Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

elaine · 05-01-09 9:50 pm

According to a new poll by the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life, "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis." More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

bob_2 · 05-01-09 10:51 pm

Elaine, you have talked nothing of definitions. Abuse and torture are overworked words. If you were being attacked in Fresno by a sexual predator, and your next door neighbor had a gun, would you want him to use it to protect you. Or, because killing, not torturing is absolutely never to be the solution to a problem. Elaine, you surprise me with how you paint yourself into a corner, only to be a contrarian. And you think, from Fresno, you know how often attend services and that is why I am for you being protected by your next door neighbor. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!! No wonder you are a against God punishing or irradicating wickedness. The thing is, you disprove Pew by the fact that you attend church regularly but have these feeling about undefined "torture". Go figure!!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

neal · 05-02-09 7:21 am

Elaine, Thanks for posting that report on the Pew Research. Its not surprising that the conclusion was for 50% stronger support for torture among regular church attendees. White Evangelical's are concentrated in the south and are generally less educated (remember the Republican's campaign targeting uneducated, white blue collar males?) which should correlate to those that also would torture their dog or even children if they didn't behave as they wanted them to. If you were being attacked in Fresno by a sexual predator, and your next door neighbor had a gun, would you want him to use it to protect you. Bob, in your failed analogy the rapist is the torturer. The neighbor is the equivalent to the USA hanging the Japanese torturers after WWII and the WORLD holding trials and executing the gang leaders of Nazi Germany. I realize that you get your morals from a book written by a tribe that glorified genocide and other barbaric actions. Even your deity The Christ told a story supporting the use of torture and claimed that His Father would torture those that did not forgive their brother. However, societies on this planet today which are more civilized have signed agreements concerning what we will, and will not, do to those in our control. Whether its the sheriff in Texas convicted by Reagan's DOJ for torture or a religious fundamentalist terrorist WE DO NOT TORTURE. I could even make a pretty plausible argument that we are infringing on a foreign national's right to exercise their religious beliefs when we even attempt to punish them. Their RELIGION is the problem. They are uneducated modern day goat and camel herders sitting around listening to their religious leaders telling them to carry out Allah's will as written in their sacred scripture. Getting upset at the individual believers following their beliefs and orders from their preachers is like punishing the Teller when the bank fails.

bob_2 · 05-02-09 8:57 am

Republicans "targeting uneducated", sorry, Neal, I didn't bother to read further, since it is obvious you aren't paying attention to Obama's lack of securing our borders to the south for this reason, he wants the support of the less educated at his next election or even 2010 so he doesn't lose the House or Senate. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!!! I was too unedeucated to finish reading the rest of you defense of Elaine. Give me a break. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0> That's why the Republicans lost, the American populace the the rhetorica intelligence of the candidate now occupying the White House. Still interested in that swamp land in Florida.

bob_2 · 05-02-09 9:44 am

Pardon any misspelling in the last post due to a lapse in the effect of my graduate education, or spell checking, whichever you wish to believe.

john8verse32 · 05-02-09 1:14 pm

the lack of spelling oversight and the constant use of fractured grammar is of less concern than the possibility these may only be a symptom of an underlying superficiality which suggests one may never get to the bottom of anything....except maybe an English Comp class. Bob...why did you seem so proud to announce.... I didn't bother to read further,... and the reason given was totally unrelated to the action (not) taken..... in other words...in all things, your mind is already made up, and you don't need any more information? that's precisely WHY I claim somewhat happily to be agnostic.... Since "I don't know", the good news means that I have both the right and need to keep looking, which imparts the ability to avoid being type cast as an expert who can be held accountable!! maybe that's why I continually bemoan the claim that God is going to punish us for his lack of convincing clarity in all this. If He hasn't seen fit to provide all the consistent, convincing, clear and accurate information necessary, (such as why the Book of Words differs from the Book of Rocks about the earth, its age and origin)... how can He simply kill those who remain unconvinced by such lack of clarity and consistency. The trubeeleever "knows" he/she already has all the information needed, anything else can be rejected as superfluous or erroneous, resulting in quotes like ... I didn't bother to read further

neal · 05-02-09 1:25 pm

I was too unedeucated to finish reading the rest of you defense of Elaine. Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A true statement from Bob. Course, you might want to actually spell uneducated correctly when attempting to make a sarcastic, cynical point about education levels. Posting up sarcasm including the misspelled word "unedeucated" is NOT the way to make your point. It just, well, proves our point about your being uneducated. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 05-02-09 1:27 pm

John, good thing my instincts are starting to sharpen, because by not reading the rest of Neal's post, I didn't have to read is insultive remarks: I realize that you get your morals from a book written by a tribe that glorified genocide and other barbaric actions. And you want to talk about civility. Ryan ain't doing anything to keep things civil here so I guess I have to put a helmet on once in a while and just plain avoid the insults. Ryan even knows that J.R. purposely sent Neal in to create chaos and insults, yet sees value in that. I love the rough and tumble also, to a certain extent, but if you are going to get to the truth at some time the banter has to tone down, and sources supplied, which aren't always supplied. As far as moderation of the forum, ...... and Ryan said, I'm on my own. (Message edited by Bob_2 on May 02, 2009)

neal · 05-02-09 2:11 pm

And you want to talk about civility. How is the stating of a fact being uncivil? Your sacred book is uncivil, not my mention of its immorality which you adore.

neal · 05-02-09 2:31 pm

As far as moderation of the forum, ...... and Ryan said, I'm on my own. Start your own forum or blog. Be your own boss and kick off/delete whoever and whatever you think your deity desires. Ryan even knows that J.R. purposely sent Neal in to create chaos and insults, yet sees value in that. J.R thought one of the benefits of my posting again would be that it would upset YOU, Bob_2. It had nothing to do with the forum itself, others besides yourself, etc. Your reaction to my posting is where the chaos is. You proved J.R to be a prophet! It really upset you that he wanted me to come back and respond to your redundant stupidity. Its nice to see the rational responses which Ryan gives to you. Its also nice to see that he doesn't respond to your squeaky-wheel tantrums. Bashing the moderator is probably not the tactic you need (Law 19). Starting your own board might do the trick unless even the ISP couldn't put up with you. (Message edited by neal on May 02, 2009) (Message edited by neal on May 02, 2009)

neal · 05-02-09 2:35 pm

My favorite law? Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally. The Law that you broke with your first post, Feb 5, 2006? Law 19: Know Who You're Dealing With- DO NOT Offend The Wrong Person

elaine · 05-02-09 5:19 pm

Bob is the perfect epitome of: A mile wide and an inch deep. Nothing more can be said with such an adequate description (Maybe only half-an inch deep).

bob_2 · 05-02-09 5:51 pm

Elaine, I should get you one of those Tshirts, Atheists for Jesus. Oxymoron, eh, no God, no Jesus. So the Atheist is for .....? NOTHINGNESS???

admin · 05-03-09 6:31 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And you want to talk about civility. Ryan ain't doing anything to keep things civil here so I guess I have to put a helmet on once in a while and just plain avoid the insults. Ryan even knows that J.R. purposely sent Neal in to create chaos and insults, yet sees value in that. I love the rough and tumble also, to a certain extent, but if you are going to get to the truth at some time the banter has to tone down, and sources supplied, which aren't always supplied. As far as moderation of the forum, ...... and Ryan said, I'm on my own. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Bob, I give a lot of leeway to the discussions. The espousing of views opposite of yours does not equal being un-civil or rude. If this were the case, every forum on the Internet would cease to function. Furthermore, if I forced everyone on here to act civilly whenever they posted, I'd wager that there would be no one posting on this forum because everyone would be banned, yourself included. Like I've said before, I'm amazed at the amount of bickering between adults that happens on here. Luckily, some good things are posted every now and then. In regards to you being on your own, I don't remember using those exact words which means that my words may have been misinterpreted (feel free to refresh my memory). I remember the idea being that I wasn't going to censor the atheists or agnostics so that you and other Christians and Adventists would have an easier time at discussion. My feeling has been and still is that there's no reason for you or any other Christian to be unable to debate intelligently and knowledgeably with people like Neal or John. If they seem to be "winning" an argument, is that my fault or the fault of the "loser" of the argument? This forum exists for debate and the purpose of debate is to get to truth or more knowledge--how can that be done if one side of the debate is shut up? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/smile.gif" border=0> Ryan

john8verse32 · 05-03-09 10:16 am

well put, Ryan.... both well written and logical..... the purpose of debate is to get to truth or more knowledge--how can that be done if one side of the debate is shut up? but what if "one side" does not believe they need "more knowledge"??? what if they already have all they can use? That might explain requests for censorship, tho without rational justification. The effectiveness and acceptance of ones arguments IMHO should be based on logic, truth, usefulness, applicability, justification, and repeatability. and tho it rarely helps to get one's point across by being obnoxious, being LOUD USUALLY GETS ATTENTION!!!! maybe that's enuf for some.... not for me...I'm still looking for all the useful answers.....

bob_2 · 05-03-09 11:58 am

Being called delusional for believing eternal life, is in violation of the rules of the forum. We are not here to tear down the basic tenets held by SDAs or orthodox Christianity. Raising questions without insults, obscenity or cursing, whether in words or acronymn I would expect a moderator to deal with, is my point. I give as good as I get, only I will not use obscenities or cursing on this Forum. What has happened on .com due to provocation should not be drug on to this forum as Neal has done, in my opinion. I am open to correct, direction or clarification. But not ignoring the rules of not allowing the promotion of another philosophy other than Christianity. Asking for clarification of Christianity's tenets or make a statement of belief is not my point, but calling people delusional is not cursing but down right insultive and almost blasphemous when it comes to God/Jesus and Etenal Life's existence.

bob_2 · 05-03-09 12:03 pm

Ryan and John, read the rules of the forum, then tell me if they are being followed in the discussions and the moderation: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Forum Guidelines: 1) Try to keep all posts on the topic of the thread to which you posted. Off-topic posts will most likely be moved to a better location or deleted. 2) Remember the Golden Rule. 3) Profanity, lewd language, aggression, harassment, and spamming will not be tolerated. 4) Do not re-post extensive material. Instead, post links to the material's original location. 5) Ranting, raving, and hate speech/mail against religions, churches, and individuals will not be tolerated. 6) ATomorrow.net is not a hate forum towards the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Denomination. 7) ATomorrow.net is not a forum for the promotion of any other religious faiths/philosophies/belief systems. Administrator Policies 1) Posts will be deleted if they take a thread off topic or violate the Forum Guidelines. 2) The Administrator will notify the owner of a deleted post through e-mail, private message, or through the post's respective thread. 3) The Administrator reserves the right to edit portions of posts if such portions violate the Forum Guidelines. If the Administrator edits individual posts, the Administrator will announce that he edited the post by leaving "Message edited by admin on Date XX, 20XX" on the bottom of the post. Furthermore, such edits will be done in blue and italics. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=18&post=2298#POST2298" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=18&post=2298#POST2298</a> If there is no God, no Jesus, and no Eternal Life. Why does the the Board exist????

cadge · 05-03-09 11:58 pm

"I give as good as I get" I don't understand you Bob. Where are we instructed to recompence evil for evil(real or imagined)? And please do not try to excuse your uncivility by pointing to the rightous indignation executed by Jesus at the temple. That was done because of an intentional blaphemous fraud being done by those that were supposed to be representing the ways of God. They had turned the temple property into a for profit annimal market. God reserves the right for Himself alone to execute vengence. He did not give us that commission. You have a strange approach to your "miinistry of reconciliation". Maybe you could explain to me how that is supposed to work? I find John and Neal to be doing nothing more than being honest men expressing their honest views. I have to be understanding and compassionate enough to realize that if they do not have the indwelling of the Holy spirit, then they can only make sense of their existance by the tangible and scientific evidence available to them. Who am I to condemn them? There is evidence in scripture (Romans II)of those who live by their consciences and are a law unto themselves. If they violate their consciences they are lost. If they live by them, with compassion and mercy to their fellow man, they are safe and will be further instructed during the time of the nations during the 1000 yr. reign. That's why "the leaves are for the healing of the nations(Rev 22:2)". "The rightous have no need of a physician(Matt 9:12)" "The law is not made for a rightous man, but for the lawless and disobediant.... (1Tim 1:9) Neal once called me a psycopath. I didn't deny it. Our saviour rescued me from a violent and ungodly path. My conscience was dulled. I needed a physician of the Spiritual nature for a blinding malady that no earthly physician could remedy. I called, He answered. The Spirit bears witness. I know where I was and why. I know where I am and why. I know where I'm going and how and why? I can't ask for more. I want everybody to come along, no matter how evil they may be at the present. We have a universe to inhabit and explore. We are going on the ultimate adventure! It's going to make the awsome undersea discoveries we've experienced as if they were as interesting as yesterdays hash. And as far as the infallibility of the Bible; thanks to Neal and John sharing their views, I can see that what was once erroneously believed, and which the evidence now shows, is that there is no earthly body of water separated by a dome from a heavenly ocean of water which emits rain and other forms of precipitation at God's discretion through various "windows". That was very helpful commentary. The flood was also a local event that appeared to the flat earth people as if the whole world was covered. Jesus' primary mission wasn't to dispute their skewed historical record. That wasn't His purpose. He condemned the leaders of misrepresenting His work and misleading the people. And, historically He used what the people were generally familiar with to promote His new revelations that pertained to compassionate mercy, and moral fortitude for eternal purposes. The Church wasn't to fond of Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton. "The apple hasn't fallen far from the tree". (I didn't realize the pun at first)

bob_2 · 05-04-09 12:05 am

David, you want to join the discussion and stand up for right, join in more often. Thanks for the "civil" advice. Jesus mission to this earth was to die for our sins, the next time we see Him it won't be to turn the other cheek, eh??

bob_2 · 05-04-09 12:19 am

Cadge, you like some others here expect modern science and it's progress to be stated in an ancient document, don't you think that is a little naive. Paradoxes, analogies, parables, literalists, figurative stories, discernment. Take another look at the Bible and pray for discernment: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Revelation 3:18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> After all where else can you read about how to be saved. Jesus saves but how do you know that? Through the Bible written as they were inspired by God.

cadge · 05-04-09 1:18 am

Discernment? Bob, are you on medication? Seriously now.

john8verse32 · 05-04-09 4:27 pm

naw...he gave up his medication....maybe a bit prematurely....he's been busy providing discernment to the forum CEO.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/13/1191.jpg" alt="">

bob_2 · 05-05-09 12:14 am

How civil of both of you John and Cadge!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 05-05-09 1:07 am

John, you mean obscenity ridden Neal Walls is your preference to defend???

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-01-09 9:50 pm

Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#2 05-01-09 10:51 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#3 05-02-09 7:21 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#4 05-02-09 8:57 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#5 05-02-09 9:44 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#6 05-02-09 1:14 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#7 05-02-09 1:25 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#8 05-02-09 1:27 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#9 05-02-09 2:11 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#10 05-02-09 2:31 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#11 05-02-09 2:35 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#12 05-02-09 5:19 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#13 05-02-09 5:51 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#14 05-03-09 6:31 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#15 05-03-09 10:16 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#16 05-03-09 11:58 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#17 05-03-09 12:03 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#18 05-03-09 11:58 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#19 05-04-09 12:05 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#20 05-04-09 12:19 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#21 05-04-09 1:18 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#22 05-04-09 4:27 pm

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#23 05-05-09 12:14 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

#24 05-05-09 1:07 am

Re: Torture: Christians vs. non-religionists

Board footer