torture

[Gukkor]

wel, some interesting replies... and certainly stimulating me to further ponder the mysteries of torture and hell.

An explanation for Hell: by refusing the one-conditional (that condition being acceptance) love of God, the nonbeliever isolates self from divine bliss in heaven, therefore receiving the alternative, agonizing hell.

that hell is eternal is another interesting question... eternal isolation from God because that love was refused during the life of the believer?

as to before-death torture, at least that agony is only temporary.

i don't know if i agree with temporary discomfort to inspire information-sharing, "discomfort" varying on to "agony" and so forth... I feel like telepathic interrogations would be more merciful and effective

I certainly find attractive the One Conditional notion of Divine Love... Have you connected to that love, so great, it is limitless, and the only condition is your acceptance of that love?

I mean, how many of you walk around in a constant state of perfect love? This would be reaching Heaven before death!

And yet, There it is, to be received.

God's blessings are one-conditional, but His Love is not, for if God were to withdraw His Love from a person completely, that person would cease to exist.

 

[Ave Maria]

I could personally never torture anyone and I could also not believe in a deity/god that tortures people for unbelief either.

 

[KalithAlur]

wel, do you think "hell" is a temporary state of existence, whereby you have not yet accepted the grace of God?

what about Satan? Is Satan suffering in Hell for being so rebellious, even after all these years, or has he perhaps come around and decided to serve God?

 

[Tavita]

wel, do you think "hell" is a temporary state of existence, whereby you have not yet accepted the grace of God?

what about Satan? Is Satan suffering in Hell for being so rebellious, even after all these years, or has he perhaps come around and decided to serve God?

Hell is the place of the dead who are raised to life in either of the two resurrections (rapture or great white throne judgment). Satan is not in hell, he roams the earth looking for whoever he can devour, and he goes before the Father as the accuser of the brethren.

 

[KalithAlur]

Is Satan a pure idiot?

Surely his years of experience have taught him his plans of corruption are stupid, and only by turning to the grace of God can he experience true joy. Why would Satan resist such an opportunity?

 

[Tavita]

Is Satan a pure idiot?

Surely his years of experience have taught him his plans of corruption are stupid, and only by turning to the grace of God can he experience true joy. Why would Satan resist such an opportunity?

That's the nature of deception and lies, he doesn't just deceive and lie to us, it's to himself. Because he IS a liar.

 

[KalithAlur]

I guess my actual opinion is that any form of torture is wrong, and that rehabilitation is always a possibility when eternal life is a reality... even for the evilest sentient being in existence.

If you have eternity to think about things, and billions and billions of people to talk to, I feel like you'd eventually come to the realization, that unconditional love is just more rewarding than tricking people into suffering, and that leading people out of suffering is the natural task of those capable of feeling unconditional love.

but therein is my own bias, being very much capable of and interested in feeling and sharing unconditional love, I have come to the assumption that it is a sort of answer... and must point out that I might eventually receive information disproving the desirability of unconditional love, or even my conception of unconditional love itself!

 

[Tavita]

I guess my actual opinion is that any form of torture is wrong, and that rehabilitation is always a possibility when eternal life is a reality... even for the evilest sentient being in existence.

I tend to agree with you. To me, God's judgments are restorative and corrective. I don't believe God is a God of eternal torture/torment.

If you have eternity to think about things, and billions and billions of people to talk to, I feel like you'd eventually come to the realization, that unconditional love is just more rewarding than tricking people into suffering, and that leading people out of suffering is the natural task of those capable of feeling unconditional love.

I believe there are 'ages' to come, not just one age. We don't know how those ages will pan out, we haven't been told that far in advance. But going by the balance of the character of God, it will be corrective, restorative, instructive, cleansing, and being of Truth, Love, and Hope.

but therein is my own bias, being very much capable of and interested in feeling and sharing unconditional love, I have come to the assumption that it is a sort of answer... and must point out that I might eventually receive information disproving the desirability of unconditional love, or even my conception of unconditional love itself!

Nothing wrong with desiring unconditional love, it is one of the most basic longings of man. And we know it can only be found it One, and being filled with His Spirit we can begin to know that kind of love.

 

[invisible trousers]

Who Would Jesus Torture?

 

[Stinker]

this is a discussion concerning the ethics of torture... i'm interested in opinions and research,

concerning the nature of hell (separation from god, pit of fire/eternal torture, ect.)

and concerning whether or not you can be a good Christian and torture somebody before they die, for instance to gain information from a terrorist

Of course it would be morally outrageous for anyone in the Government, after confirmation of another terrorist attack and knowing a suspect involved that could be forced to give information leading to the foiling of the operation, to not use torture. Think about it. Maybe they have already done this and saved thousands of lives.

We see people at this site trying to always put God in a box. That He only resurrected Jesus when the scriptures plainly imply that He also resurrected Moses (Mt.17:1-4), that one is never to lie at any time to anyone, when Rahab is praised for doing such and thus saving the 2 Israelite spies. (Joshua 2:1-7)(James 2:25) (Heb.11:31)

Only under extreme circumstances is anyone possibly excused by God for going against what He is.


As for the concept of an eternally burning heavenly garbage dump. I used to believe that the scriptures taught that God practiced torture as punishment, not torture as torture. However, this concept is torture as punishment. I have since come to the conclusion that this concept is not correct. That God will destroy those that chose not to belong to Him. That they will no longer exist. (2 Thess. 1:8-9)

 

[durangodawood]

ok here is a hypothetical scenario:

You have an Al Qaeda suspect who you belive has information regarding an imminent attack on NYC using a small suitcase type nuclear device. Do you try to extract the information from him by all means necessary ?

There are a few problems with this hypothetical. But let me skip those and turn your hypothetical up a notch...
.
Your "suspect" hasnt given up any valid info after a fair amount torture. You have the option to bring in his 5 year old daughter and torture HER, in front of him, hoping that might crack him open.
.
The nuke clock is ticking. Will you do it?
.

 

[KalithAlur]

Even totally obliterating a life, in the sense that the soul itself ceases to exist, seems too extreme a punishment to me, if the one inflicting it happens to be omnipotent.

As to torturing the little girl... Let's plug this question into a bit of a formula.

Objectively, what is being risked, what is almost certainly being lost, and what might be gained?

If I had a very, very large file of facts to take into consideration, and I was a robot capable of assigning an appropriate value to human emotion, how would I weigh out the equation? My theory is, the equation would be weighed thusly:

Any nuclear attack is bound to kill far too many innocent lives to pass up an opportunity to stop the attack that only causes two individuals, even if both are innocent and very young, to suffer profound pain.

What about the little girls suffering torture from radiation poisoning?

One problem with torturing little girls, it feeds into the negativity in such a manner as to a) justify the same tactics by the enemy and b) further encourage a nuclear attack, and other attacks, inflaming, yes inspiring, the terrorists to become more ingenius than ever at terror tactics and mass casualty infliction

An alternative is available: Fake the torture of the man's daughter in a realistic manner, but so that after it is determined whether torturing a little girl would even have revealed crucial information, it can be revealed to the man his daughter was not really tortured.

Many possibilities exist concerning what might happen if the man's daughter was tortured, or even if the torture was faked. If the man is very attached to his mission, and his spirituality, he might be inspired by the torture to defeat the monsters before him at all costs. He might simply not have any crucial information.

In the long run, torture leads to more torture and nothing is done to effectively end the suffering of man kind. In the short term, best case scenario: Millions of lives are saved in a major city.

Is our bullcrap too thick to direct us toward the real solutions?

 

[bunced]

In the short term, best case scenario: Millions of lives are saved in a major city.

And we've totally sold out of society and values.

Ends justify means?? I think not

I agree with your overall summary

 

[durangodawood]

As to torturing the little girl... Let's plug this question into a bit of a formula.

Objectively, what is being risked, what is almost certainly being lost, and what might be gained?

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"
.
You wont gain the whole world.
You might gain a city and its people.
You will probably lose your soul, if you could bring youself to actually torture a little girl.
.
Just one way of looking at it.

 

[Gukkor]

I've come to the conclusion that no answer which knowingly results in the suffering of innocents is at all acceptable for an honorable society/person/whatever. If I could perhaps save many lives by torturing an innocent child, I would not do so, and instead would devote my time to searching for a different means of obtaining the information needed. Were I to fail in that endeavor, I would take full responsibility, but at least I could say that I tried.

 

[KalithAlur]

it was a very good question.

part of me really thinks the ends do justify the means if you'r thinking in the long term and you mean that a momentum has been created to permanently reduce destruction and suffering, and paid less destruction and suffering for this momentum than what was gained.

the problem is, in my opinion, "ends justify the means" scenarios rarely, if ever, result in the kind of momentum I'm talking about. The simplest answers are the best: Truth to defeat delusion, peace to defeat war, mercy to defeat suffering.

For saying so, I could be an evil soulless "Ends justify the means" (I believe in pure reason to solve problems) kind of guy. I could just as easily be an idealist.

Here is my position on torture: I am far more fallible than an omniscient being, but I don't believe in torture in the afterlife or in this life. I think mercy is infectuous, even concerning religious fanatics. It is difficult to cling to a delusion when you are constantly faced with how much less monstrous the enemy is, than you are yourself.

 

[JacobHall86]

Better them than us.

 

[durangodawood]

Better them than us.

Better they get tortured than us?
Better they DO torture than us?
.

 

[JacobHall86]

Better bad things happen to the terrorists than us.

 

[durangodawood]

Better bad things happen to the terrorists than us.

OK... you're really going out on a limb there.
.
Now, is there some way to use that principle as a moral guide?