Church-going folks approve of torture

Church-going folks approve of torture

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on May 1st, 2009, 4:27 am | Religion

A survey on the topic of the week -- government approved torture of suspects -- has found that the more folks go to church, the more they approve of torture. According to the study, 54% of people who attend church at least once a week have no big problem with the idea.

I would have guessed this beforehand. Simply because the majority of people who attend church are very keen on supporting the hierarchical model of community, and they'll approve of most anything their alpha decides to do.

So the fact that most Americans don't approve on this issue may be yet another sign that churches are losing their grip on American thoughts. Hm... :think:

here's one of their billboards:

No true follower of Christ could approve of torture--under any circumstances. So those who call themselves Christians but also say they approve of torture are liars. They are not Christians. They obviously have no idea what Christ stood for.

Questioner wrote:No true follower of Christ could approve of torture--under any circumstances. So those who call themselves Christians but also say they approve of torture are liars. They are not Christians. They obviously have no idea what Christ stood for.

If you listen to certain people, you'd think that Jesus stood for "might makes right." It's a crazy world, yes?

The whole religion is founded on a successful act of torture.

A Person wrote:The whole religion is founded on a successful act of torture.

Ahh.... AP brings up the subject of atheists being willfully ignorant again. I'll pass.

Isiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Sounds like a successful torture to me.

Looks like it too

[youtubevideo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIM5mTRBQIY[/youtubevideo]

Jesus was crucified by every one of us. You are guilty as well.

It happened 1940 years before I was born, so no, I am not guilty by omission or commission of any part of his torture

I am responsible and accountable for my actions, no amount of blood sacrifice and torture of others can change that. I reject the very concept of vicarious redemption of 'sins' by the torture of an innocent. I want no part of it and if that is the only way to satisfy the blood lust of your god, then you are welcome to his company for eternity.

A Person wrote:It happened 1940 years before I was born, so no, I am not guilty by omission or commission of any part of his torture

I am responsible and accountable for my actions, no amount of blood sacrifice and torture of others can change that. I reject the very concept of vicarious redemption of 'sins' by the torture of an innocent. I want no part of it and if that is the only way to satisfy the blood lust of your god, then you are welcome to his company for eternity.

He died for YOU because of what you could not do for yourself. Whether you accept or deny Him (or want no part of it) will not change what was done for you and the reason it was done.

BecauseHeLives wrote:
He died for YOU because of what you could not do for yourself. Whether you accept or deny Him (or want no part of it) will not change what was done for you and the reason it was done.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The whole idea makes no sense. If heaven is supposed to be so much better than earth, and jeebus died to get there... wheres the sacrifice??? :angelic-green:

Sanjuro wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The whole idea makes no sense. If heaven is supposed to be so much better than earth, and jeebus died to get there... wheres the sacrifice???

Dead on Sanjuro. Jesus died for my sins? No...he had a really bad weekend for my sins, then paradise. Plus, if heaven is so shiny, sparkly and no one is sad, someone explain how baby Jesus can cry when one touches their happy bits or says goddammit.

One of the usual responses to the problem of evil, a problem so widely recognised it has its own name [define]Theodicy[/define], is that it is a neccessary product of free-will:

Gotquestions.org wrote:1) God could change everyone’s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

So what happens in Heaven? Is there no free will in Heaven? Or is there evil in Heaven? Why then is it Heaven?

The issue of free will is a big bone of contention. It goes against the very qualities that believers think God has -- omnipotence and omniscience. If God knows everything, then God must know all events, past and future. The fact that the Bible contains "prophecies" indicates that the people who wrote the Bible believed that God had the future mapped out in detail.

That being the case, then not even God could have free will, as he could not take any action that he hadn't known of long ago.

However, our everyday lives are predicated in the notion that we are all free actors in life. If our actions are pre-ordained, then no one is responsible for any event -- only the being that controls an action can be said to be responsible for the action. But who in their right mind would dream of applying this notion of God's omnipotence to its logical conclusion? Not even the most dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist would agree that God is the only responsible party in the universe... and that not even HE has any free will.

Sanjuro wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
He died for YOU because of what you could not do for yourself. Whether you accept or deny Him (or want no part of it) will not change what was done for you and the reason it was done.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The whole idea makes no sense. If heaven is supposed to be so much better than earth, and jeebus died to get there... wheres the sacrifice???

God chose to suffer for us in order that we might be with Him.

His 'choice' puts no obligation on me. But as Sanjuro points out, what is a weekend of torture and coma to an eternal, omnipotent being anyway?

What is obscene is the concept of blood sacrifice that underlies the crucifixion/salvation story. In Leviticus we are told that a blood sacrifice is necessary for atonement.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Rather than just saying "OK guys don't bother with all that blood stuff, I really don't care about the sell of burning flesh. Form here on just repent" God stages the mother of all blood sacrifices - the torture of a God (Himself). Claiming that this sacrifice is necessary because humans are completely incapable of being good enough. The point being, not that God suffered, but that the most valuable thing people could have (a god) was sacrificed by them.

And this from the God whose 'consistency' and 'logic' is upheld as the only valid epistemology.

: chimp_no.gif (27.99 KiB) Viewed 428 times

Questioner wrote:No true follower of Christ could approve of torture--under any circumstances. So those who call themselves Christians but also say they approve of torture are liars. They are not Christians. They obviously have no idea what Christ stood for.

It is heartening to see at least ONE believer stand up and say she disapproves of what our government did here. And sort of telling about the rest of them. Talk about "moral clarity!" :roll:

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
Questioner wrote:No true follower of Christ could approve of torture--under any circumstances. So those who call themselves Christians but also say they approve of torture are liars. They are not Christians. They obviously have no idea what Christ stood for.

It is heartening to see at least ONE believer stand up and say she disapproves of what our government did here. And sort of telling about the rest of them. Talk about "moral clarity!"

The hijacking items above all fail to understand the following facts: Jesus did not torture himself. His followers did not torture him. Nothing about the passion suggests torture is even slightly acceptable to a Christian. A true Christian should have the same reaction to that film clip that I have: getting sick. I specifically did not watch that motion picture because images of people being tortured make me feel outraged, sickened, and depressed, and I prefer to avoid those kinds of feelings whenever possible. I would truly hope any Christian, or indeed, any human being who values decency would recoil in horror and disgust from a crucifixion, or any other typed of torture--including waterboarding.

Jesus stood for love, and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is what Christianity is all about and anyone who rejects that philosophy rejects Christ. The reason for torturing other people is completely, totally and utterly irrelevant. I don't care what "operable intelligence" anybody gets from torture. I don't care about these spurious claims that the torture "led to intelligence that saved thousands of lives". That is like justifying the Aztecs murdering people to propitiate the gods. "It is ok to kill children and captives so that our society will look good to the gods and they will not rain devastating natural events upon us"....Any one of you guys out there buy that reasoning for human sacrifice? Because if you approve of the torture Bush and Cheney approved, then you are approving of exactly the same morals and logic.

And it's not even effective

Ali Soufan FBI Agent wrote:These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)

Yeah, I know Cheney claims it's essential but...

You got it, A Person! Dick Cheney has proven himself the biggest liar of the 21st century (so far). There is little question he is an evil man would have felt right at home in the 3rd Reich.