• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Were you not judging others when you said:



Because if you were not I'd like you to explain how it is that you can make such a blanket generalization about others and skirt your own fail on this.
i

In the sense that I mentioned, what it means to be Christian. To be a thing, you must follow the teachings of it, the essence. It that context, my judgement is reasonable.
 
i

In the sense that I mentioned, what it means to be Christian. To be a thing, you must follow the teachings of it, the essence. It that context, my judgement is reasonable.

yet still condemned by the teachings of Luke.
 
yet still condemned by the teachings of Luke.

Not at all. That final judgement is in God's hands. Being in God's image, we are not sheep unable to make no judgements at all. It requires a judgement to even choose to be Christian. In the context I laid out, again, it is a reasonable judgement.
 
Doesn't the faith also teach that you don't have the power to judge? I think it does.

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:"

-Luke 6:37

Faith doesn't teach that, dogma does.
 
Not at all. That final judgement is in God's hands. Being in God's image, we are not sheep unable to make no judgements at all. It requires a judgement to even choose to be Christian. In the context I laid out, again, it is a reasonable judgement.


Are you now a theologian? You can do what you wish because we have free will, but in context you will be judged yourself.
 
Are you now a theologian? You can do what you wish because we have free will, but in context you will be judged yourself.

Of course I will be. We all will be, and are daily. But I have little to fear from reasonable judgements like the ones I made. It is in keeping with the teachings.
 
Of course I will be. We all will be, and are daily. But I have little to fear from reasonable judgements like the ones I made. It is in keeping with the teachings.


Well, I disagree. But if you're happy with it, then it is what it is....Merry Christmas Joe, and Merry Christmas to all.
 
Well, I disagree. But if you're happy with it, then it is what it is....Merry Christmas Joe, and Merry Christmas to all.

Merry Christmas to you as we'll. I wish you and yours the very best.
 
Faith does indeed teach that. Tell me a Christian faith that does not teach that...

I should have included theology, or some form of written word. That is what I meant. Rules and written words teach that.

Faith is an act of the individual, and not some written words, was my point.
 
I should have included theology, or some form of written word. That is what I meant. Rules and written words teach that.

Faith is an act of the individual, and not some written words, was my point.


True enough, but we should do well to remember that all are humbled in the presence of God, it is our own hubris, and inflated ego that leads us to believe that we can dictate the terms of what faith lays out for us to follow and aspire to. Each of us will answer to that in our own time.
 
I don't really care if torture is effective. It's evil. And we are evil if we employ it. If we become evil to fight evil, then we have lost. Sacrificing the things that make us different from our enemy destroys us even more effectively than any weapons they could ever use against us. In the last decade, we have become more like the people Al Qaeda and their ilk want us to be. That's a victory for them, not for us, no matter how many of them we kill.

I disagree on several things, however, I can appreciate consistency. "Torture" could be 100% effective, give us the greatest intel ever, but that should be absolutely irrelevant to those who oppose it.
 
Of course I will be. We all will be, and are daily. But I have little to fear from reasonable judgements like the ones I made. It is in keeping with the teachings.

Huh, I've always been hesitant to make judgments about whether others are truly "Christian" or not or have a real relationship with God or not. I've always figured that was between them and God, but you're saying I have no need for such hesitancy. I can determine, as you have, who is really a Christian and who isn't?
 
Huh, I've always been hesitant to make judgments about whether others are truly "Christian" or not or have a real relationship with God or not. I've always figured that was between them and God, but you're saying I have no need for such hesitancy. I can determine, as you have, who is really a Christian and who isn't?

I generally judge by knowledge. If the person has no clue anything about the Bible, Christian doctrine and philosophy, overlaying metaphors that affect context and the fundamentals of salvation and The Spirit... then they don't really count. They're just going with the flow. Now, if someone knows (and understands, preferably) that stuff and can discuss it on an intellectual level, well... that there's the real McCoy. I suppose a mere openness to discussion and enlightening regarding Biblical study is sufficient, for those who've claimed such title but a short time.

Wanna convince me that one's a Christian? Know what one's talkin' about.
 
True enough, but we should do well to remember that all are humbled in the presence of God, it is our own hubris, and inflated ego that leads us to believe that we can dictate the terms of what faith lays out for us to follow and aspire to. Each of us will answer to that in our own time.

Most likely, each of us is what we call 'god'. :peace
 
Huh, I've always been hesitant to make judgments about whether others are truly "Christian" or not or have a real relationship with God or not. I've always figured that was between them and God, but you're saying I have no need for such hesitancy. I can determine, as you have, who is really a Christian and who isn't?

I think there are certain precepts you must adhere to, by definition, to actually be any specific thing. A homosexual who can't stare sex with the same sex, for example, is not homosexual. So while I actually agree with what you write above, Christians are actually called to live by some precepts. Torture cannot be found in the ideology anywhere. By definition, one who supports torture is not following Christian ideology, thus not Christian. Yes, we will have to personally answer to God, who makes the final judgement, the one that matters, we are not incapable of reasoned thought r reasonable judgements.
 
I think there are certain precepts you must adhere to, by definition, to actually be any specific thing. A homosexual who can't stare sex with the same sex, for example, is not homosexual. So while I actually agree with what you write above, Christians are actually called to live by some precepts. Torture cannot be found in the ideology anywhere. By definition, one who supports torture is not following Christian ideology, thus not Christian. Yes, we will have to personally answer to God, who makes the final judgement, the one that matters, we are not incapable of reasoned thought r reasonable judgements.

I thought a homosexual was a homosexual regardless of their actions. You're confusing me. On one hand, you're saying you agree with me but on the other, you tell me you're quite comfortable making that very judgment. I trust that these judgements can also be fairly made in other discussions outside of this one? Right? I ask because I see Christians criticized for saying things like the Westborrow Baptist folks aren't really Christians. Can I send those critics your way?
 
I thought a homosexual was a homosexual regardless of their actions. You're confusing me. On one hand, you're saying you agree with me but on the other, you tell me you're quite comfortable making that very judgment. I trust that these judgements can also be fairly made in other discussions outside of this one? Right? I ask because I see Christians criticized for saying things like the Westborrow Baptist folks aren't really Christians. Can I send those critics your way?

I wasn't actually speaking about actions. If I like the opposite sex and don't desire someone f the same same sex, I'm not a homosexual no matter what I say.

And yes, I agree faith is personal. But, ideologies of all kinds have clear definitions of what makes one a follower of that ideology. If we cannot make that judgement, how do we know when we are one?
 
Christians are actually called to live by some precepts. Torture cannot be found in the ideology anywhere. By definition, one who supports torture is not following Christian ideology, thus not Christian.

Do you have the passage handy where Jesus referred to 'torture'?
 
Do you have the passage handy where Jesus referred to 'torture'?

Do you? But does turn the other cheek sound like torturous is ok? I'm sorry, but amount of hackers will show Jesus too would torture.
 
I wasn't actually speaking about actions. If I like the opposite sex and don't desire someone f the same same sex, I'm not a homosexual no matter what I say.

And yes, I agree faith is personal. But, ideologies of all kinds have clear definitions of what makes one a follower of that ideology. If we cannot make that judgement, how do we know when we are one?

Big difference between making that judgment for yourself and making it for others.
 
Big difference between making that judgment for yourself and making it for others.

It's the same process. I can't read mines, but we can match actions against ideology. To a point, we can make some judgement.
 

It was you who made the claim that "By definition, one who supports torture is not following Christian ideology, thus not Christian".

By whose definition?

Yet you also said "Torture cannot be found in the ideology anywhere".

Do you actually have a clue as to what you are talking about or is this another instance of the infinite monkey theorem?
 
It was you who made the claim that "By definition, one who supports torture is not following Christian ideology, thus not Christian".

By whose definition?

Yet you also said "Torture cannot be found in the ideology anywhere".

Do you actually have a clue as to what you are talking about or is this another instance of the infinite monkey theorem?

By definition of the religion. They all have precepts they follow. They don't have to mention torture specifically to know it is part of Christianity.
 
Torture is assault upon the individual, over a period of time. A most unconsensual situation.

Certainly society can invoke due process to detain somebody temporarily, but the due process must be strict and open.

The legal definition of assault is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." What what we know about prison, the act of being sentenced is assault.

The way you use the world "assault," it is clear you mean "battery." The legal definition of battery is "an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another." An uncooperative prisoner who does not wish to enter his cell will be forcefully placed in his cell (or into another cell, in solitary), which constitutes battery by the definition.

You permit that "society" can decide what is right and what is wrong, making the intentional act of a judge handing sentencing down unto an individual (which creates an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) and then ordering the bailiff to remand that person into custody (an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact) to be fine and dandy. In any other context, those actions constitute assault and battery, by you accept the definition that this is acceptable and permitted. When that person then goes to prison (where he may get physically battered, raped, or killed), that is ok with you... because some guy in a robe said it was. And then that person may be placed in a tiny cell and cut off from human contact for MONTHS, all on the declaration of a non-elected private citizen (the warden)... and you're ok with that!

So, my question is why do you not allow for a non-physically harmful method of interrogation? If the word "torture" is defined as "things Henry David thinks are torture," you would have a point, but that isn't how the world works. If the entire basis of your argument comes down to the consent of the governed (which it does), then what makes the Judicial Branch the end-all-be-all power to decide that a warden can essentially torture an individual as he sees fit? The entire line of logic rests on circular reasoning - torture is defined as those things that have been defined as torture. Everything else is "not torture," including some of the very same acts, only when carried out by other parties.
 
Back
Top Bottom