Moderators Bravus Posted January 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 26, 2011 Originally Posted By: Bravus Couple of things there: 1. You keep reducing American torture to just waterboarding, and that's very dishonest. Far worse things happened at Abu Ghraib, and far worse things happened at Guantanamo Bay. Far worse than waterboarding? Name a couple of documented examples. Is humiliating a POW in front of prison guards now become the equivelent of sawing off a non combatant's head with a knife? This kind of distorted rhetoric renders real torture innocuous.And American torture??What's American torture?? American torture is torture committed by Americans. There are many examples, of which I'll bring a few. And bringing in torture by others is yet another diversionary tactic. America claims to be *better* than others. It needs to show it. Else why not regime change for America? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 We know that Saddam was succeeding in getting sanctions lifted by bribing members of the Security Council. We also know that he had plans to use terrorists to attack the US on US soil with WMDs. We also know he had some WMDs because we found them in small quantities. We know he had plans to resume his WMD program once he got sanctions lifted. We also know that he tried to assassinate the first President Bush. We know that he shot American unmanned planes out of the no-fly zone. I think it is quite obvious that the world is a better place because he was removed from power. The case may be made that Iraq is not a better place but most certainly the world is better off without him. All the pain and suffering brought on by that war could have been avoided by Saddam. He is to blame. The US acted reasonably and honorably. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 26, 2011 This goes well beyond 'humiliation', Doug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse As does this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa And don't even think about getting into a 'who tortures worse' competition. What did Jesus do? Can you see Jesus doing any of these things? If not, how on earth can you justify them? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 But it's not perfect. And it's when it pretends to be perfect that it is at its worse. It's when, instead of acknolwedging its worst actions and choices and resolving to do better, it embraces and defends them, that it's at its worst. This is,at best, a misleading portrayal of facts.If America pretended to be perfect it would not have disciplined publically those who perpetrated the very things you called evil. Nor would have policies forbiding them.It is easy to sit in a safe and protected world and snipe at those who are actually faced with the responsibility of protecting the lives and welfare of millions of their citizens. 20/20 hindsight always seems to clear away the fog of war. And as W.T.Sherman once noted,"War is hell".If waterboarding would save the life of one innocent person(do you think that it was done for fun?) would it be worth it? What the U.S. has done, unlike any other country is history,is to attempt to lessen the hellish consequences of any war both to it's own people and the innocents among their enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 26, 2011 Let me ask you this...What is your decision? Originally Posted By: Gordon1 John, This is the time to either act like the world, or act like Christ. But our decision must be rooted well in advance. What would you do under the circumstances I described? Let us suppose that the terrorists have a nuclear weapon that is set to detonate at 12:00 AM Sunday. The police have captured one suspect who is known to be in the group. They ask him to please give out his information as to the location of the bomb. He refuses to talk. If you don't get the information out of him, millions will die. If you water-board him, you will save those millions of lives. If not, they are certain to be blown to bits. What do you do? We know that by water-boarding some of the terrorists, we actually saved lives by knowing ahead of time what their plans of attack were in time to stop them. (No one has died from water-boarding.) The Bible teaches that governments have a responsibility to punish evil. So we cannot expect or demand that governments always do what we personally would choose to do. I wouldn't choose to take up a weapon and kill someone, but there are times when police and the military must do it. Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hi John. It's not necessary to fabricate hypothetical crises and demand answers like a Dominican. Leave that to Bonnie if she will not humble herself and see the light. If you promote the pre-emptive strike doctrine, you're supporting a very Jesuit position - "the end justifies the means". This in turn justifies anarchy & chaos, where God looks instead for those who will turn the other cheek, love their enemies, bind the wounds and promote the Kingdom. How can God's professed people justify torture? Because the Jewish church also justified the torture of Christ, with lashes, thorns and crucifixion. He was a 'wrongdoer', a 'malefactor'. They thought they were fulfilling God's purpose, as you quote in Romans 13. They were holy in their own eyes. We are called to come of that thinking John. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4) There is no justification for breaking God's Law. Our entire purpose is to uphold and fulfill the Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hi John, in your nuclear weapon scenario, have you considered how Christ would act? This is all we need to know. My own choice is meaningless. I am dust but Christ is King. I doubt you can provide evidence that no one has died from water-boarding. Asphyxiation is a life-threatening state. I would not wish it on anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Quote: Hi John. It's not necessary to fabricate hypothetical crises and demand answers like a Dominican. Leave that to Bonnie if she will not humble herself and see the light. If you promote the pre-emptive strike doctrine, you're supporting a very Jesuit position - "the end justifies the means". If seeing the light is seeing it threw your eyes,no thanks. You have not been placed in a position to judge everyone by your bitter negative posts. Everything is Jesuits, and conspiracies .Everyone must see that or someehow is judged by you to be unchristian Sorry if you are looking for humble meaning I believe you are the right way of thinking you couldn't possibly live that long. {quote]There is no justification for breaking God's Law. Our entire purpose is to uphold and fulfill the Law. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Prior to the invasion President Putin of Russia called President Bush and told him that Russian Intelligence has uncovered a plot of Saddam to use terrorists and WMDS to attack the US on US soil. What would any reasonable US President do with that information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 26, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hi John, in your nuclear weapon scenario, have you considered how Christ would act? This is all we need to know. But does the Bible teach that the governmenbts of this world must or should act as Christ would act? Christ's teaching are meant for individual believers, not for governments. Governments may be-- and should be-- influenced by the Christians in the society, but the governments themselves are not converted or born-again. They represent all people, including atheists. They must also deal with an evil, dangerous world, which is why their first responsibility is to enforce the law and defend their citizens against lawlessness and violence. That is what Romans 13 is saying. "Rulers are a terror to evil... he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil..." The church and Christian believers are not to be a terror to evil, nor are believers God's ministeter or avenger to execute wrath on evil people, but the government is. Governments should act justly, but what is just in the case of the government is not necessarily what is just for individuals to do. For example, it would never be right for me as an individual to go to someone's house and order them to come out with their hands up, but it is obvious that it is sometimes right for governments to do this. Therefore it is unbiblical and unreasonable to ask or expect the government to always act as Christ would act. The government or the state has responsibilities that Christ never had and that believers don't have. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 John, let Cesar take care of his business. We are not called to be in that business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 NO it's Not!! You were referred to as a plausible Dominican. I think you're making progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 For example, it would never be right for me as an individual to go to someone's house and order them to come out with their hands up, Unless, of course,the house belonged to one of your parishioners and you were a Pentecostal pastor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 John, let Cesar take care of his business. We are not called to be in that business. Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Again' date=' coming back to the hostage situation. If your family is dead during the process of showering the house with bullets to remove the bad guy... would you blame the bad guy and praise the "heroism" of the cops? There's nothing heroic about bombing the hell out of the country to remove one bad guy. I don't care how bad he is. quote']#1)the U.S. has never bombed any country in order to remove one bad guy!!#2)If a country had the hell bombed out of them wouldn't that render them a nicer,kinder people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 27, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 27, 2011 John, let Cesar take care of his business. We are not called to be in that business. Do you believe that SDAs shouldn't particupate in their govenment. Would it be wrong for an SDA to be a member of Congress or the Senate, for instance? Or a policeman or judge? The Bible doesn't teach this. Joseph had an imporant part of the government of Egypt, and Daniel was active in the government of Babylon. There's no indication in the Bible that it is wrong for Christians to take part in the government of their nation. It seems to me that is part of what it means to be "the salt of the earth." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 How about reasonably evaluate the possibility of such things happening??? Especially when the source is Russia. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 "I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today,might become both almost and altogether such as I am,EXCEPT for these chains." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 27, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 27, 2011 I really don't buy the "He was a bad guy" motive. It's silly in light of US history of installing, tolerating, and providing aid to "bad guys" world wide. Think Suharto, Shah of Iran, General Noriega, "Papa Doc" Duvalier. These are just few of the regimes that were were tolerated and aided by the US. Sorry, "Saddam was a bad guy" argument does not fly in light of that history. No one has ever claimed that the US should remove all "bad guys." But Saddam was not your ordinary "bad guy." You have to consider the context of when it occurred and where it happened: in the Mideast. It's a very relevant fact that Saddam invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, and refused the leave. I'm glad Saddam is gone and that the Iraqi people have a better, more democratic government. Most Iraqis are also glad. The world is better off-- and safer-- without him and his sons. They deserved what they got. They got justice which they often denied to others. It is a perfect example of the meaning of Romans 13: 1-7, particularly the verse that speaks of the government as "God's minister to execute wrath on him who practices evil." If anyone practiced evil, Saddam and his sons did. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted January 27, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 27, 2011 Hi John. It's not necessary to fabricate hypothetical crises and demand answers like a Dominican. Please explain how my question is like a Dominican. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon1 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Hi John, I believe we're at the end of time. If others want to join the world they will find themselves in a corner. This is no time to be drawing compromise and walking close to the edge. The Day of Atonement is for fasting and praying, for reigning in appetite. Joseph and Daniel were both prisoners of foreign governments, but did their best to honour God. I do not believe they taught or practiced torture. Daniel was abstemious in face of excess and Joseph was chaste when tempted with seduction. Nor have I read Biblical injunction (New testament) to enter civil or military service. Does EGW promote this? I've not seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.