Just as with social issues, many on the Christian right have ceded to the religious left the issue of torture. Joe Carter and John Mark Reynolds want to make sure that some conservative voices stand up in opposition to torture.
Carter:
I blame myself, and implicate my fellow Christians. We have remained silent and treated an issue once considered unthinkable–the acceptability of torture–like a concept worthy of honest debate. But there is no room for debate: torture is immoral and should be clearly and forcefully denounced. We continue to shame ourselves and our Creator by refusing to speak out against such outrages to human dignity.
…
As Christians we must never condone the use of methods that threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God. … there is something clearly repugnant about our unwillingness to distance ourselves from the fear-driven utilitarians willing to embrace the use of torture.
Reynolds:
Torture removes the internal free will of the combatant by forcing him to a mental submission that should not be in the power of humankind. We should allow his mental defiance, even if we cannot allow his physical defiance. In this way, we honor his reason (one aspect of the divine image), while also protecting the innocent.
I agree with both Reynolds and Carter that torture, for a Christian, should always be off the table. My only question: where is the line where torture begins? I suppose that is where the true debate lies – defining what is and what is not torture. However, I agree with them that we should always err on the side of protecting human dignity, just as we would with human life.
"My only question: where is the line where torture begins? I suppose that is where the true debate lies – defining what is and what is not torture. However, I agree with them that we should always err on the side of protecting human dignity, just as we would with human life."
This guy had himself waterboarded to determine it's legality. Then, he was dismissed.
Except, of course, for the death penalty. Then we should err on the side of our bloodlust. Because websites like these are just fiction.
There is one situation where Christians can morally justify torture, and that is a last resort in converting someone to the faith when all other attempts have failed.
Technically God does the conversion, but the use of torture might enable hardened cases to be more malleable by the Holy Spirit, might open up their hearts a little.
If you can enable the salvation of one soul through torture, you have allowed that person to avoid an eternity of suffering in hell/lake of fire. That's a trade-off worth making.
Cineaste, I've seen so much stuff back and forth about waterboarding. I don't really know. I do know that as big a deal as it has been, we only used it three times and one led to the stopping of a imminent attack. That gives me pause. I will say this for you, linking to an Olbermann quote does not help your case with me.
Sam, I've missed you. I don't think we should err on the side of bloodlust on the death penalty either. I think it should be used very judiciously. Supporting the death penalty for killers is a way, I believe, we show the value of human life. Human life is so precious that if you take it, you could be forfeiting your own.
David, sarcasm is so unbecoming of you. Could you please give an example of anything close to this coming from any respected Christian person? Or do you just like to throw out sarcastic attacks without any real support for them. I'm sure it's a fun game, but I don't want to play.
If you believe in the eternal suffering of the unbeliever, you must concede that it is morally justifiable to use torture (as a last resort) to gain a conversion.
Which is worse: a finite amount of pain, or an infinite amount of pain? The answer is obvious, so what principle are you using that over-rides it?
I am not suggesting torture for any other reason than this. Tell me why it is not morally justified.
(And I'm not being sarcastic – find your own historical examples).
Eternal punishment is not for the purpose of conversion, it's punishment.
Punishment is earned. Torture in order to get a result (coercion) is nowhere in scripture – and warnings of consequences is not coercion, but warnings of the consequences of one's actions.
"Eternal punishment is not for the purpose of conversion, it's punishment."
But it is morally responsible to warn people about the eternal consequences of sin – in fact I would suggest it is immoral to withold this information. This can be done at the same time you advise people about the only alternative provided by God.
If some obstinately refuses to convert after all methods of conversion have failed, and you have one last method – torture – you can:
1. Refuse to apply torture and let the person slip into eternal punishment.
2. Apply torture to increase the chance that person is saved.
Torture is not in the Bible. Neither is software engineering, quantum mechanics and the application of steam turbines to electricity generation.
…linking to an Olbermann quote does not help your case with me.
Would Jack Baur be more your style?