The torture would have been maybe YOUR family getting blown apart in the attack plans they were able to get from any one of the THREE high level terrorist individuals that,unfortunately, had to undergo less than a minute of the water treatment in order to give up the information which then was used to avert several attacks.
Had the information not been gotten and the attacks been carried out, you'd make the complaint that we were unable to stop them, finding a clip with which to revel in your grandiose delusion of superiority. Not to mention if your mother had been blown to bits in one of them. (Then you'd actually have a valid complaint.)

Undoubtedly the new 3.0 interface, and this Faceb...

The torture would have been maybe YOUR family getting blown apart in the attack plans they were able to get from any one of the THREE high level terrorist individuals that,unfortunately, had to undergo less than a minute of the water treatment in order to give up the information which then was used to avert several attacks.
Had the information not been gotten and the attacks been carried out, you'd make the complaint that we were unable to stop them, finding a clip with which to revel in your grandiose delusion of superiority. Not to mention if your mother had been blown to bits in one of them. (Then you'd actually have a valid complaint.)

Undoubtedly the new 3.0 interface, and this Facebook association will bring more favorable "poppers" to such an inane clip, as I don't imagine Facebook is filled with lots of logical thinkers. Worshippers of Hollywood imbeciles, teenagers who don't research the news, and Crooks & Liars readers will pour in here to swarm over your "who would Jesus Torture" type clips with pops galore as few of them know the facts any better than you do.

"Waterboarding will give you a confession, but it won't always get you
the truth," McCain said Tuesday as he campaigned for the Republican
presidential nomination in South Carolina. "I'm not going to condone a
practice that we used as the rationale for prosecuting the Japanese for
war crimes in World War II.

"I maintain my belief that it is harmful to America's national
security because it damages our image so badly and we lose the
ideological struggle, which is based on the moral high ground," said
McCain, an ex-Navy pilot who suffered permanent injuries from the
torture he suffered after being shot down over Hanoi in the 1960s.
"We're going to win this struggle aga...

read more»

"Waterboarding will give you a confession, but it won't always get you
the truth," McCain said Tuesday as he campaigned for the Republican
presidential nomination in South Carolina. "I'm not going to condone a
practice that we used as the rationale for prosecuting the Japanese for
war crimes in World War II.

"I maintain my belief that it is harmful to America's national
security because it damages our image so badly and we lose the
ideological struggle, which is based on the moral high ground," said
McCain, an ex-Navy pilot who suffered permanent injuries from the
torture he suffered after being shot down over Hanoi in the 1960s.
"We're going to win this struggle against radical Islamic extremism on
the ideological battlefield, and if we engage in torture, i.e.
waterboarding, we will lose more than we gain."

Davboz

Now convince me your in a better position to comment on torture then this man. Of course I don,t expect much more then the previous canned comment. Actually I don't expect a response at all. Now when you say family you also mean yourself I'm sure. Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway. Believe or burn in hell. It's fine though, It's common for humans to babble incoherently when confronted with a question they have no intelligent, informed or morally justifiable response to.
Have a nice day and remember, Duck and Cover!

Oh yea, you never did answer the original question. What a shocker.

Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway

I respect John McCain, however his opinion is simply that, funny a far-left guru quoting a Republican to win an argument, guess wonders will never cease.

If Christianity is your best argument over waterboarding let me say its weak as hell. You're naive to say the least, oh you beleive you'd never allow waterboarding, how high and mighty of you. Let's hope you never are faced with a life and death issue, but if so, you would see just how much morals fit into the situation.

I doubt before this became a political issue many would ha...

Self-preservation, I'm ok with that, As Christians go it seems to be the driving force behide your and most other religions anyway

I respect John McCain, however his opinion is simply that, funny a far-left guru quoting a Republican to win an argument, guess wonders will never cease.

If Christianity is your best argument over waterboarding let me say its weak as hell. You're naive to say the least, oh you beleive you'd never allow waterboarding, how high and mighty of you. Let's hope you never are faced with a life and death issue, but if so, you would see just how much morals fit into the situation.

I doubt before this became a political issue many would have minded the waterboarding of terrorists, some of your people in Congress didn't until it became politically correct to do so, it simply goes against the far lefts agenda at this time.

Typical Necon response
The entire lot are self-righteous, blathering hypocrites
those dumb ass documents like the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Welcome to the new Christianity. Or is it The new BS

Typical response of a two-faced hypocrite who dares oppose anything Lord Geshizar has to say, I'd say you are an idiot on top of being a hypocrite, people either beleive your views or you label them right wing hypocrites, right. Real nice coming from a hypocrite pal.

You dismiss anyone's comments who dare disagree and say it's just "Typical Necon respones" and declare them blathering hypocrites. You refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "d...

Typical Necon response
The entire lot are self-righteous, blathering hypocrites
those dumb ass documents like the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Welcome to the new Christianity. Or is it The new BS

Typical response of a two-faced hypocrite who dares oppose anything Lord Geshizar has to say, I'd say you are an idiot on top of being a hypocrite, people either beleive your views or you label them right wing hypocrites, right. Real nice coming from a hypocrite pal.

You dismiss anyone's comments who dare disagree and say it's just "Typical Necon respones" and declare them blathering hypocrites. You refer to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "dumb-ass documents" well that speaks well of your ignorant rantings. You far-left morons preach love of those two documents when it suits your needs or agenda and then shit on it when it does not, hypocracy at it's finest, you're actually nothing more than a pathetic far left lunatic.

My response is all the BS you speak of spills straight from your own mouth and those of your cronnies who are nothing but hate mongers anyway. So have a nice day there you loones.

Ok, I see what your doing here, your trying to excuse torture by equating it with imprisonment or death, which you know are not the same. Talk about playing rhetorical games. The fact that you merely repeat the same thing over, and over and over is designed to obfuscate, knowing full well torture is wrong, only serves to intimidate the innocent and extract false confessions and generally doesn't work. In fact, it is revealing that you use the framework of "punishment" as if somehow anyone would be deserving of torture and that if we merely rationalize that only the "bad guys" are getting tortured then its ok.

Very well then....

Is it right to kill an innocent man?

Or is it right to inc...

Ok, I see what your doing here, your trying to excuse torture by equating it with imprisonment or death, which you know are not the same. Talk about playing rhetorical games. The fact that you merely repeat the same thing over, and over and over is designed to obfuscate, knowing full well torture is wrong, only serves to intimidate the innocent and extract false confessions and generally doesn't work. In fact, it is revealing that you use the framework of "punishment" as if somehow anyone would be deserving of torture and that if we merely rationalize that only the "bad guys" are getting tortured then its ok.

Very well then....

Is it right to kill an innocent man?

Or is it right to incarcerate the wrong person?

And what acts (if any) would justify soiling one hands by purposely inflict pain on others?

Of course if you answer my questions with the same two questions then I know you joined the Willhelm school of nonsensical rhetoric (I know a contradiction in terms, but then The Willhelm's self delusions as powerful enough to make day into night and wrong into right). In which case there is really no reason to belabor the point.

So the floor is yours.....surprise me!

You sound eerily similar to someone else I know on CM.

You too?
I thought I was being over imaginative. Who can beat a ladies
intuition? I was waiting for the trade mark mistakes but they were not
as obvious.

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing
from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did,
to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the
coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless
guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a
virgin maid.

Why aren't the Clip Father's looking into this Righty? I mean, come on. Just like the time someone...

You sound eerily similar to someone else I know on CM.

You too?
I thought I was being over imaginative. Who can beat a ladies
intuition? I was waiting for the trade mark mistakes but they were not
as obvious.

Are you sure? Don't they all sound the same, singing
from the one swiftboat hymn sheet? Like switching from McCain, who did,
to Clinton, who didn't, as diversion but ignoring AWOL Bush, the
coward. Then repeated comments to confuse with a stream of meaningless
guff. Logic is as useful to these headless chickens as balls on a
virgin maid.

Why aren't the Clip Father's looking into this Righty? I mean, come on. Just like the time someone posted comments that had to be removed on my clip then a certain someone was on it like stink on s***. I find that odd.
Just like I find it odd that someone has time to do all this clipping while holding down a full-time job and raising a young family. Been there and done that and I know what that is like. I've just starting working again recently part-time and I've found that I haven't been able to clip as much even though my work hours give me a lot of freedom. But both my girls are grown and my husband helps me out a lot at the home, so that helps.
I also find it odd that someone would claim to be financially independent in their late 30's. Short of an inheritance or winning the lottery, I doubt that is true. I also doubt that someone is such a self proclaimed "expert" on everything. My guess is that person is a telemarketer at best and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is plenty wrong with what's going on here.

Just a general observation:

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.

Arguing with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid, gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated with such stupidity.

That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.

Just say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable kink. It's called "sadism," and if y...

Just a general observation:

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.

Arguing with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid, gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated with such stupidity.

That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.

Just say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and go to the right places, a skilled sadist will find many eager masochists to play with. Hell, there are people who will stand in line for the chance to be waterboarded. As horrible as it is, nonetheless. (And no, it makes no sense to me, either, I just know it to be true.)

When you project personal desires, sexual or otherwise, onto questions of foreign policy, not only does one earn much very bad karma, but it doesn't bring any noticeable payoff.

On the other hand, a visit to The Vault (565 West 23rd Street, Manhattan Phone: (212) 255-6758 ) is inexpensive and rewarding. Really, I think more Conservatives need to be introduced to the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe%2C_sane_and_consensual">Safe, Sane and Consensual.</a>

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.
Arguing
with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain
freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid,
gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of
stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and
tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated
with such stupidity.
That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.
Just
say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable
kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and ...

"You don't have a right to an opinion. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion." - Harlan Ellison.
Arguing
with either Jesus or John McCain on the issue of torture is just plain
freaking hiliarious. It's not just stupid, it's magificantly stupid,
gloriously, conspiciously and transparently stupid. It's the sort of
stupid that makes both real christians and real conservatives try and
tip-toe away from you so that they won't be accidentally associated
with such stupidity.
That's a really serious issue in this current climate of debate, by the by.
Just
say you like the idea of torturing people. It's a perfectly reasonable
kink. It's called "sadism," and if you are ethical about it and go to
the right places, a skilled sadist will find many eager masochists to
play with. Hell, there are people who will stand in line for the chance
to be waterboarded. As horrible as it is, nonetheless. (And no, it
makes no sense to me, either, I just know it to be true.)
When
you project personal desires, sexual or otherwise, onto questions of
foreign policy, not only does one earn much very bad karma, but it
doesn't bring any noticeable payoff.
On the other hand, a visit
to The Vault (565 West 23rd Street, Manhattan Phone: (212) 255-6758 )
is inexpensive and rewarding. Really, I think more Conservatives need
to be introduced to the concept of <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe%2C_sane_and_consensual">Safe,
Sane and Consensual.</a>

So, I'm curious:

Who would Jesus Imprison?
Who would Jesus Kill?

I can't believe that such a load of dingo's kidney's can arise from so true a statement? Of course we would torture if it saved American lives in the war. I'm saying this as a veteran myself and as the father of an Iraqi war veteran. But do we support torture as a rule of thumb?
Of course not- The idea that we can conduct ourselves as civilized humans in a war where the enemy targets civilians with bomb toting women and children who are happy to blow themselves up for Allah and the Screaming Sheik of the week? It's not possible to be civilized in such an environment. It's the saddest part of the war, and it's not PC to say it,but there it is. Jesus has nothing to do with it-
I'll be brief, ...

I can't believe that such a load of dingo's kidney's can arise from so true a statement? Of course we would torture if it saved American lives in the war. I'm saying this as a veteran myself and as the father of an Iraqi war veteran. But do we support torture as a rule of thumb?
Of course not- The idea that we can conduct ourselves as civilized humans in a war where the enemy targets civilians with bomb toting women and children who are happy to blow themselves up for Allah and the Screaming Sheik of the week? It's not possible to be civilized in such an environment. It's the saddest part of the war, and it's not PC to say it,but there it is. Jesus has nothing to do with it-
I'll be brief, If working a guy over can save my boy's life and the lives of other young men and women then screw the guy- he's as boned as a guy can be in a war of terror- but to continue treating this individual as though he has more to offer even a week after his capture is wrong all over the place- Get what you need out of the guy, then put him in a camp and let him sit out the war. We don't have to maintain a level of torture to any of these fellow human beings- let's not forget that they are indeed fellow human beings right? Besides these guys are pretty sketchey in the first place in the psychological department you know-
It's entirely possible in many cases that the promise of a trip to America and a good meal will get as much info as a beating or water boarding will. So be real- it sucks, but it must be to save our lives, I know it's true, so I can't ignore it and call on Jesus to "make it go away" thats not how I believe he works. " If it really is us or them, then I pick us!"

Geshizar, you are so right in principle that it pains me to make the comment I made- People like you, are why people like me put our lives on the line to defend you from tyranny. I don't believe for a second that this war is a matter of "Iraqi's are gunna get us" That's just what George tells us. But we're in it now- and this is how it goes in war. Truly my heart breaks at the truth of it, but to deny it, to "play fair" like the noble Knights of Camelot will only get our soldiers killed. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that you and others like you have to belong to such a terrible double standard, that you call it home, but the truth is as I have laid out- ugly and wrong and full of ha...

Geshizar, you are so right in principle that it pains me to make the comment I made- People like you, are why people like me put our lives on the line to defend you from tyranny. I don't believe for a second that this war is a matter of "Iraqi's are gunna get us" That's just what George tells us. But we're in it now- and this is how it goes in war. Truly my heart breaks at the truth of it, but to deny it, to "play fair" like the noble Knights of Camelot will only get our soldiers killed. From the bottom of my heart I'm sorry that you and others like you have to belong to such a terrible double standard, that you call it home, but the truth is as I have laid out- ugly and wrong and full of hatred.
May the God that you pray to grant you peace and long life, you truly deserve both- especially if this moral outrage is the price. - a soldier

If torture is all about saving lives then it is safe to assume it should be applied to saving all lives, not just soldiers. An example would be drugs. 15000-17000 drug related deaths in the just in the US every year from overdose. This doesn't include violet deaths of people related to drug activity. We could easily stop the flow by first grabbing all the dealers, a little water boarding and they give up the next guy in the chain and so on and so forth. In the end we have stopped the drug flow, gotten rid of all the bad guys and saved lives. We could apply this policy to any situation that may save lives why only in wartime? after all a life is a life.
Questions what happens when...

If torture is all about saving lives then it is safe to assume it should be applied to saving all lives, not just soldiers. An example would be drugs. 15000-17000 drug related deaths in the just in the US every year from overdose. This doesn't include violet deaths of people related to drug activity. We could easily stop the flow by first grabbing all the dealers, a little water boarding and they give up the next guy in the chain and so on and so forth. In the end we have stopped the drug flow, gotten rid of all the bad guys and saved lives. We could apply this policy to any situation that may save lives why only in wartime? after all a life is a life.
Questions what happens when we torture an innocent person. Do his kids grow up hating the US enough to strap a bomb themselves?
If these people are such fanatics what makes you think they will give up good info and if they are willing to blow themselves to little pieces what makes you think water boarding, which they know will not kill them, is going to have any effect.
Do you think that the fact that the US is torturing people improves the situation for our troops or makes them more vulnerable, and not just from terrorist.
Powell has spoken strongly against this proposal, so has John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Grahm, all republican senators on the Armed Services Committee.
Powell's letter to McCain:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Lets not listen to any of these people. For example what would Powell know about war, how dare he speak out against torture, he must be terribly misguided. What, you don't think Powell gives a damn, about our troops in Iraq? Or maybe you don't believe he knows enough about war to make an intelligent comment. Yea its only an opinion, but then everyone of Bushes advisor's is merely giving an opinion so who's opinion do we follow.
Heres my opinion, how about we follow the opinion which conforms with everything this country is suppose to stand for, everything that our soldiers have died for throughout our history. Lets not soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that mak...

Lets not listen to any of these people. For example what would Powell know about war, how dare he speak out against torture, he must be terribly misguided. What, you don't think Powell gives a damn, about our troops in Iraq? Or maybe you don't believe he knows enough about war to make an intelligent comment. Yea its only an opinion, but then everyone of Bushes advisor's is merely giving an opinion so who's opinion do we follow.
Heres my opinion, how about we follow the opinion which conforms with everything this country is suppose to stand for, everything that our soldiers have died for throughout our history. Lets not soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.
To sum all of this up (It's late and my roof is leaking) People who are for 'enhanced interrogation" (Nice term) love to paint it as an issue of achieving vital intell, and the only thing standing in there way is some sort of abstract philosophical concept. What they choose to ignore is that torture is a doubled-edged sword.
By the admission of some of our own troops,the people tortured don't even have the information we want, they are tortured simply in order to find out whether they have information. And later, some of those people make it home, and they tell their children what was done to them, and they are filled with justifiable ( you notice I said justifiable) hate for us.

And years later, one of their kids strap on a bomb to his chest and runs into one of our malls, and detonates it.

And then some hawkish people stand up and proclaim, "See? They are irrational religious zealots. We have to do something about this. And it starts all over again.

Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate under blasphemy and the false accusation that he was inciting the people to riot against the Romans. Pontias Brought Jesus before the tribunal, they pronounced him innocent.

Upon finding him innocent Pontias Pilate tried to reason with the Jewish religious leaders to let him go. They refused.

It was customary at that time during the passover for the Romans to pardon a Jewish prisoner as a token of goodwill. Pontias gave the people a choice between Barabas, a murderer, and Jesus. The religious leaders convinced the people to choose Barabas.

Pontias again pleaded with the religious leaders that Jesus had done no wrong and did not deserve death. The r...

Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate under blasphemy and the false accusation that he was inciting the people to riot against the Romans. Pontias Brought Jesus before the tribunal, they pronounced him innocent.

Upon finding him innocent Pontias Pilate tried to reason with the Jewish religious leaders to let him go. They refused.

It was customary at that time during the passover for the Romans to pardon a Jewish prisoner as a token of goodwill. Pontias gave the people a choice between Barabas, a murderer, and Jesus. The religious leaders convinced the people to choose Barabas.

Pontias again pleaded with the religious leaders that Jesus had done no wrong and did not deserve death. The religious leaders threaten to accuse Pontias of trying to over throw the Roman Emperor, if he did not meet their demands.

Pontias turned him over to the religious leaders, saying let his innocent blood be on your hands, I wash my hands of this.

Sorry I can't remember the source.

Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. The man now sits in your custody. As to the bombs location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. [...] If a ticking bomb doesn't move you, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles [...] Clearly, the consequences of one man's uncooperativeness can be made so grave, and his malevolence and culpability so tran...

Sorry I can't remember the source.

Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. The man now sits in your custody. As to the bombs location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. [...] If a ticking bomb doesn't move you, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles [...] Clearly, the consequences of one man's uncooperativeness can be made so grave, and his malevolence and culpability so transparent, as to stir even the most self-hating moral relativist from his dogmatic slumbers.

I naively thought this line of argument had been discredited long ago, but okay, as long as we're proposing hypotheticals: the same man holds the key to the same warehouse, full of hundreds of thousands of daughters including your own. However, he is impervious to pain and there is no way to force him to save the girls. He will give up the keys on one condition: you must slowly torture to death everyone you have ever loved while he watches and laughs. Must every "self-hating moral relativist" embrace this outcome as well?

I presume there is some name for this line of argument: one person proposes a principle that should be adhered to, and the other concocts the most extreme hypothetical possible intended to force the other person to admit the principle does not always hold. This chink in the armor now established, the argument shifts to debating where the line is rather than whether the principle is appropriate. It's effective and I'm not always above using it myself, but I'm going to argue for the principle even knowing that this kind of hypothetical can put a philosophical gun to my head about its universality

It appears that such restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with the willingness to wage war in the first place. What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. [...] It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage; there are, after all, no infants interned at Guatanamo Bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the very act of trying to kill our soldiers. [...] The ethical d...

It appears that such restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with the willingness to wage war in the first place. What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. [...] It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage; there are, after all, no infants interned at Guatanamo Bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the very act of trying to kill our soldiers. [...] The ethical divide that seems to be opening up here suggests that those who are willing to drop bombs might want to abduct the nearest and dearest of suspected terrorists and torture them as well [...] Admittedly this would be a ghastly result to have reached by logical argument, and we will want to find some way of escaping it.

It is a ghastly result indeed but I fail to understand this claim of equivalence. Ethics is more about intent than result (though people do have some ethical responsibility for their results regardless of their intent, especially when they should have known better.) The good guys work hard to minimize collateral damage because they understand that innocents should not be made to suffer more than necessary. Collateral damage may be foreseeable much of the time but that does not make it preventable when you're fighting a conflict that has been thrust upon you. Torture is always preventable except in the fantasy world of well-constructed hypotheticals.

@Geshizar

Your repeated comment is getting old,
Jesus would not object to a just imprisonment.
Jesus would not kill. period.

---

Who would Jesus torture?

Everyone who doesn't believe in him as their personal lord and savior. And he'll do so for the rest of eternity.

It doesn't matter how much good you've done or how good you've been. If you don't believe he is your eternal master, he will see to it that you'll burn in hell forever.

Isn't hell a prison of eternal torment?

So, yes, Jesus WOULD kill AND torture. Now...
---

Back to reality:

dirish's comments were right on target. He's not trying to apply an absolute to a relative. It is not always practical.

W...

@Geshizar

Your repeated comment is getting old,
Jesus would not object to a just imprisonment.
Jesus would not kill. period.

---

Who would Jesus torture?

Everyone who doesn't believe in him as their personal lord and savior. And he'll do so for the rest of eternity.

It doesn't matter how much good you've done or how good you've been. If you don't believe he is your eternal master, he will see to it that you'll burn in hell forever.

Isn't hell a prison of eternal torment?

So, yes, Jesus WOULD kill AND torture. Now...
---

Back to reality:

dirish's comments were right on target. He's not trying to apply an absolute to a relative. It is not always practical.

When someone is purposely trying to do harm to innocent people, that someone has effectively forfeited their right to be treated humanely. FHAU!

The ticking time bomb situation calls for expedient and effective action against a person who has knowingly and purposely given up his/her rights to being treated humanely.

He can reestablish those rights by singing like a bird, or he can test his resolve to be an as_hole.

This situation is very different from that of a prisoner who's been there for months and being tortured for hell of it.

In that case, it's the torturer who's the as_hole. Such inhumanness is simply not necessary and is therefore evil and wrong.

(Besides, like in Guantanamo, these people have had no trails. Our system of justice is to assume innocence until proven otherwise. If they're guilty, why haven't they been given trails? Until we do - give them trails - are we not torturing the innocent?)

What would Jesus Do?

A valid question to ask one self when facing an ethical dilemma
assuming of course that you hold some ideology and/or religion that respects
him and his teachings.

However, the answer to the question does not necessarily mean it is the correct
answer for one's own particular situation. For example, even in self-defense
Jesus would not kill another (I assume based on my limited base of knowledge).

So, would Jesus kill? No. Does that answer in itself make it wrong to kill? Not
necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite to kill or support it? Not necessarily.

Would Jesus "torture"? No (although I take your point Aces). Does
that answer in itself make...

What would Jesus Do?

A valid question to ask one self when facing an ethical dilemma
assuming of course that you hold some ideology and/or religion that respects
him and his teachings.

However, the answer to the question does not necessarily mean it is the correct
answer for one's own particular situation. For example, even in self-defense
Jesus would not kill another (I assume based on my limited base of knowledge).

So, would Jesus kill? No. Does that answer in itself make it wrong to kill? Not
necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite to kill or support it? Not necessarily.

Would Jesus "torture"? No (although I take your point Aces). Does
that answer in itself make it wrong to "torture" (such a subjective
word, hence the quotes). Not necessarily. Does it make you a hypocrite (the
attempted point to this clip) to "torture" or support it? Not necessarily.

That said, it never hurts to ask the question and use the answer as a factor in
coming to a decision.

Thank you, BD, for clarifying your rhetorical question. I like answering rhetorical questions, I'm perverse that way.

However, a repeated "Who would Jesus Kill, Who would Jesus Imprison" was really too telegraphic to provide much of a lead in.

I'm going to point you to something I just wrote as an explanation of my own basis for making ethical judgements - with this one assertion you may find of interest:

All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person....

Thank you, BD, for clarifying your rhetorical question. I like answering rhetorical questions, I'm perverse that way.

However, a repeated "Who would Jesus Kill, Who would Jesus Imprison" was really too telegraphic to provide much of a lead in.

I'm going to point you to something I just wrote as an explanation of my own basis for making ethical judgements - with this one assertion you may find of interest:

All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person. I would argue further that consequences - the observable outcome of a particular choice - is all that we have to objectively determine how "good" or "bad" a particular set of assumptions and choices were.*

If you wish a Christian summation of that - there is the parable of the fig tree, which is as succinct a summation of this principle as can be imagined. According to the parable, it matters not at all whether the fig tree is beautiful or ugly - if it's fruit is bitter and useless, it should be cut down, because it's wasting both space, cultivation efforts and nutrients to produce nothing of value.

Christ Himself was arguably a Utilitarian ethicist.

Our image of Jesus shapes our answer to the question.

A good observation, and the answer is completely subjective. Either way, it assumes the person answering the question knows the difference between right and wrong, and opts for right (doing what Jesus would do).

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

graphictruth alludes to it, but moral correctness is not absolute! In fact there's no such thing an absolute moral (though there are things we absolutely would not do because of our own sense of morality).

I just popped a clip on the Saudi (king?) that "pardoned" [get that] PARDONED a rape victim from getting 90 lashes...

Our image of Jesus shapes our answer to the question.

A good observation, and the answer is completely subjective. Either way, it assumes the person answering the question knows the difference between right and wrong, and opts for right (doing what Jesus would do).

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

graphictruth alludes to it, but moral correctness is not absolute! In fact there's no such thing an absolute moral (though there are things we absolutely would not do because of our own sense of morality).

I just popped a clip on the Saudi (king?) that "pardoned" [get that] PARDONED a rape victim from getting 90 lashes for being alone in presence of other men. Why was she in their presence? She was being raped!

But Sharia law stated she was to get 90 lashes for her crime of "being in their presence alone". This complete lack of justice is their moral law applied as an absolute!

Is it justice to cane the rape victim?

The point is, morality is in fact relative. It's the JUSTICE that ultimately determines the degree to which an application is right or wrong. And that too is subjective.

@graphictruth

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

In the words of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. If that underline was intended to be a link (and it should be,) it ain't workin'.

The theory behind the sacrifice, is to PAY for something else. Value for value.

Jesus supposedly "sacrificed" his life (hurting the one) to "save" the many.

It's in that sense that I meant "Isn't that what Jesus did?" Would you sacrifice yourself to save many others? (It depends greatly on your moral character and personal bravery, wouldn't it?)

Such moral character and personal bravery is the belief believers hold as Jesus.
...

@graphictruth

So what is right? Hurting the one, to save the many? Is that not what Jesus did?

In the words of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. If that underline was intended to be a link (and it should be,) it ain't workin'.

The theory behind the sacrifice, is to PAY for something else. Value for value.

Jesus supposedly "sacrificed" his life (hurting the one) to "save" the many.

It's in that sense that I meant "Isn't that what Jesus did?" Would you sacrifice yourself to save many others? (It depends greatly on your moral character and personal bravery, wouldn't it?)

Such moral character and personal bravery is the belief believers hold as Jesus.

So the other question is: would Jesus torture the one to save the many?

And the answer is "yes". He subjected himself (the one) to save the many. And...

The existence of hell (if you believe any of this) is the torture of "many". Again. Torture is clearly very relative and NOT absolute.

If torture was inherently wrong (sinful, evil, etc..) then both god and Jesus would be guilty of sin. Whose invention was hell, anyway?

The simple point is that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Even the gods sin their share of immorality.

Long story short. If you would never, ever, torture another human being, regardless...

It is because your moral standards are higher than that of a god.

(Note: It doesn't necessarily make you right, nor practical, nor just; just moral.)

Aces, I believe that you have just come up with a topper for the "Repugnant Conclusion" of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_conclusion">Mere Addition Paradox.</a> (Been doing my homework)

Who's invention was hell? Likely it comes from oral tradition, predating even the oldest books - every precursor religion I know of mentions an afterlife. Only when religion gets organized do we find conditions being placed on getting there, and/or where you go based on priestly intervention. Nice racket, that.

WASP Christian Hell is a form of psychological intimidation intended to terrify and subdue a tithe-paying population.

I am not yet arguing the point you raised - in case you we...