Torture a christian value?

[juliod]

So we have an administration that claims to act on christian principles. But one also that embraces torture. Yes, I know that Dubya has recently said we don't torture people, but no one can actually belive that. The administration has gone so far as to work up a detailed explanation of how they have the legal authority to torture as they see fit. In fact they argue that the President has unlimited authority during a self-declared "war".

I would be inclined to condemn this as not being christ-like. But then I think, isn't christianity based on torture? Isn't the whole heaven/hell thing a vast system of punishement by torture? Once we identify the enemies of god, as most Bush-supporters view their opponents, including people accused of terrorism, isn't it chist-like behavior to torture them? Since god wants and intends to torture these people for eternity, isn't it expected that we would do so too?

Is there a flaw in my reasoning somewhere?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

President Bush is the leader of secular America.

Ask a secularist if America is or has ever been a "Christian nation?"

Anyway to ask a Muslim Jihadist or the garden-variety Islamic killer to stop murdering people?

What is we asked them "please?"

In France, who or what is rioting right now?

[bernee51]

President Bush is the leader of secular America.

Ask a secularist if America is or has ever been a "Christian nation?"

Anyway to ask a Muslim Jihadist or the garden-variety Islamic killer to stop murdering people?

What is we asked them "please?"

In France, who or what is rioting right now?

More red herring.

How about addressing the issue. Just once.

[juliod]

Yes, all red herring, no fox.

But, let's see what we got..

President Bush is the leader of secular America.

But he is also a christian. He claims to be acting by christian principles. He also promised an administration based on christian doctrine. Do we take from this a confirmation that torture is a christian value?

Ask a secularist if America is or has ever been a "Christian nation?"

No, the US has never been a christian nation. That's why it's unacceptable for us to use torture as a national policy. We need t get these christians out of office.

Anyway to ask a Muslim Jihadist or the garden-variety Islamic killer to stop murdering people?

Islamists don't run our government. Why is your question relevant?

In France, who or what is rioting right now?

Abortionists?

DanZ

[micatala]

I'll start with your last question first.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning somewhere?

The short answer is yes.

isn't christianity based on torture? Isn't the whole heaven/hell thing a vast system of punishement by torture?

I will note that there is another thread in the Christianity forum that questions the whole premise of a 'Christian hell,' and I will not go into that here.

Obviously, the classic vision of hell is one of 'eternal flames.' I'll be honest and say that I don't hold to this classical picture of hell at all. I personally don't look at 'warnings of ending up in hell' as if I have to avoid sinning or else God will make a conscious act of punishing me in hell. Rather, I look at hell as a sort of 'natural consequence' of certain actions, perhaps even as a metaphor for what we sometimes experience here on earth. For example, if one had done a truly dastardly thing that had ended up causing other people death or incredible suffering, one might feel such emotional torment that might be described as 'living hell.'

No, this is probably not a standard, and certainly not a fundamentalist view of hell, but I don't see that Christians in general need to be in agreement on all aspects of doctrine, philosophy, etc.

Even if one does accept hell as a place where God punishes those He has deemed fit of the punishment, your arguement is quite off the mark.

Once we identify the enemies of god, as most Bush-supporters view their opponents, including people accused of terrorism, isn't it chist-like behavior to torture them? Since god wants and intends to torture these people for eternity, isn't it expected that we would do so too?

THe answer to this is clearly no. Even if one was a pretty literal interpreter of the Bible, this would not be the Christian view as based on the Bible. The Bible is clear that there is a difference between judgments that people in general or believers in particular are given latitude to make, and those judgments that are reserved for God. Only God is given purview to make eternal judgments, only God is given the purview or the capacity to make judgments of people's motives and intentions.

The Bible clearly says to believers that we are not to judge others with respect to their faith journey or their hearts. We are given purview to observe other's actions and respond to these actions as we deem appropriate in line with God's overall will or teachings, but we are not to attempt to usurp God's authority by speaking or acting on his behalf in ways that are only appropriate for God. If you have any evidence from the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus that suggest that we humans are specifically directed to 'torture people in God's name' please provide.

The Bible clearly says we are to love each other, including our enemies. We are to live at peace with one another, as far as possible as it depends on us. We are called to live for the benefit of others more than for ourselves. In no way can 'torturing God's enemies' be squared with a thorough reading of Jesus' teachings or ministry.


I will be quite honest and say I consider this whole thread to be at least along the lines of 'flame bait.' Perhaps that is not how it is intended, but it certainly comes across that way.




Yes, George Bush is a professed Christian. He is also the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. As such, he does not necessarily follow Christian principles in all that he does. The same would arguably be true if John Kerry or Al Gore were currently President.

Bush's policies and statements regarding torture are, in my view, misguided and short-sighted. In fact, I view the whole 'war on terror' as misguided. By making terrorism into a war, we have framed the conflict in exactly the way the terrorists wanted it. Even if we pursued the exact same actions and policies to combat terrorism, or even if we pursued other actions equally as vigorously as what we are doing now, we should have couched it in terms of fighting international criminals, because that is what terrorists are. Why dignify them by making it a 'war.' This only implies that it is a political struggle and that they might be pursuing legitimate political ends, but only using questionable means. Given the means they are using, we should at least officially ignore any political message they might be trying to send, or any political objectives they might be trying to achieve.

Yes, we should address the underlying political causes of terrorism, but not with the terrorists. We should take all reasonable and LEGAL methods to see that they are brought to justice, and forget the war rhetoric.

[juliod]

Obviously, the classic vision of hell is one of 'eternal flames.' I'll be honest and say that I don't hold to this classical picture of hell at all

One question I would put to you is whether your view is representative or not? In the political context, the main christian movement is very fundementalist and believes very strongly in a physical hell. They also believe that their views are authentic and that no other versions of christian theology have any validity.

So the question is whether you are within the body of the most visible form of christianity at the current time?

Only God is given purview to make eternal judgments,

But this isn't necessarily a ban on torture. Since we lack the ability to torture people forever, we can make no claims to eternal judgement. But if you are a christian, with your finite, earthly view of justice, can't you take the bible's example of hell as how you might inflict finite, earthly punishment?

but we are not to attempt to usurp God's authority by speaking or acting on his behalf in ways that are only appropriate for God.

This sentiment you wrote, if widely accepted, would end fundementalism at a single step.

But since it isn't widely held, I would accuse you of wishful thinking in terms of the majority view of christian politics.

If you have any evidence from the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus that suggest that we humans are specifically directed to 'torture people in God's name' please provide.

Well, I don't have such evidence. And I understand for myself that such a view is incompatible with the written teching of Jesus. But we have a long history of torture being widely applied in christian societies, often for specifically religious purposes. And we have a current political administration that is distinguished by devotion to three things: christianity, war, and torture.

I will be quite honest and say I consider this whole thread to be at least along the lines of 'flame bait.'

Not flame bait, surely, as flaming is not allowed here. But poking christians and christian conservatives with a pointy stick might be an appropriate metaphor.

I would like to see moderate christians challenge their coreligionists on various harmful political policies that are advocated in close association with an idea of christian government.

As such, he does not necessarily follow Christian principles in all that he does. The same would arguably be true if John Kerry or Al Gore were currently President.

The key difference is that Bush specifically claims to act as a christian. I would not expect Gore or Kerry (or most other front line politicians) to invoke religion so constantly in their administration.

Christians are being painted with the color of the Bush administration because they fail to oppose the co-opting of their religion to his political movement. Indeed, he is very popular with many (perhaps most) christian churches.

DanZ

[bernee51]

Bush's policies and statements regarding torture are, in my view, misguided and short-sighted. In fact, I view the whole 'war on terror' as misguided. By making terrorism into a war, we have framed the conflict in exactly the way the terrorists wanted it. Even if we pursued the exact same actions and policies to combat terrorism, or even if we pursued other actions equally as vigorously as what we are doing now, we should have couched it in terms of fighting international criminals, because that is what terrorists are. Why dignify them by making it a 'war.' This only implies that it is a political struggle and that they might be pursuing legitimate political ends, but only using questionable means. Given the means they are using, we should at least officially ignore any political message they might be trying to send, or any political objectives they might be trying to achieve.

This is very much the point. Politicians world wide use the time honoured method (used by religions still and before them) of the 'politics of fear' in order to maintain power. By branding what should have been a 'police action' as 'war' it served to increase the level of fear in the electorate. When fearful, people tend to withdraw into their comfort zone. This means a lot of other things suffer. Like making sensible political decisions. Toleration of otherwise draconian measures in order to secure safety and security. Diminishing of compassion for the less well of in society. To name a few.

Bush's equivocation on torture and the seemingly outright support of it by others in the administration is an extension of this 'politics of fear'. Not only is it designed as a warning to 'terrorists' who might find themselves in a US gulag, but signals to the folks at home - 'look how these terrorists have forced us to behave'.

The 'terrorists' set out to force change in the societies they despised. They have succeeded.

[micatala]

Yes, I very much agree, bernee, that the Bush Administration has played on the fears of the American electorate, both to further its agenda, and to remain in power. I think it is pretty clear, given the closeness of the 2004 election, that Bush would not now be in power without this approach.

I would even agree that both politicians and the religious often use fear, although it would be interesting to see which came first. What I don't accept is that fear necessarily has to be part of religion, or even that it has to be a major component of Christian doctrine.

Quote micatala:
Obviously, the classic vision of hell is one of 'eternal flames.' I'll be honest and say that I don't hold to this classical picture of hell at all

One question I would put to you is whether your view is representative or not? In the political context, the main christian movement is very fundementalist and believes very strongly in a physical hell. They also believe that their views are authentic and that no other versions of christian theology have any validity.

So the question is whether you are within the body of the most visible form of christianity at the current time?

A reasonable question. My view is certainly not fundamentalist. If I find any data on how representative it is of U.S. Christians, I will pass along. My guess is that it is not that unrepresentative. Evangelicals and fundamentalists make up a significant percentage of CHristians, but I don't believe it even approaches a majority. Even within fairly conservative denominations and churches, you are going to find more diversity of opinion that you might first expect, at least that is my personal experience.

As with many issues, fundamentalists are more visible because they are more extreme, more vocal, and more controversial.

But this isn't necessarily a ban on torture. Since we lack the ability to torture people forever, we can make no claims to eternal judgement. But if you are a christian, with your finite, earthly view of justice, can't you take the bible's example of hell as how you might inflict finite, earthly punishment?

Only if you completely ignore the main message of Christ, which is to love one another as you would love yourself. If anyone Christian is actually making this arguement, I would like to see examples cited. In any case, a person making such an arguement is twisting the message of Christianity to further their own agenda.

This sentiment you wrote, if widely accepted, would end fundementalism at a single step.

But since it isn't widely held, I would accuse you of wishful thinking in terms of the majority view of christian politics.

Well, I certainly wouldn't mind if certain aspects of fundamentalism disappeared.

You may be right that this view isn't widely accepted, but I wouldn't mistake the noise created by some in the fundamentalist realm and the relative quiet from other areas as an accurate measure of the numbers who hold one view or the other.

Well, I don't have such evidence. And I understand for myself that such a view is incompatible with the written teching of Jesus.

Can I say amen!

But we have a long history of torture being widely applied in christian societies, often for specifically religious purposes.

Yes, an undeniable and unfortunate fact.

And we have a current political administration that is distinguished by devotion to three things: christianity, war, and torture.

Well, I wouldn't quite say that. With respect to Christianity, we can say Bush is a CHristian and he has overwhelming support of a certain segment of the conservative CHristian population. However, that is not the same as saying his administration is devoted to Christian policies.

Even if it were, I don't buy the 'guilt by association' type of arguement that tries to say that since Bush is CHristian, is supported by some CHristians, and speaks about Christianity, and that he supports questionable detention practices (putting it nicely), that said practices are somehow supported by CHristian doctrine. This is somewhat the same type of logic that some Christians use to try and smear evolutionists or atheists that I find so distasteful. I'm not saying you are doing this. I think you have a legitimate point in questioning the actions of the Bush administration. I just disagree that the actions and rationale that we both find so questionable or even despicable have anything to do with CHristian doctrine.

But poking christians and christian conservatives with a pointy stick might be an appropriate metaphor.

As the former of the two, I'll consider myself appropriately poked.

I would like to see moderate christians challenge their coreligionists on various harmful political policies that are advocated in close association with an idea of christian government.

Agreed. I think this already starting to happen. In my area, there is a bipartisan group that has recently formed precisely to combat what it sees as the overly partisan nature of our political dialogue, and has specifically addressed the phenomenon of some, especially on the right, trying to 'hijack God' for their own political purposes.

I think there is another thread on this forum which addresses a national group with the goal of showing that Republicans are not more Godly than Democrats.

There are billboards in our area, and I believe elsewhere, saying "God is not a Republican, . . . . . or a Democrat."

If the Democrats are smart, they will more aggressively challenge the Republicans in the 'morals arena.' They of course will be vigorously opposed with scorn and malice by some on the right, precisely because the demagogues among the conservatives know full well how well the 'morals tactic' has worked and will be loathe to give it up without a fight.

If those of us who are neither Democrats nor Republicans are smart, we will also try to make our voices heard a little louder.

[Qazwa]

Peace,

This is a good question.

It depends on what Christians you ask.
I dont think they all agree.

Some hate the idea of torture. Others like Pat Robertson of the 700 club are in favor of it so long as the victoms are of another religion besides Christianity and are from the other side of the world and have darker skin.

Qazwa

[Cephus]

How about addressing the issue. Just once.

You don't ask for much, do you?