a hypocrite.

Most of torture's glorious history has been devoted to entertainment, and the creation of false witnesses. It really is good at getting people to admit whatever you want them to admit, even if it's rather less good at actually finding truth.
Actually, since the revelations of the newly released memos, I've changed my mind about that. I don't think torture's ability to generate false confessions is one the main reasons for using it. Why? Because when you're Dick Cheney or Torquemada, or any of that lot, and you have these prisoners isolation -- essentially just 'disappeared' into your own little oubliette where nobody can see or hear them -- then you can just make up any old shit you like and claim they confessed to it. You could just kill them outright and claim that you are still holding them and extracting confessions to all kinds of things. Who's going to know you're lying? There is absolutely no reason to torture anyone at all, really. To generate propaganda, you don't even need real prisoners, let alone real torture.

So, because of that, I've decided that people choose to torture others only because they get off on it. It's sexual sadism glossed over with a clinical case of denial.

Actually, since the revelations of the newly released memos, I've changed my mind about that. I don't think torture's ability to generate false confessions is one the main reasons for using it. Why? Because when you're Dick Cheney or Torquemada, or any of that lot, and you have these prisoners isolation -- essentially just 'disappeared' into your own little oubliette where nobody can see or hear them -- then you can just make up any old shit you like and claim they confessed to it. You could just kill them outright and claim that you are still holding them and extracting confessions to all kinds of things. Who's going to know you're lying? There is absolutely no reason to torture anyone at all, really. To generate propaganda, you don't even need real prisoners, let alone real torture.

So, because of that, I've decided that people choose to torture others only because they get off on it. It's sexual sadism glossed over with a clinical case of denial.

And I didnt think my opinion of Cheney could get any lower...

he really is the root of all evil....

Actually, since the revelations of the newly released memos, I've changed my mind about that. I don't think torture's ability to generate false confessions is one the main reasons for using it. Why? Because when you're Dick Cheney or Torquemada, or any of that lot, and you have these prisoners isolation -- essentially just 'disappeared' into your own little oubliette where nobody can see or hear them -- then you can just make up any old shit you like and claim they confessed to it. You could just kill them outright and claim that you are still holding them and extracting confessions to all kinds of things. Who's going to know you're lying? There is absolutely no reason to torture anyone at all, really. To generate propaganda, you don't even need real prisoners, let alone real torture.

So, because of that, I've decided that people choose to torture others only because they get off on it. It's sexual sadism glossed over with a clinical case of denial.

While it's true that you don't need torture to obtain the kind of intelligence the previous administration liked so much (i.e. whatever is helpful, who cares if it's true), the previous administration were also pretty staunch advocates of both expedience and plausible deniability. And if it means you can get 'from the horse's mouth' information, and all it takes is a few hundred subhuman acts of cruelty... small price.

I'm not ruling out the sexual sadism angle, though.

As a christian myself I do not find favor with the whole christian conservative idea. Are there christian liberals etc?

As a christian myself I do not find favor with the whole christian conservative idea. Are there christian liberals etc?

Yeah, they just call 'em Liberals though, lol...

Yeah, they just call 'em Liberals though, lol...

oh.:$

It's sexual sadism glossed over with a clinical case of denial.Doubtful. AFAIK, the people who get of on it are usually weeded out early in the training.

As a christian myself I do not find favor with the whole christian conservative idea. Are there christian liberals etc?

Yes there are respectable Christians. Too bad they tend to be quieter (thereby garnering less attention) than their xtian counterparts.

Doubtful. AFAIK, the people who get of on it are usually weeded out early in the training.
Then how did Cheney slip through?

Then how did Cheney slip through?

What's the old saying, "The trick to ethics is being in charge when its time to codify what is considered ethical."


Probaby works the same for old clenched penguins who squint even worse while they clutch their viagra charged gear shift and wank utterly fixated on the idea that they can order somebody tortured and get away with it.


Waahahahah!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpg/300px-Michelangelo_Crucifix.jpghttp://static.open.salon.com/files/abu-ghraib-torture-7152441222188360.jpg

See you got the right idea.

Automatic fail on the part of the OP for two reasons:

1. Assuming that there is a correlation between frequency of church attendance and degree of religiosity. There is not.

Plenty of very religious never visit a church/synagogue/mosque/temple/etc., and of course the reverse is true as well. Some of the most devout Christians I know never step foot inside a church, whereas some of the least pious ones attend church very regularly.

2. Not recognizing that many "churches" have become so politicized that their members worship the State as much as, if not more than, God.

Many "religious" people in the U.S., especially neocons, show more loyalty to their political leaders (provided that said leaders share the same political party membership) than they do to God. To many Republicans (who I assume comprise a majority of the people that both attend church regularly and support torture at the same time), Bush is God, the Constitution is the Holy Bible (even though they are usually equally ignorant of both, especially the former), their beloved Union is the promised land, and soldiers are their Messiahs.

So, because of that, I've decided that people choose to torture others only because they get off on it. It's sexual sadism glossed over with a clinical case of denial.

I tend to believe they do it for kicks, as well--the same thing with the way the death penalty is typically used. Whether or not the pleasure derived is sexual, I cannot say.

As a christian myself I do not find favor with the whole christian conservative idea. Are there christian liberals etc?

*waves*

Yes there are respectable Christians. Too bad they tend to be quieter (thereby garnering less attention) than their xtian counterparts.

Mhm, often true. To a degree, of course, it's the fact that "looney Christians (or Muslims/Athiests/Whatever) support torture (or babykilling/terrorism/whatever)" makes for rather a more interesting headline than "moderates don't support extremists, try to be fundamentally nice people". But I generally at least poke my head into these sorts of threads (and similar RL discussions) to provide at least one example of a Christian who isn't outright crazy.

Mhm, often true. To a degree, of course, it's the fact that "looney Christians (or Muslims/Athiests/Whatever) support torture (or babykilling/terrorism/whatever)" makes for rather a more interesting headline than "moderates don't support extremists, try to be fundamentally nice people".

^ This.

Mhm, often true. To a degree, of course, it's the fact that "looney Christians (or Muslims/Athiests/Whatever) support torture (or babykilling/terrorism/whatever)" makes for rather a more interesting headline than "moderates don't support extremists, try to be fundamentally nice people".

True. Usually that second headline reads something like "group calling themselves Christians (Muslims/etc) disagree with parts of their holy book in order to become more PC" - which is not really positive towards them.

What? My excuse for not following Christian doctrine and rules? Easy -- I'm not a Christian.

Or did you mean my excuse for not wanting to torture people? That one's easy, too -- it's because I'm not an evil bastard.

Or perhaps you meant my excuse for not trying to weasel out of responsibility for wanting to torture people (which I don't) by making up self-serving definitions of "Christian" (which I'm not) so that the generally accepted rules of that religion won't apply to me (which they don't)? Easy again -- I'm not a hypocrite.

No, I mean what is your reason or excuse for not having any empathy for persons who, while doing their best to do right by their fellow citizens, who happen to be Christians, you deride because they have a different belief system than your own.

So, you aren't a Christian. I'm not surprised. Does your path in life follow a name recognized by the general public. What are it's tenets?

Non-Christians seem to believe that Christians think they're better than everyone else. We, I believe as a general rule, don't think that way. We have an incredibly difficult example to follow: Christ.

No, I mean what is your reason or excuse for not having any empathy for persons who, while doing their best to do right by their fellow citizens, who happen to be Christians, you deride because they have a different belief system than your own.

She derides you for supporting torture. You are supposed to imitate Christ, she is not. Yet she does a better job than you do.

She derides you for supporting torture. You are supposed to imitate Christ, she is not. Yet she does a better job than you do.

I wasn't asking you.

Now, if I were asked to undergo torture to save the world, I like to think I could step up to the plate.

And which is the greater sin, inflicting pain on one person for the purpose of saving thousands of lives or not inflicting pain and allowing thousands to be killed?

And the last was a general question to all interested parties.

I wasn't asking you.

Then chat by IM, and do not use a public message board.

Now, if I were asked to undergo torture to save the world, I like to think I could step up to the plate.

But torturing does not save the world.

And which is the greater sin, inflicting pain on one person for the purpose of saving thousands of lives or not inflicting pain and allowing thousands to be killed?

Torturing does not save thousands.

Then chat by IM, and do not use a public message board.



But torturing does not save the world.



Torturing does not save thousands.

This has been pointed out to him, many times. His response, I kid you not, is:
"Well in an imaginary world it would work, so we ought to do it in the real word."

Then chat by IM, and do not use a public message board.



But torturing does not save the world.



Torturing does not save thousands.

One of the problems of this is a differing opinion between those who claim "torture never works" and "torture does work". The Obama Administration has cherry-picked the torture memos, or they would release those sections that former V.P. Cheney has asked to be released. The "torture doesn't work" crowd have failed to convince the 'torture does work" crowd.

According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.

One of the problems of this is a differing opinion between those who claim "torture never works" and "torture does work". The Obama Administration has cherry-picked the torture memos, or they would release those sections that former V.P. Cheney has asked to be released. The "torture doesn't work" crowd have failed to convince the 'torture does work" crowd.
The above has nothing to do with the OP.

According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.
The above analogy has zero relevance to torturing individuals to gain knowledge, and I am not too sure that Christ would appreciate that His sacrifice to man would be used as a justification to torturing/killing others.

True. Usually that second headline reads something like "group calling themselves Christians (Muslims/etc) disagree with parts of their holy book in order to become more PC" - which is not really positive towards them.

So those who follow the Bible when it says to kill adulterers are violent fundamentalists, while those who don't are vile hypocrites.

I would suggest that there is a third way: some Abrahamic theists may look at the texts and decide, through logic and textual analysis, that some of the rules do not apply to our current situation, and so are inapplicable. You may wish to define this as 'cherry picking', but that is not the case, as that would imply that the theists involved had ignored the verses extorting violence, when the reality is that they read them very carefully and also analysed the context carefully.

So those who follow the Bible when it says to kill adulterers are violent fundamentalists, while those who don't are vile hypocrites.

Lazy hypocrites would be more accurate - but basicly yes. That is the brush with which the media paints - and I agree up to a point.

I would suggest that there is a third way: some Abrahamic theists may look at the texts and decide, through logic and textual analysis, that some of the rules do not apply to our current situation, and so are inapplicable. You may wish to define this as 'cherry picking', but that is not the case, as that would imply that the theists involved had ignored the verses extorting violence, when the reality is that they read them very carefully and also analysed the context carefully.

THAT would indeed not be cherrypicking. It is just a pity that this type seems to be so rare - or at least very silent. And that so many of the hypocrites like to pretend they fall into this category, yet are utterly unable to provide their underlying logic.

Lazy hypocrites would be more accurate - but basicly yes. That is the brush with which the media paints - and I agree up to a point.

THAT would indeed not be cherrypicking. It is just a pity that this type seems to be so rare - or at least very silent. And that so many of the hypocrites like to pretend they fall into this category, yet are utterly unable to provide their underlying logic.

I would suggest that it would be impossible to know the relative percentages of the different types of Christians without doing some sort of study that looks at the underlying logic of their particular theological beliefs.

So those who follow the Bible when it says to kill adulterers are violent fundamentalists, while those who don't are vile hypocrites.

I'd definitely agree with that.


I would suggest that there is a third way: some Abrahamic theists may look at the texts and decide, through logic and textual analysis, that some of the rules do not apply to our current situation, and so are inapplicable. You may wish to define this as 'cherry picking', but that is not the case, as that would imply that the theists involved had ignored the verses extorting violence, when the reality is that they read them very carefully and also analysed the context carefully.
I don't see how your justification for the cherry-picking makes it any less cherry-picking.

I think the only honest "third way" is for Abrahamic theists to admit that they pick and choose which parts of their texts to obey, and thus really aren't actually drawing their morality or values from those text but are instead selecting parts of the text which support the morality that they have already decided to hold.

Or, to put it another way, it's 100% bullshit to claim that the Abrahamic theist is choosing which parts of the text are "really" God's Word based on the historical context of the time in which it was written, because the truth is that they're choosing which parts are "real" based on their OWN time, culture, and context. And, thus, it really doesn't matter whether or not those texts are God's Word, because the believer is placing his or her own judgment above God's Word anyhow.

I would suggest that it would be impossible to know the relative percentages of the different types of Christians without doing some sort of study that looks at the underlying logic of their particular theological beliefs.

True. Which is why I added the "or at least silent" bit.
You rarely see them posting on online fora for instance.

....

I don't see how your justification for the cherry-picking makes it any less cherry-picking.

Because that the definition of cherry-picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking):

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Since they are deliberately not ignoring those verses that contradict their position, it would be difficult to define their behaviour as cherry picking.

I think the only honest "third way" is for Abrahamic theists to admit that they pick and choose which parts of their texts to obey,...

Yes, I agree.

and thus really aren't actually drawing their morality or values from those text but are instead selecting parts of the text which support the morality that they have already decided to hold.

But this does not necessarily follow. Deciding what is good and then searching for text that supports it is definitely one possible cause for using certain passages and not others, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that it is the only possible cause for doing that.

Or, to put it another way, it's 100% bullshit to claim that the Abrahamic theist is choosing which parts of the text are "really" God's Word based on the historical context of the time in which it was written, because the truth is that they're choosing which parts are "real" based on their OWN time, culture, and context. And, thus, it really doesn't matter whether or not those texts are God's Word, because the believer is placing his or her own judgment above God's Word anyhow.

Most of the intelligent Abrahamic theists that I know do not believe the Bible is God's Word. They tend to believe it is a human record of divine events. Consequently, any study into the text would require an understanding of the context of the human author, as the author would be attempting to describe divine events through his or her own paradigm.

It also implies, of course, that the people in power at the time who wished to promote their agenda could also put their agenda into the text in order to have God's backing. Again, a good understanding of the historical context would help understand if this is the case.

One of the problems of this is a differing opinion between those who claim "torture never works" and "torture does work". The Obama Administration has cherry-picked the torture memos, or they would release those sections that former V.P. Cheney has asked to be released. The "torture doesn't work" crowd have failed to convince the 'torture does work" crowd.

Torture is wrong, because (stolen from BBC):

It may well produce false information because under torture a prisoner will eventually say anything to stop the pain - regardless of whether it is true.

Because of this the interrogator can never be 'sure' that they are getting the truth and will never know when to stop.

More effective methods of interrogation that don't involve torture are available.

If a suspect is tortured it may be impossible to prosecute them successfully.

According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.

So Christians are emulating the killers of Christ instead of Christ himself? How sick.

tpe: She derides you for supporting torture. You are supposed to imitate Christ, she is not. Yet she does a better job than you do.

[quote]ygo: Now, if I were asked to undergo torture to save the world, I like to think I could step up to the plate.

And which is the greater sin, inflicting pain on one person for the purpose of saving thousands of lives or not inflicting pain and allowing thousands to be killed?
But torturing does not save the world.

tpe: Torturing does not save thousands.

ygo: According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.

[quote][btpe:] So Christians are emulating the killers of Christ instead of Christ himself? How sick.

No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.

No, I mean what is your reason or excuse for not having any empathy for persons who, while doing their best to do right by their fellow citizens, who happen to be Christians, you deride because they have a different belief system than your own.
1) I told you exactly why I deride your belief system and by the way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your Christianity. Instead, I am deriding your disgraceful support for the crime of torture. So, nice attempt to misrepresent my argument, but you fail.

2) What makes you think I lack empathy for people just because I do not believe they should be allowed to get away with committing violent, brutal crimes?

So, you aren't a Christian. I'm not surprised. Does your path in life follow a name recognized by the general public. What are it's tenets?
I follow the teachings of Guru Swami None-Of-Your-Freaking-Business, and one of the foundational tenets of my beliefs is "Thou shalt not rise to the bait of people who are just trying to avoid getting their asses handed to them by putting thou on the defensive about something that is completely irrelevant to the topic."

Non-Christians seem to believe that Christians think they're better than everyone else. We, I believe as a general rule, don't think that way. We have an incredibly difficult example to follow: Christ.
Oh, so, the reason you just can't help but support torture is because it's just that frigging hard to be Christlike?

One of the problems of this is a differing opinion between those who claim "torture never works" and "torture does work". The Obama Administration has cherry-picked the torture memos, or they would release those sections that former V.P. Cheney has asked to be released. The "torture doesn't work" crowd have failed to convince the 'torture does work" crowd.
Self-serving lies. The only difference of opinion on the lack of effectiveness of torture is between those who tell the truth and those who want to do it anyway.

According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.
That is actually one of the more horrific statements I have ever seen anyone post or say.



No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.
So, he was right -- you choose to emulate Christ's killers, and not Christ himself. You "take on the burden of the sin" of being a torturer and committing horrific violence against your fellow human beings -- all the while giving yourself a convenient out for your failure-by-choice.

No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.

The same arguement advance by the Inquisition for the torture and murder of innocents during the Middle Ages. I'd hoped we'd advanced past that by now.

No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.

You can excuse torturing without consent as an acceptable sin, but consensual buttsex sends one to Hell? You are perverse.

And the bold is grade A horseshit. Show me a source that tells how torture saved even ONE USian life.

Go worship those who nailed-up Christ.

As a person who was formerly a moderate christian...

This thread makes me facepalm. A lot. And want to beat myself in the face with a sledgehammer. Repeatedly.

As a person who was formerly a moderate christian...

What made you turn into an extremist? :D

What made you turn into an extremist? :D

Spiffy hats, and a good dental plan.

No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.

5 The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked [b] and those who love violence
his soul hates.

Reconizing that we all sin doesn't make it ok to commit sin to save others. "taking on the burden of sin" doesn't give us [Christians] a free ticket to sin.

Reconizing that we all sin doesn't make it ok to commit sin to save others. "taking on the burden of sin" doesn't give us [Christians] a free ticket to sin.

Unless Christianity is a "the end justifies the means" religion.

Unless Christianity is a "the end justifies the means" religion.

Not an unreasonable position considering the premise of sin and salvation, which always looked to me a LOT like people knocking at your door and saying "really flammable place, this - hate to see it burn down and anyone get hurt. Tell you what, you should make a little concession to me and my boys, and we'll make sure it don't happen".

Unless Christianity is a "the end justifies the means" religion.

depends on which branch you follow.

Reconizing that we all sin doesn't make it ok to commit sin to save others. "taking on the burden of sin" doesn't give us [Christians] a free ticket to sin.

Yeah, this is ticklish ground. I was rushing to type it all in the waning minutes of my lunch break.

Still, for those who believe in a just God and are willing to be held accountable for their actions at Judgement Day, I can't help thinking that saving the lives of thousands at personal cost of a stain on your soul might be forgiveable by God.

Yeah, this is ticklish ground. I was rushing to type it all in the waning minutes of my lunch break.

Still, for those who believe in a just God and are willing to be held accountable for their actions at Judgement Day, I can't help thinking that saving the lives of thousands at personal cost of a stain on your soul might be forgiveable by God.

Torture has not, nor will ever, save thousands. Provide me one factual instance of it having saved thousands of lives.

Yeah, this is ticklish ground. I was rushing to type it all in the waning minutes of my lunch break.

Still, for those who believe in a just God and are willing to be held accountable for their actions at Judgement Day, I can't help thinking that saving the lives of thousands at personal cost of a stain on your soul might be forgiveable by God.

sounds like rationalizing to me.

the same rationalizion that suicide bombers use. I blow myself up (suicide) and kill alot of heathens at the same time, then God will forgive me and allow me to be serviced in the afterlife by 72 Virgins.

Self-serving lies. The only difference of opinion on the lack of effectiveness of torture is between those who tell the truth and those who want to do it anyway.


That is actually one of the more horrific statements I have ever seen anyone post or say.


So, he was right -- you choose to emulate Christ's killers, and not Christ himself. You "take on the burden of the sin" of being a torturer and committing horrific violence against your fellow human beings -- all the while giving yourself a convenient out for your failure-by-choice.

I pity you. Everything is so simple for you. Nothing is worth the sacrifice others make on your behalf. The precious lives of many others that you've never met are worth less than brief physical pain. You never have to struggle with trying to understand anyone who challenges you. They seem to be simply bigots in your world view. You have no love for the common people in this world. What a depressing existence.

I pity you. Everything is so simple for you. Nothing is worth the sacrifice others make on your behalf. The precious lives of many others that you've never met are worth less than brief physical pain. You never have to struggle with trying to understand anyone who challenges you. They seem to be simply bigots in your world view. You have no love for the common people in this world. What a depressing existence.

I have joined the Army--that is a bit of a sacrifice. I still think you are full of it. Trying to pretend you are the one suffering if you torture another is poppycock. You still have failed to show ONE incident in which torture saved "thousands".

I have joined the Army--that is a bit of a sacrifice. I still think you are full of it. Trying to pretend you are the one suffering if you torture another is poppycock. You still have failed to show ONE incident in which torture saved "thousands".

Well, I have hope for you. Best Wishes and Godspeed.

Here is another gift for you. http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949 Of course, there are many other sites on the web that dispute this story.

Well, I have hope for you. Best Wishes and Godspeed.

Here is another gift for you. http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949 Of course, there are many other sites on the web that dispute this story.

That site seems extraordinarily (and openly) biased. I furthermore note that the "enhanced interrogation" methods described would push the victim to the edge, psychologically speaking. How the hell did he provide detailed information in that state?

Wikipedia makes no mention of him having released any information that stopped further attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed), and shockingly notes that his children were subject to torture.

One CIA official cautioned that "many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were 'white noise' designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session". For example according to Mike J. Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightclub bombing, but his involvement "could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance." Mohammed also made the admission that he was "responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation," which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed did not plan the attack, but he may have supported it. Michael Welner noted that by offering legitimate information to interrogators, Mohammed had secured the leverage to provide disinformation as well.[63]

Wikipedia makes no mention of him having released any information that stopped further attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed), and shockingly notes that his children were subject to torture.

There is another topic on this very forum where WIKIPEDIA was the vessel used to supply the various media outlets with a fabricated story. And I was honest with you, in that there would be conflicting stories on the web.

There is another topic on this very forum where WIKIPEDIA was the vessel used to supply the various media outlets with a fabricated story. And I was honest with you, in that there would be conflicting stories on the web.

The Wiki article provides numerous sources and is not promoting a political agenda.

The Wiki article provides numerous sources and is not promoting a political agenda.

Imagine that I am as skeptical about some sources of infor as you are about others. Perhaps the intent of the people at Wiki is to be unbiased, but I don't necessarily trust all of the people that post there, or all of the groups of the people that post there.

You really MUST read, "1984".

I pity you. Everything is so simple for you. Nothing is worth the sacrifice others make on your behalf. The precious lives of many others that you've never met are worth less than brief physical pain. You never have to struggle with trying to understand anyone who challenges you. They seem to be simply bigots in your world view. You have no love for the common people in this world. What a depressing existence.
And I laugh at you. Unable to come up with a real argument to justify your position -- other than you're sure your god will be cool with it after you're dead, so why worry? -- you have no recourse but to make up belittling fantasies about me. So transparent.

Imagine that I am as skeptical about some sources of infor as you are about others. Perhaps the intent of the people at Wiki is to be unbiased, but I don't necessarily trust all of the people that post there, or all of the groups of the people that post there.

You really MUST read, "1984".
You seem only skeptical of sources that say that torture is not effective and does not save lives.

Sources that are okay with torture you seem to accept without question.

Imagine that I am as skeptical about some sources of infor as you are about others. Perhaps the intent of the people at Wiki is to be unbiased, but I don't necessarily trust all of the people that post there, or all of the groups of the people that post there.

I trust them more than writers who are openly biased and provide no sources.

You really MUST read, "1984".

I have, actually, and Big Brother sounds remarkably like the your concept of God.

According to Christians, one particular torture and death DID save the world.

Good point. Jesus was a terrorist.

Good point. Jesus was a terrorist.

The Pharisees certainly thought so. The Romans got a big laugh out of THAT, but Pilate bowed to political expediency.

Anyway, I do my best. I try to follow. To come up with the solution that helps the most and hurts the least. Some days I'm a better Christian than other days.

I have, actually, and Big Brother sounds remarkably like the your concept of God.
If you look close enough, you can find parallels everywhere. Goldstein makes a good Judas. However, I believe that part of the story is supposed to relate to Trotsky and Stalin.

The Pharisees certainly thought so. The Romans got a big laugh out of THAT, but Pilate bowed to political expediency.

Anyway, I do my best. I try to follow. To come up with the solution that helps the most and hurts the least. Some days I'm a better Christian than other days.

And that solution is not torture. Real life is not an episode of 24. Torture is not an effective way to get reliable information.

And that solution is not torture. Real life is not an episode of 24. Torture is not an effective way to get reliable information.

I know that you and your sources sincerely believe that. But you will never REALLY know until someone tries to get info from you that your really don't want to give.

If you look close enough, you can find parallels everywhere. Goldstein makes a good Judas.

My statement still stands. How is Big Brother different from your concept of God?

However, I believe that part of the story is supposed to relate to Trotsky and Stalin.

I know. Have you read Animal Farm?

The Pharisees certainly thought so. The Romans got a big laugh out of THAT, but Pilate bowed to political expediency.

Anyway, I do my best. I try to follow. To come up with the solution that helps the most and hurts the least. Some days I'm a better Christian than other days.

Well so do I. And I've never been a Christian of any sort, or any other kind of Believer.

What you are looking at there is Utilitarianism. Study it for yourself, by all means, but I think you'll find that it doesn't work in such simple terms as "living good, dying bad, kill one to save a thousand lives therefore good."

In fact, it doesn't work at all. Seems like it should. Utilitarianism, well worth a look I'd say.

I know that you and your sources sincerely believe that. But you will never REALLY know until someone tries to get info from you that your really don't want to give.

You'll never REALLY know that sacrificing virgins won't stop hurricanes until you try it, so that means we have to do it!!!

The problems is, though, is most people will confess to anything while being tortured, whether it's true or not, so any information you get is unreliable.

I know. Have you read Animal Farm?

In either elementary school or jr. high, I forget which.

My statement still stands. How is Big Brother different from your concept of God?

God is The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.
Big Brother is not a Trinity.

God is opposed by Satan.
Big Brother has 2 shifting enemy/friend states.

God created the Heavens and the Earth
Big Brother never claimed to have created the Heavens and the Earth(though it could just be a matter of time).

God allowed for the possibility, even freedom, for man to sin.
Big Brother was into the destruction of words and individual liberty.

God is The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.
Big Brother is not a Trinity.

A technicality. I fail to see how this makes a difference.

God is opposed by Satan.
Big Brother has 2 shifting enemy/friend states.

Satan is opposed by God, so there is nothing particularly special about that. Besides, you have no proof of Satan--how is he any difference that those shifting enemies.

God created the Heavens and the Earth
Big Brother never claimed to have created the Heavens and the Earth(though it could just be a matter of time).

Creating those things does not make God any better. Big Brother created its society.

God allowed for the possibility, even freedom, for man to sin.
Big Brother was into the destruction of words and individual liberty.

Big Brother allowed Winston to "sin" for some time before punishing him. Seems an appropriate metaphor to me.

It would appear that the discussion on this topic has drifted way off course. Perhaps the thread should be allowed to die an undignified death, since it has been a bust from page one and the OP bailed after two posts.

I know that you and your sources sincerely believe that. But you will never REALLY know until someone tries to get info from you that your really don't want to give.
Wrong again. Do you have a problem following the news, or do you just ignore it if it doesn't say what you want it to? For more than 8 years now, we have been told over and over again by interrogation and intelligence professionals from all over the world, whose job it is to get information out of prisoners using the most effective methods possible, that torture does not produce reliable information. Period. Fact. Tested and proven through decades of work. Done. Recently, we have even been given breakdowns of precisely how torture destroyed the flow of good information when used on GITMO prisoners.

After all these events, your claims otherwise stray past the limit of ignorance and into deliberate lie territory.

Wrong again. Do you have a problem following the news, or do you just ignore it if it doesn't say what you want it to? For more than 8 years now, we have been told over and over again by interrogation and intelligence professionals from all over the world, whose job it is to get information out of prisoners using the most effective methods possible, that torture does not produce reliable information. Period. Fact. Tested and proven through decades of work. Done. Recently, we have even been given breakdowns of precisely how torture destroyed the flow of good information when used on GITMO prisoners.

There have even been some disturbingly plausible theories that torture was used INTENTIONALLY for this purpose. Bush wanted to invade Iraq using 9/11 as a pretext, but all the good intelligence out there was of no use to him because reality simply wasn't cooperating. So if you want somebody to give a particular answer and you really don't give a fuck whether or not it's true, why, torture is just the ticket. That's what torture is designed to accomplish, after all: to get the victim to say what you want them to say, regardless of whether they believe it or it is true in any way.

There have even been some disturbingly plausible theories that torture was used INTENTIONALLY for this purpose. Bush wanted to invade Iraq using 9/11 as a pretext, but all the good intelligence out there was of no use to him because reality simply wasn't cooperating. So if you want somebody to give a particular answer and you really don't give a fuck whether or not it's true, why, torture is just the ticket. That's what torture is designed to accomplish, after all: to get the victim to say what you want them to say, regardless of whether they believe it or it is true in any way.
Yes, indeed. In fact, it was those suggestions about the motives for torturing those prisoners that caused me to finally decide that there is no motive at all for torturing people except to get off on it somehow. Because if all you want to do is generate propaganda, you can do that entirely fictionally. There is no need to really torture real people to get fake confessions, if a fake confession is what you're after all along. We can conclude, then, that they tortured people only because they wanted to.

Yes, indeed. In fact, it was those suggestions about the motives for torturing those prisoners that caused me to finally decide that there is no motive at all for torturing people except to get off on it somehow. Because if all you want to do is generate propaganda, you can do that entirely fictionally. There is no need to really torture real people to get fake confessions, if a fake confession is what you're after all along. We can conclude, then, that they tortured people only because they wanted to.
Well yeah, it's the Jack Bauer fantasy. You're a big strong manly superhero who totally beats up the badguys, and when push comes to shove you're prepared to brutalize the enemy to get your way and it's totally justified because, like, they started it!

Yes, indeed. In fact, it was those suggestions about the motives for torturing those prisoners that caused me to finally decide that there is no motive at all for torturing people except to get off on it somehow. Because if all you want to do is generate propaganda, you can do that entirely fictionally. There is no need to really torture real people to get fake confessions, if a fake confession is what you're after all along. We can conclude, then, that they tortured people only because they wanted to.

If the propaganda is coming from the "bad guys", then it has more "credibility" than if you just make it up yourself. That's your reason for torture; to make the propaganda seem more plausible.

After all these events, your claims otherwise stray past the limit of ignorance and into deliberate lie territory.

What a coincidence. I was thinking the same thing about you.

If the propaganda is coming from the "bad guys", then it has more "credibility" than if you just make it up yourself. That's your reason for torture; to make the propaganda seem more plausible.
Yeah, but if the "bad guys" are in seclusion, kept out of the media and all other outside contacts, and not paraded in front of the cameras to mouth the prepared speech through their bruises, then what do you need them for?

I said it in another thread on this issue -- an oppressor could keep no prisoners at all, just kill them all outright, and just lie about it and say they are in custody, saying whatever you want to attribute to them, being tortured in all kinds of inventive ways. If you've already "disappeared" them, who's to know?

You'll note that the US and world media were not inundated with videos of prisoner confessions. So...why did we need to do anything to them again?

What a coincidence. I was thinking the same thing about you.
You might want to check your verb in that sentence. Take your time. You're getting ignored now because a counter argument was made and you fail yet again to even try to address it. Bye.

What a coincidence. I was thinking the same thing about you.

Do you honestly think someone who is deprived of food and sleep, is constantly slapped and yelled at, and is repeatedly waterboarded over a period of days is going to know what he is talking about?

It would appear that the discussion on this topic has drifted way off course. Perhaps the thread should be allowed to die an undignified death, since it has been a bust from page one and the OP bailed after two posts.

While I would agree. the conversation has been civil and rather... interesting nonetheless.

I'm not attepmting to be flippant, here. I'm not a trained interrogator. However, I imagine that the intelligence analysts going over the audio tapes will be able to separate the grain from the chaff.

Have a good day

Well yeah, it's the Jack Bauer fantasy. You're a big strong manly superhero who totally beats up the badguys, and when push comes to shove you're prepared to brutalize the enemy to get your way and it's totally justified because, like, they started it!

don't forget. this season's 24 started with him at a hearing for his 'actions'. and he was willing to take whatever punishment was going to be handed down.

then he got called away and 'activated'...

I'm not attepmting to be flippant, here. I'm not a trained interrogator. However, I imagine that the intelligence analysts going over the audio tapes will be able to separate the grain from the chaff.

Have a good day

true, you are not a trained interrogator. but Wouldn't you feel it to be your job to not put in so much chaff for the analysts to sort through?

don't forget. this season's 24 started with him at a hearing for his 'actions'. and he was willing to take whatever punishment was going to be handed down.

then he got called away and 'activated'...
Taking time out to add counts to the indictment, eh? ;)

While showing a character willing to take the rap for his actions is world's better, ethics-wise, than the weaseling excuses for avoiding accountability that we see in real life, it still leave Jack Bauer a villain, in my opinion. But then I never did like that show.


true, you are not a trained interrogator. but Wouldn't you feel it to be your job to not put in so much chaff for the analysts to sort through?
One would think there would be an incentive not to waste time deliberately eliciting false information, wouldn't one?

Taking time out to add counts to the indictment, eh? ;)

While showing a character willing to take the rap for his actions is world's better, ethics-wise, than the weaseling excuses for avoiding accountability that we see in real life, it still leave Jack Bauer a villain, in my opinion. But then I never did like that show. You know that the writers are going to write up some 'Presidential Pardon' for him...

One would think there would be an incentive not to waste time deliberately eliciting false information, wouldn't one? yep. after all, that's what made Homeland Securities jobs so hard after 9/11. they had to check out EVERY lead... and that's really the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

You know that the writers are going to write up some 'Presidential Pardon' for him...

yep. after all, that's what made Homeland Securities jobs so hard after 9/11. they had to check out EVERY lead... and that's really the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's also how we know that torture is so unreliable for generating information.

It's also how we know that torture is so unreliable for generating information.

... actually, the 'leads' HS had to follow up on was all the 'volunteered' calls (aka. panic calls) that they got about the ebil Terrorists living around the patriotic citizens. :p

I'm not attepmting to be flippant, here. I'm not a trained interrogator. However, I imagine that the intelligence analysts going over the audio tapes will be able to separate the grain from the chaff.

Reality has nothing to do with your imagination.

Torture is a useful tool for getting the answers you want, that is about it.

Reality has nothing to do with your imagination.

Torture is a useful tool for getting the answers you want, that is about it.

Or for perverse pleasure. I honestly think many persons get a kick out of sadism, and are just looking for an excuse.

... actually, the 'leads' HS had to follow up on was all the 'volunteered' calls (aka. panic calls) that they got about the ebil Terrorists living around the patriotic citizens. :p

Oh, you mean the "OMG! The pizza guy has an accent!!!" calls?

I'm not attepmting to be flippant, here. I'm not a trained interrogator. However, I imagine that the intelligence analysts going over the audio tapes will be able to separate the grain from the chaff.

Have a good day

I have to point out - the people who ARE trained interrogators refused to do this job BECAUSE they said it generates unreliable information AND because they considered it outside of internation and American law.

That's why the CIA ended up doing it.

Oh, you mean the "OMG! The pizza guy has an accent!!!" calls?

yep... as well as the
"my classmate was on an arabic website"
"some people here are bowing and praying..."
"my student turned in an essay about zombies!" :eek:

No, Christians recognized that Christ gave himself up to torture and death for the sake of mankind. Therefore, we do our best not to sin while at the same time we recognize that we will all sin, even to the point of doing an evil to one person to save thousands of others. We take on the burden of sin, so that others may be saved.

No, "we" don't. You don't speak for me, let alone all Christians. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you are to Christ what Taft was to physical fitness: a wonderful example of what to avoid.

Well so do I. And I've never been a Christian of any sort, or any other kind of Believer.

What you are looking at there is Utilitarianism. Study it for yourself, by all means, but I think you'll find that it doesn't work in such simple terms as "living good, dying bad, kill one to save a thousand lives therefore good."

In fact, it doesn't work at all. Seems like it should. Utilitarianism, well worth a look I'd say.

I'd always been under the impression that Utilitarianism essentially boiled down to that sentiment, or at least "maximum pleasure, minimum pain" or something along those lines. Granted, I figured those would be hard to quantify.

I'd be really interested to hear how little my understanding bears resemblance to the actual facts.

Christian Love, in my experience, is only to be shown to people of the same basic religious belief set as all other Christians and does not extend to: Muslims, Jews, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Anyone who likes sex, Liberals, Free Thinkers, or anyone who doesn't go to the exact same church building.

Christian Love, in my experience, is only to be shown to people of the same basic religious belief set as all other Christians and does not extend to: Muslims, Jews, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Anyone who likes sex, Liberals, Free Thinkers, or anyone who doesn't go to the exact same church building.
As much as I wouldn't mind seeing this thread die, I would be remiss to let it die upon your proclaimed "experience", which must be very limited indeed.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing this thread die, I would be remiss to let it die upon your proclaimed "experience", which must be very limited indeed.

I have nothing against Christians, personally, just against theocracy and You-Gi-Owe's brand of Christianity. I actually think the religion created a foundation for morals and helped make our society great. These torture-nuts would be just as bad without religion.

Christians love other Christians.

I can't believe this thread is still going when the OP and the article linked with it has been shown to be false.