War and Torture: Not Biblical???

Oh, good! Now we have three threads on torture. I wonder how many more we can start.

I still can't believe this is going on and on and on. . . . :BangHead:

Tim Reynolds

 

God did these things to support the nation of Israel, His nchosen people. Since the United States was never declared to be God's chosen people none of this pertains to us. In the political area you can argue that we should invade any country that our leaders want to. That doesn't say that it's supported by the Bible.

 

dude:

I don't think there is anybody on this board who condones abortion, much more the use of torture.
But I can certainly understand your point.

War is war.
We don't like what happens, we would prefer to be hundreds of miles away from it, and we get depressed if the task of "gathering intelligence" falls on us.
But we do what we need to do.

I've had my share of torture, with me as subject.

Have been hung by the thumbs, with the toes barely touching the floor, and swung, and a hard rubber bat meet me wherever it lands.

Face have been covered by a face towel, seven-up poured down on it, and then hit in the stomach with a flat board, all in the name of democracy as understood by a dictator.

Didn't like it. Wouldn't wish the likes of it on anybody, but ......

 

I agree with you in saying that Bush doesn't have the responsibility to govern by the Bible. That being said let's please stop calling him a christian president. He found it advantageous to run as a christian to pick up the christian right vote but that's about as far as it goes. Should the U.S. break international law by torturing its prisioners? I don't believe we should. You can argue for being barbaric if you like. By the way, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Quite frankly if the questioning does not maim or kill the detainee, in my mind, it is not torture.

 

Really. What is it, then ?
I shared my experience during the time of the Philippine dictator.
What I went thru gave me TB, and caused one of my friends to have severe mental depression. He offed his wife and then himself.

Not to say I won't use it if I have to, emphasis on have to.

But a spade is a spade, even if dressed up like a rose.

 

I stand by my post. TB could have been contracted before or after your experience and your friend was maimed mentally either by that experience or from other reasons. If you were subjected to TB at that time then you have been maimed and have experienced physical torture and if your friend did leave there demoralized he was mentally maimed and therefore tortured. This being the case I sincerely hope you find peace. May God be with you.

 

Was that under Marcos?

 

Yes.

And I do have peace. I have forgiven those who hurt me. In fact, one is now my "compadre", which basically means, I am his son's wedding sponsor.

I bear no ill feelings towards anyone of our torturers, vengeance is the Lord's and all that.

I do not like torture, but understand that sometimes those in the field may resort to it due to urgency, or stress, or just plain frustration. But as a means of acquiring accurate information, it is absolutely zilch.

I would have confessed to being the dictator's wife's secret lover if they just whacked me a little harder :laugh: , you know.

On the other hand, treating the enemy with kid gloves don't do no good,either.

A proper mix of carrot and stick will work, if you know what I mean, plus some psychology and accurate information relevant to the subject either directly or obliquely which could break down resistance.

In our case then, they simply wanted us to sign "confessions" so they can release us, say we "escaped", and up the ante on our heads.

Business.

 

If we are going to torture them, how can we object if they torture us?
Do you have scripture allowing us, telling us it is ok to torture anyone?
Where does the bible guarantee us freedom, or even tell us we are to do what ever we deem necessary to obtain or maintain it? We aren't the first to do what is right in our own eyes, and it didn't work out so well for the others either.

 

Mentally, verbally, tacitly, or in writing.

No. Is there any scripture saying we can take prisoners of war-- or any prisoners-- in the first place?

At no place.

Then do what? Determine what is "right in our own eyes" and automatically do the opposite?

You better be careful-- it seems right in your eyes to never torture anyone-- correct? Watch that doing what's right in your own eyes!

One more question... Do y'all who say a function of our government must not include torture because we have no authorization from God to do it, use that same reasoning for other topics-- such as making it illegal to for a teacher to lead public school students in prayer, fighting a war, and imprisoning thieves and murderers? Wd do not have God's authorization for these things, but do you think it's an acceptable, if not salutary, function of government?

 

It seems you do not understand where the principle of the sanctity of life is derived from. Sanctity of life is drawn out of the fact that life is God given, and as such is to be treated with reverence. To accuse God of committing acts without regard for the sanctity of life is to charge Him with sin. The acts of God in the OT have no bearing on the sanctity of life, but rather are a reflection of the Sovereignty of God over nations ans men,, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39).

I am not certain exactly what you mean by this, but President Bush, like any other world leader rules only with God's permission (Romans 13:1-5). Whilst he is under no obligation to reconstruct OT law in full, he still has a moral obligation to rule righteously and will answer to God for such.

Regardless of what went on in WW2, Vietnam or any other conflict, torture is wrong. The Christian is to "love his enemy," that doesn't mean he cannot defend himself, but it does mean he accords his enemy respect as a human being.

 

I have read every word on these four threads about torture, and I have been amazed at the mental acrobatics people have gone through to make a claim for torture being legal, appropriate, allowed by God, biblical, you name it. This whole deal has been an exercise in picking and choosing scripture to support a position rather than taking a position based on scripture. This was done to support slavery in the 19th century. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Ordinarily, the argument is presented that the NT has priority over the OT, but, in the case of torture, the situation has been reversed. Despite the fact that the Israelites tortured some of their enemies, that does not give us the justification to torture ours. Some things are just wrong. The NT scriptural passages that speak against the use of torture have already been cited on all of these threads.

As for the list of things you have asked about, I infer that you are asking what are the legitimate functions of government, and what is the source of their legitimacy? Governments oversee external relations between entities (e. g., cities, states, countries, etc.) and internal relations among their citizens. On the larger scale, that can sometimes mean war. On the smaller scale, it can mean the incarceration of criminals and the prohibition of certain activities that violate laws and relationships that are defined in our legal documents such as the Constitution. Some of these things have scriptural basis, and some are based on prior experience. Every law does not have to have a scriptural basis.

And, just so you won't be wondering where I stand, I am opposed to public school teachers leading their students in prayer. That kind of instruction is a matter for parents and churches, not schools.

Tim Reynolds

 

Well said!

Tim Reynolds

 

There you go. No Biblical basis for torture. So, why are Christians supporting it?

Non-sequitur. Irrelevant.

I've linked to a report here about torture from members of the Intelligence Science Board who testified to Congress.

Here's an op-ed about torture from Charles C. Krulak, former commandant of the Marine Corps, and Joseph P. Hoar, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command.

From the linked article from the Intelligence Science Board:

Quote:
President Bush has insisted that those secret “enhanced” techniques are crucial, and he is far from alone. The notion that turning up pressure and pain on a prisoner will produce valuable intelligence is a staple of popular culture from the television series “24” to the recent Republican presidential debate, where some candidates tried to outdo one another in vowing to get tough on captured terrorists. ...

But some of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called “Educing Information,” say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were effectively questioned without coercion.


“It far outclassed what we’ve done,” said Steven M. Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator and trainer, who has studied the World War II program of interrogating Germans. ... Mr. Kleinman, who worked as an interrogator in Iraq in 2003, called the post-Sept. 11 efforts “amateurish” by comparison.

Why are we modeling our interrogation programs after those of the Soviet Union, the "Evil Empire" and poster-child for neverending hostility? These are our models for freedom and security?

Torture is ineffective, corrosive and a certain path to military defeat. Again I ask, why are Christians supporting torture?

 

This is consistent reasoning, ain't it? On one subject-- "Don't do it because we have no biblical basis." On another-- "It's irrelevant whether we have a biblical basis."

 

Are you suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't be taking prisoners of war? That sounds like a different topic and a different thread to me. I don't see the relevance to this discussion, which is what I was trying to point out. If I were more cynical than I am, I would think that you took the path you did because it's easier than actually discussing anything else that I wrote in my post.

Since this is the only thing you responded to, does that mean that you agree with everything else I wrote?

 

Nope.'''''''