Evidence for God from Science

What about if the terrorists would be massively exposed to Christianity? Showing conversions stories of various killers, prisoners, all kinds of people even from the camp of their belief. Being told arguments against their belief. Being treated not with terror but with the opposite. Could this break some?

B. W. wrote:So would forcing one to watch, non-stop Boy George music videos be torture?


-
-
-

Haha BW,
Brings back memories of the late eighties and my eldest sisters obsession with Boy George.
My children have told me that my singing is torture

Jac3510 wrote:We ought to be biased against it for a whole host of reasons I probably don't need to enumerate here. Torture in and of itself, however is not intrinsically evil, and that despite what emotionally charged assertions to the contrary we get from the "enlightened" class. Malice, of course, is intrinsically evil; but torture need not be malicious any more than incarceration need be. It clearly can be malicious, but so too can any form of imposed justice.

I would affirm, by the way, that the ends never justify the means, and therefore that immoral means do not accomplish moral ends (that is, immoral means can taint an outcome such that, however desired the outcome is, it is no longer good or praiseworthy). But raising this principle is only related if the means themselves are immoral. And, again, I just deny the charge that torture is necessarily immoral.

I also think that the discussion we are having right now about this as a society--or at least the way it is being had--is very shameful. Further, it is dangerous. The results will not be to make us more secure and save lives, nor will it be to improve our moral standing in the world. Rather, the results will be to make us less secure, cost lives, harm our moral standing in the world, and in doing all of this we are besmirching the reputation of an entire group of civil servants for largely political purposes. I see this as absolutely no different than the way our military veterans were treated by the American left when they came back from Vietnam. It is shameful, and frankly, it is sinful.

edit:

And besides all that, it's takes an awful lot of arrogance to stand back and make such judgments. I'm told by people who have access to information that NONE of us do that there are no such thing as good decisions on these matters. There are only bad decisions, and as such there is only the least bad decision. If it were as simple as just waxing eloquent from your moralistic principles that someone like Obama would gray so much over six years? Look at EVERY president at the beginning and end of their service. If it were cut and dry, those men would not be so stressed. At least some of them would just do what needed to be done--or at a minimum what they really believed needed to be done. And that would cut most of the stress out. But it doesn't, because once you find out what is really going on, you find out that your naive sloganeering on the campaign trail really is just useless, if not harmful, rhetoric.

And WE would do well to stop it amongst ourselves.

I don't see the discussion over a relevant, important, ongoing issue that crosses all cultures, countries and miliataries as detrimental or as harmful as you suggest and certainly not shameful.
The article posted was of course speaking of America but the question of whether it is 'sometimes' acceptable or not is a generalistic question. One that can be asked when looking back over a long history of torture dating back to ancient times.
In the 21st century it is seen a violation of human rights set out by the UN, Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 156 countries. Even though torture is against international law, more than a few of the countries that signed that treaty have broken it.
Torutre is not only morally wrong, studies strongly suggest that it is also ineffective. The claim that this opinion is 'generalistic' thus not resulting in a topic worth talking about because its speculation, is quite ironic when one considers the same but in reverse. Let's assume that it's mere speculation that these methods are ineffective, then it brings the discussion of torture being necessary to obtain national security as nothing but speculation if swept with the same brush. Rendering the discussion pointless on either side of the coin, if using that argument. But quite frankly whilst I don't believe the method is as useful as claimed it matters not. One thing in agreeance with your post is that the end does not justify the means. The question isn't whether it works or not but rather whether it's decent, humane and moral. I'm pretty sure beating up my child's bully so he is left bruised and bloody is a sure way to make sure they leave me child alone but I'm pretty sure beating up kids regardless is still unjustified and wrong.
Malicious means to intentially cause harm, torture is indeed malicious. It cannot be compared to incararation for several obvious reasons.
Not quite sure what to make of your statement of the 'enlightened' class thinking that is it intrinsically evil, how about morally conscious individuals calling it for what it is!
Nobody, not an individual, a president/prime minister, military or government is outside of accountability, the fact that it tarnishes one's image or makes for uncomfortable discussion is no reason in my opinion to sweep it under the carpet and certainly not to charge one with making emotionally charged assertions by using emotionally charged reasoning as to why we should not discuss it.
I find it absurd that you can claim that the accountability and discussion of such tactics as sinful yet you defend torture as not necessarily being immoral.
Your opinion is fuelled by emotionally charged reasoning.
You said it in a nutshell, 'it will not improve our moral standing' on a world stage.
Well this is not about protecting America's image.
I bring it back to the generalistic question of whether torture is 'sometimes' okay. Not okay for one particular government past or present. I did speak of the tactics at Guantanamo Bay but my disgust is reserved for the use of torture across the board, the fact that it has been used by the American military does not make them stand accused alone. I do not care what colour is flown on the flag of the countries that resort to such hideous means. It is wrong!
If America is on that long list then let them be held accountable. At the very least in social discussion and public opinion . What I think is much more dangerous than governments being held accountable for military actions is one country thinking they are above reproach. That is a recipe for disaster.
Why would be okay to splash pictures all over the news and social media of terrorists beheading people and of military intimidation of individuals but not okay to publicly display pictures of American soldiers urinating on bleeding, beaten up individuals, and of a man lying on the ground with a dog collar around his neck on a leash held by a woman soldier?
Doesn't matter what colour uniform they are wearing, wrong is just wrong! Immoral is immoral, even if it's in your backyard.

Philip wrote:Yep, people like to think of this idea of putting captive terrorists under intense physical duration in the abstract - or a theoretical situation they are removed from. So, let's personalize it: YOUR children, mother, father, brother, sister, husband or wife is facing imminent beheading by terrorists in a location, time and place that are soon to be, but unknown. And certain techniques are available to utilize against a captive terrorist that, if obtained, might very well allow your forces to intervene and save not only your loved one, but many, many other lives. So it's more moral for hundreds to die when it might be prevented by obtaining the right information through coercion? A captive on the same side as the murderous horde that is getting ready to kill those you love and yet you wouldn't sanction extreme measures - as ALL this person would have to do is credibly give up whatever info he's hiding (no, this is not a certainty the info would be accurately provided). I can guarantee you that most here wouldn't think twice about getting the info in through extreme measures, in such a situation.

No Philip, I would not condone it. I would not allow a person to be tortured to save even my child.
Since you made this so personal I will give you a personal account of a situation that has relevance to the questions asked.
Many years ago someone did something very wrong to me, I will not give details. I confided in a friend what happened who got together some friends of his and went after this person lynch mob style. I was made aware of what was going on, thinking I would be pleased and want to see 'revenge' occur. I did not.
I pleaded for it to stop, it didn't untill I put myself between my abuser and those exacting revenge on my behalf. I would not allow him to be hurt and beaten, not for my sake. Violence to answer violence is not the answer. I put my self in harms way to protect the person who had hurt me. I would do it again.
My friend thought I was insane and could not understand my actions. He thought it would stop him from doing it again. I don't know and I don't care. I will not stand by and let a person be brutalised for any reason.
I don't have it in me.
People can think it's right or wrong, but it's right for me.

Ok Mel. So tell me plainly: why is torture intrinsically evil?

Jac3510 wrote:Ok Mel. So tell me plainly: why is torture intrinsically evil?

Thanks for your response Jac
I will respond accordingly but I am a little distracted this evening for obvious reasons.

Byblos wrote:It's very easy to sit back on our comfy couches watching our 60'' TVs and wax philosophical how the ends don't justify the means. It is quite another when 4 planes just hit major targets in the country, thousands have lost their lives, chaos is raining superme, and broken intelligence is pouring in that a second, third, and fourth attacks are imminent with the potential for 100 times more casulaties and destruction. Yes, that tends to pull us out of our comfort moral zone but what is the alternative, just let people die? I've always said when your enemy does not have the same moral compass as you do the war is already lost. It's just a matter of degrees.

I think you forget that some of us HAVE served and some of us HAVE killed in service of our country and to protect freedom.
The moment we become what we are fighting against, we have already lost.

I would only add this to this discussion and then I will move on:
Any time we got intel and it's source was from torture, it was NEVER trusted and NEVER acted upon UNLESS it was confirmed by other sources.
That is all.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:It's very easy to sit back on our comfy couches watching our 60'' TVs and wax philosophical how the ends don't justify the means. It is quite another when 4 planes just hit major targets in the country, thousands have lost their lives, chaos is raining superme, and broken intelligence is pouring in that a second, third, and fourth attacks are imminent with the potential for 100 times more casulaties and destruction. Yes, that tends to pull us out of our comfort moral zone but what is the alternative, just let people die? I've always said when your enemy does not have the same moral compass as you do the war is already lost. It's just a matter of degrees.

I think you forget that some of us HAVE served and some of us HAVE killed in service of our country and to protect freedom.
The moment we become what we are fighting against, we have already lost.

Huh? How exactly did you come to that conclusion (that I forgot that some of us have served)? First you don't know anything about me or my background and second, while I did not SERVE for this country I gladly would have, had I been given the opportunity. Besides which, I did SERVE albeit in a different country but for the same purpose and at a time when the "war on terror" expression hadn't been invented yet. (I hope I mistook your intentions but I took them very personally).

In the Jewish Theocracy, while God was Judge, the trails and punishments were very clear, just and fair, but cruelty and prolonged suffering did not enter into it, until God was rejected and the leaders took control. Then they had sayings like "it is better for one man to perish rather than a whole nation die."

Torture is the Devil's favorite tool. His organizations have studied how to cause the greatest physical and emotional pain, while prolonging the life as much as possible. Condoning torture for any occasion or any reason reveals who has possession and control of the soul.

The idea that millions can be saved by the torture of a few, is backed by the doctrine and belief that human lives and human opinions are above the law and life of God, and above His decisions or power, that saving lives is more important than morals or God, and that life is greater than morals or God. But in the judgement the issue of morals comes first, and saving a temporary earthly life second. So the nations which endorsed torture will find themselves back to square one - needing to be saved from death, only now there will be nobody to kill or torture to save themselves.

Then there is the issue of war and patriotism, together with the ideologies that fuel them. If people knew who plans and implements wars and how it is done through the rulers and societies they would not take up arms for any ideology, unless they were in love with Satan and his organizations.

Jesus said that there will come a time when the world will believe they are doing God a service by killing His disciples. Although in today's world the target is not the saints but terrorists and other groups, the strategies learned and put into place are designed for a future imprisonment of God's own people.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:It's very easy to sit back on our comfy couches watching our 60'' TVs and wax philosophical how the ends don't justify the means. It is quite another when 4 planes just hit major targets in the country, thousands have lost their lives, chaos is raining superme, and broken intelligence is pouring in that a second, third, and fourth attacks are imminent with the potential for 100 times more casulaties and destruction. Yes, that tends to pull us out of our comfort moral zone but what is the alternative, just let people die? I've always said when your enemy does not have the same moral compass as you do the war is already lost. It's just a matter of degrees.

I think you forget that some of us HAVE served and some of us HAVE killed in service of our country and to protect freedom.
The moment we become what we are fighting against, we have already lost.

Huh? How exactly did you come to that conclusion (that I forgot that some of us have served)? First you don't know anything about me or my background and second, while I did not SERVE for this country I gladly would have, had I been given the opportunity. Besides which, I did SERVE albeit in a different country but for the same purpose and at a time when the "war on terror" expression hadn't been invented yet. (I hope I mistook your intentions but I took them very personally).

My bad, I answered your blanket statement with a blanket one of my own.
I shouldn't have done that and I apologize.
Sorry my friend.

PaulSacramento wrote:My bad, I answered your blanket statement with a blanket one of my own.
I shouldn't have done that and I apologize.
Sorry my friend.

And so, again, we are using vague, generalized terminology. So, what do we mean by using the word "torture?" Do we mean high physical discomfort and extreme psychological anxiety - meaning, no lasting physical impact - or are we cutting off fingers or burning them with red-hot pokers? Because what might be moral would depend upon the methods employed and in weighing the gravity of the situation, specifically in light of what might be prevented and who or what masses might be saved through any useful information gained. And, of course, we must weigh whether or not any gained knowledge would be useful, accurate or reliable. It would seem to me that, depending upon the duress employed, a subject is likely to blurt out ANYTHING he thinks would satisfy his captors, accurate or not. And does the victim of duress even know about whatever he blurts out - as bad info gained can be worse than no info at all.

Philip wrote:And so, again, we are using vague, generalized terminology. So, what do we mean by using the word "torture?" Do we mean high physical discomfort and extreme psychological anxiety - meaning, no lasting physical impact - or are we cutting off fingers or burning them with red-hot pokers? Because what might be moral would depend upon the methods employed and in weighing the gravity of the situation, specifically in light of what might be prevented and who or what masses might be saved through any useful information gained. And, of course, we must weigh whether or not any gained knowledge would be useful, accurate or reliable. It would seem to me that, depending upon the duress employed, a subject is likely to blurt out ANYTHING he thinks would satisfy his captors, accurate or not. And does the victim of duress even know about whatever he blurts out - as bad info gained can be worse than no info at all.

I have a question on you Philip: Imagine you are the torturer. How far you would be willing to go in torturing?

The definition of torture is to inflict pain and agony against the will of the victim.

Torture shows a lack of intelligence in those who order it or deal it out, because they do not know how to find out the truth from the prisoner without torture. There are far more effective ways of getting the truth without inflicting Satan's favorite program. The usual motivation of torture is pure malice.

People who have worked in intelligence agencies have discovered that torture is not that effective in getting vital information and have succeeded in using 'friendship' to achieve far more. The "friendly policeman' approach is one learned by communism as it's old regimes were crumbling. The new approach to control has almost been accepted globally.