PDA

View Full Version : Sunday an Oscar winning film exposed America's shame: We savagely torture prisoners



MeerkatMadden
Feb 26th 2008, 09:04 PM
Sunday night an Oscar winning film exposed America's national shame: We savagely and mercilessly torture our prisoners

You can view the trailer for that film here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6812361366204200360

It documents the horrific torture that America inflicts on the people it holds prisoner.

It is a national disgrace.

We beat our prisoners bloody.

We put hoods on them and chain them up naked and let the attack dogs at them.

We put electrodes on the most sensitive parts of their bodies.

We inject them with all manner of poisons and mind-altering drugs.

We bring them to the edge of drowning.

We even torture children in front of their parents.

We defile the culture of our prisoners to a degree that is almost unimaginable.

Just read about what the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had to go through:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/120304myhell.html

America needs to repent!

We all need to repent.

We have all sinned over and over, and we all stand guilty before God.

But God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay the penalty for all of our sins.

You can receive Christ right now by faith through prayer.

God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:

"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."

Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this prayer right now and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.

StarscreamX-2
Feb 26th 2008, 09:09 PM
Im not going to be held accountable for a minority of folks that have chosen to break the law of the land.

Nor am i going to defend a religion that encourages the murder of children for the great good (ie Islam).

The US does not allow torture and thoses that refuse to obey the law have been or will be punished.

Fenris
Feb 26th 2008, 09:24 PM
America is not that bad. Some other nations out there are far, far worse.

You need to get out a bit more...

karenoka27
Feb 26th 2008, 09:58 PM
I find it most sad when Americans go against our country.
this link gives the impression that our military as a whole is mistreating all others from other countries.That is not true.
I will stand by and salute every single soldier that has given their life for this country.
What you have shared are the few, not the majority. The few will be punished.

The Americans who are against America are the ones who need to repent in my opinion.

slightlypuzzled
Feb 26th 2008, 09:58 PM
So far thare is a lot of 'he said-she said' in what amounts to propaganda pieces. As of this date we have not cut off the heads of living prisoners with large knives and televised the whole bloody business from a web site for all to see. We have not entered refugee camps and repeatedly rapes women and girls to prove that we are 'of a warrior' elite. We have not consumed certain body parts of those we vanquish in order to gain their strength and courage in battle. We have not emulated the horrors of Nazi Germany, nor the genocide of whole cultures/races as has been practiced by other nations/cultures in the past.
We have, to be true, committed some acts that were morally wrong, some that were the foolish result of young soldiers unable to accept the discpiline of the emotions in combat and near death, and some were just plain old wrong; but we are humans who showed a fair amount of restraint and allowed a large amount of self-criticism as a nation; unlike many other past nations.
We are in a foolish war started by one who should have known better. However, it would be even more foolish and wrong to just leave a mess behind for someone else to take advantage of. To allow that is to let ourselves grow even more foolish and morally lazy.

pnewton
Feb 27th 2008, 07:06 PM
Movies! That's where I get my information from. :rolleyes:

ravi4u2
Feb 27th 2008, 08:09 PM
The human being is God's most precious creation. When we value some other things like a country or a state more than the value of even one single human life, we are misplacing our loyalty.

Pilgrimtozion
Feb 27th 2008, 08:12 PM
Movies! That's where I get my information from. :rolleyes:
Movies? Mate, media is where I get my info from! :D

StarscreamX-2
Feb 28th 2008, 03:08 PM
The human being is God's most precious creation. When we value some other things like a country or a state more than the value of even one single human life, we are misplacing our loyalty.


HHHHHmmmmmmm, I see your point but i would remind you that if one rejects God and his sons message of Salvation....welll a not to pleasant eternity is in store for them.


I do value my Country though, love it as a matter of fact.

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 03:19 PM
The human being is God's most precious creation. When we value some other things like a country or a state more than the value of even one single human life, we are misplacing our loyalty.We don't fight wars out of loyalty to our country, but out of the necessity to protect the lives of our fellow citizens.

Matthew
Feb 28th 2008, 07:26 PM
Sunday night an Oscar winning film exposed America's national shame: We savagely and mercilessly torture our prisoners

You can view the trailer for that film here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6812361366204200360

It documents the horrific torture that America inflicts on the people it holds prisoner.

It is a national disgrace.

We beat our prisoners bloody.

We put hoods on them and chain them up naked and let the attack dogs at them.

We put electrodes on the most sensitive parts of their bodies.

We inject them with all manner of poisons and mind-altering drugs.

We bring them to the edge of drowning.

We even torture children in front of their parents.

We defile the culture of our prisoners to a degree that is almost unimaginable.

Just read about what the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had to go through:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/120304myhell.html

America needs to repent!

We all need to repent.

We have all sinned over and over, and we all stand guilty before God.

But God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay the penalty for all of our sins.

You can receive Christ right now by faith through prayer.

God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:

"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."

Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this prayer right now and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.

I don't know anything about the documentary other than what I've seen in the clip you provided, so I won't comment on it.

I'm greatly disappointed that you've included a link to prison planet. How disrespectful is it to condemn America and then use an internet tabloid to back it up?

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 10:24 PM
We don't fight wars out of loyalty to our country, but out of the necessity to protect the lives of our fellow citizens.You see one cannot be a citizen without a country. The live of a fellow citizen is not greater or lesser in value, than that of a non-citizen.

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 10:29 PM
HHHHHmmmmmmm, I see your point but i would remind you that if one rejects God and his sons message of Salvation....welll a not to pleasant eternity is in store for them.


I do value my Country though, love it as a matter of fact.Two questions:

1. Are you a follower of Christ? And if you are:

2. Which is the country you are a citizen of?

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 10:30 PM
I'm going to get flamed for this, but i'm going to say it anyway.

Sometimes i think that the American "love of our country", patriotism, borders on idolatory. Strong words i know, and upsetting, but the philosophy of "any means to justify noble ends" is terrifying to me!

Saying that "other contries / religions" are worse does not excuse things.

Does anybody seriously dispute that waterboarding happens and that it constitutes torture?

If jesus was standing over a helpless man strapped to a table, would he torture him, for any reason?

America is NOT above rebuke, just because it is America.

Sorry if i have offended anyone with this post but i beleive it needed to be said.

Seeker

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:30 PM
The live of a fellow citizen is not greater or lesser in value, than that of a non-citizen.
Of course it is. If citizens of another country are supporting a war machine that's coming to kill citizens of this country, their lives have less value.

Let's illustrate with an example. In world war 2 we bombed Germany and killed German civilians. We did that so that German soldiers would not come here and kill American citizens. We made the choice that American citizen's lives were more valuable than German citizen's lives.

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 10:33 PM
If citizens of another country are supporting a war machine that's coming to kill citizens of this country, their lives have less value.

:eek:

:cry:

This breaks my heart. Do you think god considers their lives less valuable?

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:33 PM
America is NOT above rebuke, just because it is America.

No one said that America is above rebuke. I just don't think America should be rebuked for this.

If I had a terrorist strapped to the table, and he was aware of an imminent attack that would kill many Americans, I would not hesitate to torture him to get that information.

And if you rebuked me for that I'd say that your morals are backwards, since you value the temporary discomfort of a killer over the lives of innocents.

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:34 PM
:eek:

:cry:

This breaks my heart. Do you think god considers their lives less valuable?
God would judge us foolish if we did otherwise.

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 10:37 PM
Of course it is. If citizens of another country are supporting a war machine that's coming to kill citizens of this country, their lives have less value.

Let's illustrate with an example. In world war 2 we bombed Germany and killed German civilians. We did that so that German soldiers would not come here and kill American citizens. We made the choice that American citizen's lives were more valuable than German citizen's lives.Not quite right. One cause seem to have a greater value than the other. But all lives have the same value.

For example, you don't kill a German in the streets of New York just because he is a German by ethnicity, even during WWII. That would be a crime. The German life has got the same value as that of the Americans.

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 10:38 PM
And if you rebuked me for that I'd say that your morals are backwards, since you value the temporary discomfort of a killer over the lives of innocents.

Well to apply your logic


If citizens of another country Lets say america
are supporting a war machine that's coming to kill citizens of this country, their lives have less value.
They are not innocent are they?

I beleive that ALL people have certain rights. And that all life has value and is beautiful in the eyes of the lord.

I do not beleive that jesus would ever torture another human being for any reason.

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:40 PM
Not quite right. One cause seem to have a greater value than the other. But all lives have the same value.No, they don't.


For example, you don't kill a German in the streets of New York just because he is a German by ethnicity, even during WWII. That would be a crime. The German life has got the same value as that of the Americans.
That's because the German in NY isn't supporting a war machine that is trying to kill you. It isn't the ethnicity that's the problem; it's the person's actions.

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:41 PM
Well to apply your logic

Lets say america
They are not innocent are they?I don't know what you're trying to say here.


I beleive that ALL people have certain rights. And that all life has value and is beautiful in the eyes of the lord. Not if they're trying to kill me, they aren't.


I do not beleive that jesus would ever torture another human being for any reason.
What, Jesus doesn't send people to eternal damnation? Sounds suspiciously like torture to me...:hmm:

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 10:46 PM
If jesus was standing over a helpless man strapped to a table, would he torture him, for any reason?

I don't think Jesus will put him in prison when he returns. I think he will just kill him and be done with it.

ravi4u2
Feb 28th 2008, 10:46 PM
No, they don't.

That's because the German in NY isn't supporting a war machine that is trying to kill you. It isn't the ethnicity that's the problem; it's the person's actions.You just proved my point. It is not the ethnicity, or the citizenry, every life is equal. It is the cause or as you say, "the person's actions".

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 10:48 PM
What, Jesus doesn't send people to eternal damnation?

No. He does'nt.


I don't know what you're trying to say here.

What i'm trying to say is that in an earlier post you implied that the lives of german civilians had less value than the lives of US civilians because they of their tacit support for a war machine trying to kill US civilians.

By that logic (which i beleive is fallacious) we could equally say that the US lives which might be saved by torture are of lesser value (to, say, an islamic extremist) because of their tacit support for the american war machine!

If we use these standards to justify the poor treatment / killing of others we cannot be surprised when they apply the same logic to us!! Which they DO. Thats the krux of jihad, that there are no noncombatants and that anything is justifiable if it serves the cause.

I just hate to see us using the same logic. Not the best lesson we could have learned from these people!

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:49 PM
You just proved my point. It is not the ethnicity, or the citizenry, every life is equal. It is the cause or as you say, "the person's actions".
OK, so now you're cool with us bombing our enemies?

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 10:50 PM
Hey BM, good to see you. Been a while:hug:


I don't think Jesus will put him in prison when he returns. I think he will just kill him and be done with it.

Possibly. However you evaded the question. Would Jesus torture a man stapped to a table to get information to save american lives? Yes or no.

Or, if you prefer, would you do it if jesus was there, manifest, in the room with you.

Fenris
Feb 28th 2008, 10:52 PM
No. He does'nt. Not so I've heard. anyways...




What i'm trying to say is that in an earlier post you implied that the lives of german civilians had less value than the lives of US civilians because they of their tacit support for a war machine trying to kill US civilians.Yes, and so?


By that logic (which i beleive is fallacious) we could equally say that the US lives which might be saved by torture are of lesser value (to, say, an islamic extremist) because of their tacit support for the american war machine!This makes no sense. Sorry.


If we use these standards to justify the poor treatment / killing of others we cannot be surprised when they apply the same logic to us!! Which they DO. Thats the krux of jihad, that there are no noncombatants and that anything is justifiable if it serves the cause.They are already doing it, regardless of our actions. And I'm not saying that we emulate them, only that we do what we must to safeguard our lives. This is the most moral stance.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 10:53 PM
Hey BM, good to see you. Been a while:hug:

You too buddy. ;)


Possibly. However you evaded the question. Would Jesus torture a man stapped to a table to get information to save american lives? Yes or no.

Or, if you prefer, would you do it if jesus was there, manifest, in the room with you.
All you gotta do to see what Jesus would or would not do is look into the NT or the OT. Both reveal exactly who God is and what he does or does not approve of. I don't find evidence in scripture to support torture. But I sure find evidence to bomb or kill those in cities or countries that are at war. Joshua was commanded to move people out of Canaan. Saul was told to wipe out the Amalekites. If the US would do that, there wouldn't be any need for torture would there? ;)

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 11:00 PM
Saul was told to wipe out the Amalekites. If the US would do that, there wouldn't be any need for torture would there? ;)

Well thats a novel solution. Avoid the need for torture... with nuclear weapons:lol:.
You're teasing me now.

But you still evaded the question. A yes or no will be fine (one per question, would Jesus? would you if jesus was in the room?).

Glad you brought up scripture though.

Matt 5
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

Note the lack of the words "when expediant" or "unless threatened" in this passage.

Of course if prisoners were NOT tortured innocent civilians might well suffer, in which case :-

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Peace Bro:hug:

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 11:10 PM
Well thats a novel solution. Avoid the need for torture... with nuclear weapons:lol:.
You're teasing me now.

Yes, I was teasing. But also partly serious. ;)


But you still evaded the question. A yes or no will be fine (one per question, would Jesus? would you if jesus was in the room?).

Sorry. I thought i answered. I don't believe Jesus would torture a human being for information. Though he will torture them in hell.

However, I am serious about the whole wiping them out thing. If we just destroyed a group of people that attacked us, there would be no need for torture. That was God's advice to Saul and to Joshua. Of course, for Joshua, he simply had to dispossess the land. No need to destroy those that were willing to leave.



Glad you brought up scripture though.

Matt 5
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

Note the lack of the words "when expediant" or "unless threatened" in this passage.Great verses for an individual to live by. However, this is not addressed to government. Would you suggest that we just do away with prisons and let all prisoners go free so we can be merciful?


Of course if prisoners were NOT tortured innocent civilians might well suffer, in which case :-

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Peace Bro:hug:Again, great verses for individuals but not aimed at governments. As for me, I tend to think prison itself is torture.

Here's one on government

Rom 13:1-7

13 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
NASB

Government acts as an avenger for God. God ordained government to wield the sword of his wrath. For this reason, evil doers should fear. As for me, in my capacity as an individual believer, I am to turn the other cheek, and not do a thing. But authority is to take up the sword and expunge evil that would come against me, the one God put under their protection.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 28th 2008, 11:22 PM
For example, you don't kill a German in the streets of New York just because he is a German by ethnicity, even during WWII. That would be a crime. The German life has got the same value as that of the Americans.

You took this out of context.

When he said we bombed German civilians, he was speaking of the bombing campaigns in the industrial heart of Germany. These factories were producing weapons, tanks, and ammunition. They were manned by civilian workers, not the Wehrmacht.

What you suggest is something completely different. I place less value on the life of someone who is trying to kill me, or others who I have sworn to protect. I have no problem snatching the life from someone if they are unable to behave.

A Seeker
Feb 28th 2008, 11:25 PM
I've missed you mark.


Great verses for an individual to live by. However, this is not addressed to government.

I beleive we've run around this particular stump before on more than one occasion.

Firstly, the sermon on the mount does not specify WHO it was addressed to.

Secondly governments are made up of individuals. How can one separate individual morality from corperate?

Thirdly i would hate to go up in front of st peter and try to explain my actions by saying "i was acting on behalf of the government". Because i doubt the response would be "were you now? well thats alright then."

Since the germans came up i might mention that that particular excuse went over rather badly at neuremburg. Were those courts wrong to condemn the people who followed orders?

Thirdly the Pauline passage is not addressed to governments. It is addressed to individuals telling them what to expect from governments. We may extrapolate that paul is sympathetic to those governments but that is subtley different.

And where does that argument leave us? What, for instance, are we to say of bad governments? Was Adolf hitler "a minister of God" When Christians hid jews from persecution and death do you contend that god condemned them for it? "he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" Seems a bit harsh!

Like i say we've been round this one before. I doubt we will ever agree!

I'm turning in now. its 11:24 and i'm tired and the police will be around in a minute to do me for "resisting A rest"

Catch you later.

Brother Mark
Feb 28th 2008, 11:32 PM
I've missed you mark.


I beleive we've run around this particular stump before on more than one occasion.

Firstly, the sermon on the mount does not specify WHO it was addressed to.

Secondly governments are made up of individuals. How can one separate individual morality from corperate?

Thirdly i would hate to go up in front of st peter and try to explain my actions by saying "i was acting on behalf of the government". Because i doubt the response would be "were you now? well thats alright then."

Since the germans came up i might mention that that particular excuse went over rather badly at neuremburg. Were those courts wrong to condemn the people who followed orders?

Thirdly the Pauline passage is not addressed to governments. It is addressed to individuals telling them what to expect from governments. We may extrapolate that paul is sympathetic to those governments but that is subtley different.

And where does that argument leave us? What, for instance, are we to say of bad governments? Was Adolf hitler "a minister of God" When Christians hid jews from persecution and death do you contend that god condemned them for it? "he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" Seems a bit harsh!

Like i say we've been round this one before. I doubt we will ever agree!

I'm turning in now. its 11:24 and i'm tired and the police will be around in a minute to do me for "resisting A rest"

Catch you later.



Did Joshua keep all law? You know ole Saul had the kingdom snatched away by God because he didn't destroy the Amalekites. Jesus and God are the same. Since God commanded the destruction through government, it doesn't mean that we are not to love our enemies. Just things to think about. Jesus loves his, but they will go to hell if they don't repent.

Get you some rest my friend. We probably won't ever agree on this one either. But as always, your tone is wonderful.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 28th 2008, 11:32 PM
Since the germans came up i might mention that that particular excuse went over rather badly at neuremburg. Were those courts wrong to condemn the people who followed orders?I think the major distinction is what those orders were. Yes?

To contrast. American soldiers are brow-beated into terror at firing their weapons. Soldiers are afraid to fire, the ROE is against them, and if someone 8,000 miles doesn't like the way Spc Jones handled a situation that required .0005 of a second's thought, then Spc Jones life is ruined. Soldiers are put on trial and found guilty. Everytime I hear this nonsense about condoning attacks on civilians and whatnot makes me cringe inside because it's as far from the truth as possible.

*edit*

Just as the Nuremburg dudes were guilty for following orders, so to have many soldiers and marines been found guilty of wrong-doing, many of them following orders.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 12:40 AM
OK, so now you're cool with us bombing our enemies?
I think you missed a part of my post #19, which says:
One cause seem to have a greater value than the other.'SEEM' being the key word.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 12:42 AM
What we're speaking about is really just a moral relativity argument, then. This is a circular argument from both sides, we should just agree to disagree.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 12:52 AM
You took this out of context.

When he said we bombed German civilians, he was speaking of the bombing campaigns in the industrial heart of Germany. These factories were producing weapons, tanks, and ammunition. They were manned by civilian workers, not the Wehrmacht. What you suggest is something completely different. it was completely in context to my conversation with Fenris.


I place less value on the life of someone who is trying to kill me, or others who I have sworn to protect. I have no problem snatching the life from someone if they are unable to behave.What you have stated is your opinion. I am alright with differences of opinion. But this is what Jesus did and say according to Matthew 26 verses 50 - 52:

Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 03:30 AM
it was completely in context to my conversation with Fenris.



No it wasn't. You were talking about murdering someone completely out of the situation, he was talking about death as a result of attacking infrastructure and personnel directly supporting a war effort. They're completely different. The fact that you used the word "German" in your sentence doesn't mean it's in context, further, you attempted to change the focal point of the discussion in an attempt to make Fenris appear to be bigoted by turning it into a discussion based on cultural and ethnic identity.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 03:45 AM
No it wasn't. You were talking about murdering someone completely out of the situation, he was talking about death as a result of attacking infrastructure and personnel directly supporting a war effort. They're completely different. The fact that you used the word "German" in your sentence doesn't mean it's in context, further, you attempted to change the focal point of the discussion in an attempt to make Fenris appear to be bigoted by turning it into a discussion based on cultural and ethnic identity.Please refer to post #15. Fenris did not only speak about "death as a result of attacking infrastructure and personnel directly supporting a war effort", but also about German civilians. And when Fenris replied to my original post in post #21, he did not make any claim that it was out of context, because it was not and he know it. Fenris is certainly a smart enough man to know when someone is out of context, or is attempting to make him look bigoted. He certainly does not need you to pick up his fight for him.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 29th 2008, 04:06 AM
In world war 2 we bombed Germany and killed German civilians.
I know what he said. Who do you think worked the factories that we bombed? Civilians. Please refer to history.

*edit*

Also, refer to post #21 where he does state it's out of context, though not using those particular words:


That's because the German in NY isn't supporting a war machine that is trying to kill you. It isn't the ethnicity that's the problem; it's the person's actions.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 06:00 PM
I know what he said. Who do you think worked the factories that we bombed? Civilians. Please refer to history.

*edit*

Also, refer to post #21 where he does state it's out of context, though not using those particular words:It is you who have inserted the 'out of context' phrase. I knew and Fenris knew that it was not out of context or bigoted in any sense. because we were discussing about the sanctity of one single life, despite citizenry and ethnicity.

Fenris
Feb 29th 2008, 06:35 PM
because we were discussing about the sanctity of one single life, despite citizenry and ethnicity.
If we don't bomb our enemies, we are saying that their lives are more valuable than ours. And we have no right to make that judgment.

ravi4u2
Feb 29th 2008, 09:49 PM
If we don't bomb our enemies, we are saying that their lives are more valuable than ours. And we have no right to make that judgment.Now, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that matter itself is subjective. And since you are not a follower of Christ, I won't even bother discussing it from that perspective. Thank you for the discussion.;)

ProjectPeter
Mar 1st 2008, 04:12 PM
Gotta love Alex Jones and the Black Helicopter Boys! :lol:

StarscreamX-2
Mar 6th 2008, 01:24 AM
Two questions:

1. Are you a follower of Christ? And if you are:

2. Which is the country you are a citizen of?

1. Yes
2. USA


sorry for the wait.

ravi4u2
Mar 6th 2008, 05:46 AM
1. Yes
2. USA


sorry for the wait.
Well, if you are a follower of Christ, then Paul says that "our citizenship is in heaven" and Peter says that we are "aliens and strangers", to the things of the world. Paul only exercised his Roman citizenship, when it would clearly further the cause of His actual citizenship in Heaven.

StarscreamX-2
Mar 6th 2008, 06:43 AM
Neat,

Thanks, good answer.....


Um, your wrong, Um, i'm right.

Internet debate over. Been in this discussion before.


I love my Creator far more than my country, but seening as im not Home yet, ill do my best to make sure a Islamic Terrorist wont kill us all because we love Christ and not and imaginary god named allah.

Eric.

Matthew
Mar 6th 2008, 11:45 PM
Neat,

Thanks, good answer.....


Um, your wrong, Um, i'm right.

Internet debate over. Been in this discussion before.


I love my Creator far more than my country, but seening as im not Home yet, ill do my best to make sure a Islamic Terrorist wont kill us all because we love Christ and not and imaginary god named allah.

Eric.

This thread would go much more smoothly if you would just admit that America is evil and accept Alex Jones' drivel as gospel.

theabaud
Mar 7th 2008, 02:01 AM
Well, if you are a follower of Christ, then Paul says that "our citizenship is in heaven" and Peter says that we are "aliens and strangers", to the things of the world. Paul only exercised his Roman citizenship, when it would clearly further the cause of His actual citizenship in Heaven.

Wow, a loaded question to attack a person claiming to be a Christian. How about we stick to the merits of arguments without attacking folks. Nice. People who resort to such things cannot stand on their ideas or their authority and completely dismantle themselves in the eyes of anyone who is serious about a discussion.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2008, 02:35 AM
There is a baryon particle bomb set to annihilates a world 7.5 billion people. The only way to save the world requires torturing the only man who knows the disarm code for the bomb. In torturing this man you know that he is unsaved and won't be going to Heaven. He is innocent except for the fact that he was given the disarm code subliminally and cannot recall it. You know that this man will undergo the most painful torture of the last 19 centuries.

This man doesn't remember the code and must be tortured to the point of death before he can recall it.

Who wants to play hypotheticals?

MikeAD
Mar 7th 2008, 02:38 AM
There is a baryon particle bomb set to annihilates a world 7.5 billion people. The only way to save the world requires torturing the only man who knows the disarm code for the bomb. In torturing this man you know that he is unsaved and won't be going to Heaven. He is innocent except for the fact that he was given the disarm code for the bomb by the terrorist leader seconds before that terrorist leader was shot, and was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know that this man will undergo the most painful torture of the last 19 centuries.

This man doesn't remember the code and must be tortured to the point of death before he can recall it.

Who wants to play hypotheticals?

Let's not start that. Theres 100s of books and a million pages written on these hypothetical situations. They don't accomplish much. Nobody is going to change their views.

MikeAD
Mar 7th 2008, 05:41 AM
This thread would go much more smoothly if you would just admit that America is evil and accept Alex Jones' drivel as gospel.

Lou Dobbs was on the Jones' Report today.

Hes getting more and more "mainstream" guests everyday.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2008, 06:04 AM
Let's not start that. Theres 100s of books and a million pages written on these hypothetical situations. They don't accomplish much. Nobody is going to change their views.

If only the situation were really that far fetched. . . . I didn't say we had to play hypothetical situations. I mean, I personally find it a lot easier to witness to one person than to 7.5 billion in the same time frame.

Matthew
Mar 7th 2008, 07:44 PM
Lou Dobbs was on the Jones' Report today.

Hes getting more and more "mainstream" guests everyday.

Which is scary, because he's an absolute nut.

ravi4u2
Mar 7th 2008, 09:44 PM
Wow, a loaded question to attack a person claiming to be a Christian. How about we stick to the merits of arguments without attacking folks. Nice. People who resort to such things cannot stand on their ideas or their authority and completely dismantle themselves in the eyes of anyone who is serious about a discussion.Can you show me the attack part?

EarlyCall
Mar 8th 2008, 12:44 AM
In war, there is by necessity the devaluing of human life. When a nation is faced by another nation that has waged war upon it, that nation must devalue the enemies life. It must wage war with direct intent to kill as many of the enemy as it must, it must destroy as much of the enemies way of life and its ability to continue to wage war. It must do this until the enemy, the agressor can no longer wage war.

This is what war is. War is not a game and it is not pretend.

At the same time, the nation defending itself from the agressor has elevated the lives of its own citizens to the greatest level it possibly can. It does so because it is defending its citizens from those that would kill them, destroy their way of life and all that is dear to them.

So you have both happening at the same time.

Likewise, the nation that wages war without just cause has decided that the lives of its citizens are more valuable than those of the ones upon whom they wage war. However, at the same time they have also devalued those very same lives. How so? Because those serving at the command of the government must be put in harms way and the citizenry themselves may very well become the front lines at some point.

Finally, both nations, the agressor and the one defending itself must by necessity devalue human life, both their own and that of the enemy they face by waging war. They do so for different reasons, but both know that many will die and must die in order to carry out the end goal; for one that is to deprive the other and for the one it is to defend.

War has always been and always will be until Christ puts an end to it. That is sinful man's lot. God is both not unaware of this nor ignorant of it nor does God pretend it is not so.

War demands the value of life both be put on hold and be put to the test, both devalued and elevated above normal times. Those trying to simplify war by trite platitudes do both reality and reason a disservice.

God created a reality for man, man threw much of that reality out the window and demanded a different reality. This happened in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, God has never denied the reality we live in.

God Himself went to war for the Jews when they followed and obeyed Him. God Himself took the lives of the enemies of the Jews, whether it was through the hands of the Jews or by the very hand of God Himself - it matters not - God did it. And God demanded He be given the glory for it!

God utterly wiped out the whole of the human race except for Noah and his family. When Christ returns, His first act will be to kill those that would wage war upon Him. At the end of His thousand year reign, He will once more kill those that would wage war against Him.

If we are going to talk about the value of human life, let's do it in the context of reality and you can find that in the word of God as well. But let's not play pretend and try and claim the value of human life takes precedence over reality at all costs and in all situations. It does not. It does not and God never denies this and His word verifies it.

ravi4u2
Mar 8th 2008, 04:54 AM
In war, there is by necessity the devaluing of human life. When a nation is faced by another nation that has waged war upon it, that nation must devalue the enemies life. It must wage war with direct intent to kill as many of the enemy as it must, it must destroy as much of the enemies way of life and its ability to continue to wage war. It must do this until the enemy, the agressor can no longer wage war.

This is what war is. War is not a game and it is not pretend.

At the same time, the nation defending itself from the agressor has elevated the lives of its own citizens to the greatest level it possibly can. It does so because it is defending its citizens from those that would kill them, destroy their way of life and all that is dear to them.

So you have both happening at the same time.

Likewise, the nation that wages war without just cause has decided that the lives of its citizens are more valuable than those of the ones upon whom they wage war. However, at the same time they have also devalued those very same lives. How so? Because those serving at the command of the government must be put in harms way and the citizenry themselves may very well become the front lines at some point.

Finally, both nations, the agressor and the one defending itself must by necessity devalue human life, both their own and that of the enemy they face by waging war. They do so for different reasons, but both know that many will die and must die in order to carry out the end goal; for one that is to deprive the other and for the one it is to defend.

War has always been and always will be until Christ puts an end to it. That is sinful man's lot. God is both not unaware of this nor ignorant of it nor does God pretend it is not so.

War demands the value of life both be put on hold and be put to the test, both devalued and elevated above normal times. Those trying to simplify war by trite platitudes do both reality and reason a disservice.

God created a reality for man, man threw much of that reality out the window and demanded a different reality. This happened in the Garden of Eden. Since that time, God has never denied the reality we live in.

God Himself went to war for the Jews when they followed and obeyed Him. God Himself took the lives of the enemies of the Jews, whether it was through the hands of the Jews or by the very hand of God Himself - it matters not - God did it. And God demanded He be given the glory for it!

God utterly wiped out the whole of the human race except for Noah and his family. When Christ returns, His first act will be to kill those that would wage war upon Him. At the end of His thousand year reign, He will once more kill those that would wage war against Him.

If we are going to talk about the value of human life, let's do it in the context of reality and you can find that in the word of God as well. But let's not play pretend and try and claim the value of human life takes precedence over reality at all costs and in all situations. It does not. It does not and God never denies this and His word verifies it.Reality of War to one is Illusion of Peace to Another...

EarlyCall
Mar 8th 2008, 11:42 AM
Reality of War to one is Illusion of Peace to Another...

I wonder if you could supply an example of such a situation and explain how and why it is so. Then if you would please, contrast that with an example of where both parties, minimum requirement for war, do not suffer from any illusions and finally contrast the two.

I think that would be great.

ravi4u2
Mar 8th 2008, 06:11 PM
I wonder if you could supply an example of such a situation and explain how and why it is so. Then if you would please, contrast that with an example of where both parties, minimum requirement for war, do not suffer from any illusions and finally contrast the two.

I think that would be great.The article: Iraq: Christian Minority Seeks Haven From Violence (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/40228640-c96c-4881-bb37-375bd1346efc.html) found in Radio Free Liberty, best sums up your queries.

PyrK
Mar 8th 2008, 07:39 PM
Jesus had told his disciples to purchase swords in defense (Luke 22:35-38).

Jesus was not a pacifist. He commanded us to resolve petty arguments amongst neighbors and friends with kindness; however, he never called for us to roll over and allow our friends to die.

It's against his Jewish tradition, and it contradicts his orders to purchase swords.

Jesus was not a pacifist, and if someone comes into my house with evil desires, I will be forced to protect myself by any means available.

Same goes for my country. If there is someone on the side of the enemy (the same enemy who orchestrated the murder of thousands of US Civilians [the innocent]) that came into my home, I will uproot them and remove them.

If they are so lucky as to have potential information that I could use to further protect myself, I most certainly will use every available means possible to obtain that information and use it.

We are not slaughtering the enemy for revenge, we are capturing them and putting them in a place that they can not cause us harm.

For you to say that I am not to buy a sword in my house and families defense, or to treat the one who wills my death with a kiss and a care-package home is outrageous.

I understand the points you are trying to make, and it simply comes down to this: You do not believe that we are in any danger. You do not believe that we have an enemy that wants to kill us. You do not believe that 9/11 was an act of unbridled evil. You believe that the US somehow deserved it. You believe that the US had it coming.

Either that, or you believe Jesus was a pacifist, which he was not.

So what do you believe? Let's just get to the root of it so we can pull it out and bring you back to the reality that we live in, friend.

ravi4u2
Mar 8th 2008, 08:23 PM
Jesus had told his disciples to purchase swords in defense (Luke 22:35-38).

Jesus was not a pacifist. He commanded us to resolve petty arguments amongst neighbors and friends with kindness; however, he never called for us to roll over and allow our friends to die.

It's against his Jewish tradition, and it contradicts his orders to purchase swords.

Jesus was not a pacifist, and if someone comes into my house with evil desires, I will be forced to protect myself by any means available.

Same goes for my country. If there is someone on the side of the enemy (the same enemy who orchestrated the murder of thousands of US Civilians [the innocent]) that came into my home, I will uproot them and remove them.

If they are so lucky as to have potential information that I could use to further protect myself, I most certainly will use every available means possible to obtain that information and use it.

We are not slaughtering the enemy for revenge, we are capturing them and putting them in a place that they can not cause us harm.

For you to say that I am not to buy a sword in my house and families defense, or to treat the one who wills my death with a kiss and a care-package home is outrageous.

I understand the points you are trying to make, and it simply comes down to this: You do not believe that we are in any danger. You do not believe that we have an enemy that wants to kill us. You do not believe that 9/11 was an act of unbridled evil. You believe that the US somehow deserved it. You believe that the US had it coming.

Either that, or you believe Jesus was a pacifist, which he was not.

So what do you believe? Let's just get to the root of it so we can pull it out and bring you back to the reality that we live in, friend.I will not comment on the rest of the post, but this:
Jesus had told his disciples to purchase swords in defense (Luke 22:35-38).for the rest is your opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

We understand the meaning of Luke 22 verses 35 - 38, not when we read it in isolation, but when it is read in context.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

And finally, Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." In context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?

The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the Apostles nonaggression, so Luke 22:36 does not permit violence. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples’ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope.

So, was Jesus a pacifist? Most certainly not! He was a provocateur of the highest order. But He certainly did not employ provocative measures of the world!

EarlyCall
Mar 8th 2008, 10:42 PM
The article: Iraq: Christian Minority Seeks Haven From Violence (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/40228640-c96c-4881-bb37-375bd1346efc.html) found in Radio Free Liberty, best sums up your queries.

My first post was not to you but to the thread. You responded with what I mentioned in my first post, I think proving my point about trite platitudes.

My second post was to you as I responded to your response to my first post. And you give me a link to I assume an article about the war in Iraq.

I made no mention of Iraq but spoke of war. I believe it is safe to make the claim that the war in Iraq did not define war nor did it redefine war.

If you have a problem with the war in Iraq, please save it as it has nothing to do with my post.

I gave you the opportunity to support the one-liner response and you failed to do so as I have explained.

Now it may have escaped your notice, but I put thought into my post supported by example, logic and reasoning. That any of my examples, logic or reasoning may be flawed is hardly the issue. The issue is that I did it. And you did not afford me the courtesy in kind.

When you can do so, respond in kind with the same thoughtfulness, we can engage in further discussion. Short of that, I will not do so further with you.

ravi4u2
Mar 8th 2008, 11:44 PM
My first post was not to you but to the thread. You responded with what I mentioned in my first post, I think proving my point about trite platitudes.

My second post was to you as I responded to your response to my first post. And you give me a link to I assume an article about the war in Iraq.

I made no mention of Iraq but spoke of war. I believe it is safe to make the claim that the war in Iraq did not define war nor did it redefine war.

If you have a problem with the war in Iraq, please save it as it has nothing to do with my post.

I gave you the opportunity to support the one-liner response and you failed to do so as I have explained.

Now it may have escaped your notice, but I put thought into my post supported by example, logic and reasoning. That any of my examples, logic or reasoning may be flawed is hardly the issue. The issue is that I did it. And you did not afford me the courtesy in kind.

When you can do so, respond in kind with the same thoughtfulness, we can engage in further discussion. Short of that, I will not do so further with you.I am sorry you felt that way. I did not take issue with your first post. I just posted a comment on your post. I am neither for nor against the war on Iraq. I just felt that article addressed the questions you posted to me. For example, part of the article says:

When Saddam Hussein was still in power, the country's estimated 1.2 million Christians lived peacefully side by side with Sunnis and Shi'ites, but after Hussein was arrested, they became a target of violence.Hence, the reality (or necessity) for war has been turned into an illusion of peace for yet others. Whether you respond to my post or not, is your right and prerogative and I have no quarrels with that either...

EarlyCall
Mar 9th 2008, 01:43 AM
I am sorry you felt that way. I did not take issue with your first post. I just posted a comment on your post. I am neither for nor against the war on Iraq. I just felt that article addressed the questions you posted to me. For example, part of the article says:
Hence, the reality (or necessity) for war has been turned into an illusion of peace for yet others. Whether you respond to my post or not, is your right and prerogative and I have no quarrels with that either...

I think we're good now. I appreciate your response here and I thank you for it.

What I was hoping for in your prior responses was more in-depth of your thoughts and why you held them.

But I do thank you for this response and I hope to read more of your thinking on particular issues and that we can engage in good discussion.

PyrK
Mar 13th 2008, 06:30 AM
I will not comment on the rest of the post, but this:for the rest is your opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

We understand the meaning of Luke 22 verses 35 - 38, not when we read it in isolation, but when it is read in context.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

And finally, Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." In context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?

The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the Apostles nonaggression, so Luke 22:36 does not permit violence. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples’ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope.

So, was Jesus a pacifist? Most certainly not! He was a provocateur of the highest order. But He certainly did not employ provocative measures of the world!

Right, still, they purchased swords none-the-less for defense. am-i-rite?

markedward
Mar 13th 2008, 07:05 AM
And if you rebuked me for that I'd say that your morals are backwards, since you value the temporary discomfort of a killer over the lives of innocents.Do evil to one man simply because he does evil to another? As it goes, "two wrongs don't make a right." You are drastically understating what torture is. "Temporary discomfort?" Degradating, humiliating, dehumanizing, and depending on who's doing it, incredibly painful. "Temporary discomfort" is sitting down with your wallet in your back pocket. Torture is being beaten continually, or not being allowed to step off of a box while naked with a hood pulled over your head, or having your mind cave in because you think you're going to drown.

Doing evil to another man who does evil doesn't justify doing evil to begin with. "Do a little evil to accomplish a greater good?" I would rather stand firm to my morals than give into evil even for a short time. We should do what we can to stop evil, but that doesn't justify giving into evil to stop evil.

menJesus
Mar 13th 2008, 08:47 AM
The act of Peter striking the man`s ear is symbolic. Rulers of that day, and their servants, were required to be without blemish or physical perfection. Peter, by doing this, made the statement that the man who accused Jesus was not fit to rule.

I read that somewhere in cyberspace - a commentary or somewhere, while I was looking for something else.

PyrK
Mar 14th 2008, 12:46 AM
The act of Peter striking the man`s ear is symbolic. Rulers of that day, and their servants, were required to be without blemish or physical perfection. Peter, by doing this, made the statement that the man who accused Jesus was not fit to rule.

I read that somewhere in cyberspace - a commentary or somewhere, while I was looking for something else.

I'm not so sure about that ... he cut off the ear of a soldier, not a ruler.

Athanasius
Mar 14th 2008, 12:49 AM
The act of Peter striking the man`s ear is symbolic. Rulers of that day, and their servants, were required to be without blemish or physical perfection. Peter, by doing this, made the statement that the man who accused Jesus was not fit to rule.

I read that somewhere in cyberspace - a commentary or somewhere, while I was looking for something else.

Wouldn't that make the act factual? As I'm in agreement with Pyrk, I believe Peter did strike soldiers ear off. Because if we take the act of cutting it off as signifying that the ruler wasn't fit to rule, then how do we take the act of Jesus healing the soldier?

menJesus
Mar 14th 2008, 12:56 AM
LOL - I knew I`d get in a hard place if I posted that! Let me go look...

menJesus
Mar 14th 2008, 01:00 AM
From: Miracles of Jesus Christ:

What does this reveal about Jesus?

Jesus will even heal his enemies.

Notes & Applications:

This was rather bold of Peter, as they only had two swords among them and Peter was holding one of them. I don't think he was actually trying to win, but rather to die with Jesus. Why did he go after a servant and not a soldier? And why cut off his ear? I think his intention was not to do serious harm, but rather was simply suicidal.

Peter was also known to be impetuous, acting before thinking. He was an action oriented type of guy. He had previously sworn undying devotion to the Lord even to death, as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of Jesus' ultimate mission on the cross.

This is not the original one I read, but there it is. Look it up - I found it on Google.

It may be a good subject for a new thread... ;)

danield
Mar 14th 2008, 02:15 AM
I highly doubt that Peter was aiming for his ear. Think about it. You have a small short sword and you make a striking blow towards the head just to hit an ear? I do not think so. If he wanted to make a less decisive blow, he would have attacked him at his arms or legs but not his head. I think he was trying to defend Christ even if it was a fight to the death, and when he struck at the soldier, the soldier’s agility was quick enough to dodge the blow only for it to land a grazing shot across his ear. I can only imagine when Christ saw this he exclaimed for all to stop and that is why no one else was injured, and the reason Peter did not get taken away to jail is because Christ healed him on the spot and stopped the violence.

As far as torture, I agree with markedward’s post. No need to repeat his thoughts because he has it right IMO.

xSTEADFASTx
Mar 14th 2008, 05:21 PM
Now.. Believing Alex Jones; Is Believing Perry Logan Is A Correct Political Analyst.

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 05:25 PM
Do evil to one man simply because he does evil to another?
No.

Your choice is thus:

1)Put one person in temporary discomfort to save the lives of many others.

or

2)Spare the comfort of one individual who is doing an evil deed, and condemn many innocents to death.

Which is the more moral choice, 1 or 2?

A Seeker
Mar 14th 2008, 07:51 PM
I'm Gonna say 1.

Because
A: Torture is not "temporary discomfort." Its torture.

B: "The ends justify the means" is an argument which can be used to justify almost anything. It relies of us having perfect foresite of the future.

C: Its contravenes the geneva convention.

D: Once you open than pandora's box its awfully hard to close it again.

E: It contravenes the golden rule.

F: I can't see jesus doing it

G: It loses us the moral high ground

H: I Beleive that when the bible said you should do good to those who would do you evil it did not mean "unless they are threatening others".

I: I think the reaction of Jesus to Peter cutting the ear from the soldier shows his policy on the use of violence to defend one you love.

J: I do not beleive in conditional morality.

K: It FEELS wrong


BTW I started a poll on this very issue a while back

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100765

To date we have 14 votes against torture, 6 for and 2 can't decide. I was in the can't decide camp at the time BTW.

Regards
Seeker

Fenris
Mar 14th 2008, 08:52 PM
OK, so that's your feelings.

My feeling is when torture is used under the situation I laid out, it is a holy act. A Godly act. Because it saves lives.

So now you know how I feel.

danield
Mar 14th 2008, 10:02 PM
Your choice is thus:

1)Put one person in temporary discomfort to save the lives of many others.

or

2)Spare the comfort of one individual who is doing an evil deed, and condemn many innocents to death.

Which is the more moral choice, 1 or 2?


Fernis, should we extend these interrogation techniques to the police in the event they come across a hostile action? They have many investigations looking into organized crime, should those people be routinely interrogated by water torture? Under your premise we could see that thought process come to life just as it did under the Gestapo. As you know when they received unquestioned power they abused it completely. Torture is wrong plain and simple. I would much rather give up some privacy rights then allow people try and mimic the sensation of drowning on another individual.

ravi4u2
Mar 15th 2008, 06:35 AM
Right, still, they purchased swords none-the-less for defense. am-i-rite?
Please reread my original reply. The two swords, were meant to portray antagonism, prophecy and symbolism, and very little, or nothing at all to do with defense.

Fenris
Mar 16th 2008, 11:44 AM
Fernis, should we extend these interrogation techniques to the police in the event they come across a hostile action?
Police do not normally come across people planning massive terror attacks. Please reread my scenario.