SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Torture

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
watch out what you term ridiculous and what you exalt.



Neil, we have been down this road before. Why the penchant to crowd things into camps? The point was why put words or thought not expressed into someones mouth? It's unnecessary and dishonest, much like the test of this rhetoric that you want to keep toting out here.
Quote:
"he believes you have to kill them all".


A quote of a quote of a quote. Do you buy into everything you read or just the ones that fit your particular bent and see no problem with the unhelpful rhetoric because it fits this particular area of concern for you?

Beyond that, what is all this doing here in the first place? You want to bring the warring news factions biased opinions here? When the great majority of these people are not trustworthy to give a reasoned opinion from all the rhetoric that cast's doubt upon their commentaries in the first place....

You can think what you like brother, but again, making a note is not the same as agreement nor disagreement... It's politics and find it difficult to see just what purpose in this fashion of tossing mud pies is to accomplish.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/21 22:15Profile
Christisking
Member



Joined: 2005/7/20
Posts: 671
Los Angeles, California

 Re:

Quote:

"Actually, I was just today reading an article about religion in the military. It was talking about the possibility of passing a bill that make it illegal for any military person to talk about religion while on duty- essentially it would be the same as sexual harassment, etc."

Now that's scary!!! If this bill became law it would end all debate about Christians in the military. Every "true" Christian would have to resign immediately. No "true" Christian would ever concede to a law which made it illegal to talk about Jesus, right?


_________________
Patrick Ersig

 2005/11/22 0:17Profile









 Mike Baalog

Quote:
It's unnecessary and dishonest, much like the test of this rhetoric that you want to keep toting out here.




what's unnecessary and dishonest?

are you saying I am? or is it just the "rhetoric" that I "tote"?

Quote:
Do you buy into everything you read



no Mike, I don't.


Quote:
or just the ones that fit your particular bent



I thought you knew my "bent", my bent is Jesus and serving him, in Spirit and in Truth.

Quote:
Beyond that, what is all this doing here in the first place?



Because it's worthy of prayer, its worthy of discussion. Torture is sinful, war is sinful and a sin issue is worthy of prayer and worthy of discussion.

I feel a very hateful hate-filled spirit coming from you towards me, and I don't know why.

 2005/11/22 14:42









 my rhetoric

What has been moving forward in this discussion about torture is an interest in American abolitionist's circa 1820-1860 AND the church's role in the outcry over slavery. Please allow me to quote snippets from a nice writing on this.

Quote:
Frederick Augustus Ross, who was a pastor of the Presbyterian church of Huntsville, Alabama, used a quotation from the Bible in showing his support for slavery: "The powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1, 1965, p. 137). Ross then concluded that "slavery is of God, and to continue for the good of the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole American family, until another and better destiny may be unfolded." (Ross, 1969, p. 5). It was !
common practice for the preachers to quote from the Bible in showing their support for slavery.




Quote:
The abolitionist movement rose up through the churches of the North. Unfortunately, by the mid-1830's, the church had distanced itself from the abolitionists. The church branded the abolitionists as "infidels," or nonbelievers, and they called them radicals. Many abolitionists remained faithful to their belief in God, though they were no longer accepted by the church. The abolitionists believed themselves to be the "righteous remnant" of the evangelical tradition; abolitionism became a surrogate religion. (Mathews, 1980, p. 209). Two radical abolitionists, William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Dwight Weld, considered slavery a sin.
Garrison and Weld felt that slavery was a rebellion against God, and all men were accountable to God. Both men thought that man was competing with God for control if he were to own another man.



just a glimpse to help you discern my "bent"

 2005/11/22 14:58









 Re: Mike Baalog

Habakkuk3 said

[size=x-small]'I would suggest we pray.' [/size]

Quote:
This is the first time in our history in which we attacked a country and were not directly provoked. I pray for God's mercy and pray that you will as well.



Brothers, I don't get what's going on here but I sense that if one lives in a huge country like America, it is possible to feel it is too much of a supertanker to be moved by prayer. And yet, we [u]all[/u] know the [i]only[/i] thing which can make a difference in the invisible battle against evil, is prayer. I get the same feelings over here, in a place with a quarter of your population....

Quote:
I thought you knew my "bent", my bent is Jesus and serving him, in Spirit and in Truth.

Because it's worthy of prayer, its worthy of discussion. Torture is sinful, war is sinful and a sin issue is worthy of prayer and worthy of discussion.

Amen. Let's try to get a hold of God for all those who are being tortured - whether it's for politics, or for Christ - that they may be comforted by His presence.

 2005/11/22 15:06









  my rhetoric 2

The passage I outline is so chilling to the parralles it bears today

Quote:
The attacks on slavery mounted by the Abolitionists stung Southern evangelicals deeply. They responded to these attacks by rejecting the abolitionists' characterization of them as evil. Denominational authorities from both North and South were also quick to react strongly to the abolitionist campaign. One example of this reactivity was the effort undertaken by Methodists to gag abolitionists in the church who were deemed to be a threat to unity and order of the church. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church ordered their preachers "to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and refrain from patronizing any of their publications." They were willing to take this step because they feared that such advocacy might severely damage the patronage of the church in the South



here's the part that illustrates how one can twist Scripture:

Quote:
One response to the Abolitionists was the genesis of a pro-slavery argument. It had its orgins in South Carolina in the 1820's. Thomas Cooper, the President of South Carolina College and a Deist, and Richard Furman, President of the State Baptist Convention in 1823 were both instrumental in this effort. Furman, for instance, developed a Biblical defense of slavery that had strong appeal in the evangelical culture that existed in the wake of the Second Great Awakening. Among the major talking points of this Biblical defense were: (1) Ham, it was said, was the father of all Blacks; (2) Abraham held slaves; (3) Leviticus enjoins the children of Israel to take slaves from the heathens; (4) Philemon is told to return to master by Paul; (5) Jesus never attacked the institution of slavery.)




Quote:
What happened within the South that led to the launch of this kind of crusade? Why did they feel this pressing need to defend slavery?


In the heat of the Second Great Awakening, there had been a widespread recognition of an implicit equality within evangelical Christianity. The ground was level at the foot of cross, or at least at the altar of a camp meeting. And yet, there were countervailing economic forces at work as well. It should also be noted that not every Southerner owned slaves during this period. In fact, only 1 in 11 did. But the major molders of public opinion were often holders of slaves. This was true of educators, doctors, politicians, and preachers. Indeed, Richard Furman--the originator of the Biblical defense of slavery was one such pastor. In South Carolina, for instance, 40% of Baptist preachers owned slaves. It is axiomatic that the beneficiaries of power are generally opposed to measures that would destroy their vested interests.

This is not to say that Southerners weren't guilty over the shift that was taking place, as James Oakes makes clear in the Ruling Race. In the chapter entitled "The Convenient Sin," Oakes examines the diaries and other personal writings of Southerners and discovers that many were deeply troubled by their involvement in slavery, and attempted in various ways to rationalize or justify their participation in this terrible evil. Many became convinced that they were going to hell. And yet, there was a great deal of money to be made by using slaves. As a result, many Southern evangelicals could not bring themselves to give up such a lucrative system. So they tried to ease their guilt by telling themselves that slavery was a political and cultural institution that belonged to the secular world which was beyond their ability to control. One's faith could only be applied to areas of personal morality such as drinking, card-playing, and sex.

The South, for instance, came to disdain social activism out of the fear that it could lead to an unwanted intrusiveness into slavery. At the same time, Northern revivalism came to view social activism in a very different light. Social reform was seen as being fundamental to the task of a Christian, along with the political means to achieve it. In the South, preaching tended to focus on sin and guilt, whereas in the North there was a growing emphasis on the doctrines of sanctification and perfection.


 2005/11/22 15:10
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: my rhetoric 2

Hey Neil,

Just to clarify again;

Quote:
"It's the vice president who is out there advocating torture. He's the one who has made himself the vice president in favor of torture," said Turner, who from 1972 to 1974 was president of the Naval War College, a think tank for strategic and national security policy.



Quote:
"he believes you have to kill them all".

Quote:
"kill them all"?



Are any of these truths? Or just slanderous comments? Before you rush off to the 'issue' and ignore them, isn't this just as much the problem that it's O.K. to make spurious statements that are absurd to prove a point? You missed the first part there; [i]The point was why put words or thought not expressed into someones mouth?[/i]

And why bring this kind of unnecessary verbal garbage out here? It is one thing to discuss an issue and quite another to back it up with such ridiculous commentary.

Quote:
watch out what you term ridiculous and what you exalt.



Exalt what? There is no exalting of anything, this doesn't touch on anything but the aforementioned dishonesty. Is this not the very heart of the problem with politics? Pragmatism? Keeping to party lines and agendas.. and it's a wonder they are so divided? They are both equally wrong and find it difficult to listen to much of any of it nor believe what is being said, it is all doubtful because there is no integrity anymore. As soon as someone want's to start using slanderous comments, unexpressed statements never even entertained, this whole idea of "I know what they are doing, saying, thinking." There credibility goes out the window. Beyond all that, what is it precisely you might expect from mere men anyway?

Quote:
what's unnecessary and dishonest?

are you saying I am? or is it just the "rhetoric" that I "tote"?



The rhetoric brother.
Quote:
I thought you knew my "bent", my bent is Jesus and serving him, in Spirit and in Truth.



Well I do know your passion brother and to be totally honest with you, what I fear is what all this stuff might do to your spirit. It might be difficult to see it but what comes through a lot of these things is a being caught up in it, caught in the tug of war of rhetoric... The war of words...
Quote:
I feel a very hateful hate-filled spirit coming from you towards me, and I don't know why.


I don't either, because it's not there. What I find disheartening is to see these kinds of hate-filled spirit commentaries being put out here as if they were indeed fact and especially coming from the worlds point of view.

Neil, there was a time when I was very much caught up in this whole thing, from the liberal to the ultra conservative and everything inbetween. I think often your well pointed out thoughts about what is a curious 'evangelical' mindset about buying into whatever conservative point of view is the one that "Christians" ought to be supporting is just as filled with rhetoric as the opposite liberal mindedness that says everything is relevant, neither of them are worth paying any attention to and it seems many are to lazy to do anything other than to believe what they "should". Who are you to believe anyway, this coming from fallen men?... It's never ending, why be caught up in it so much?

That's my concern brother.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/22 16:07Profile









 Mike

Cheney has been pushing hard to have the CIA exempted from the no-torture bill....that's what this thread was all about....what does it say to YOU when a sitting vice-president presses to have a government intelligence agency exempted from a no torture clause that was crafted by a Republican senator who WAS tortured during his captivity..

Before YOU rush off and ignore that....what does THAT say to you?

thats not my opinion, it's been what's happening in OUR govt.

and the other comment was what Bruce Bartlet, A REPUBLICAN strategist said about the President, and guess what?....when I listen to the man speak, and watch him...watch his eyes, hear his voice....there is something that doesn't ....compute....I don't see the light of the Lord in this President, my spirit doesn't testify to this.....I see hatred, I see wardeath in this man...and when his vice president tries double hard to make it so a govt intel agency can torture prisoners, something is very wrong in this country, and you know it........don't you lecture me on dishonesty and verbal garbage.....there is something wrong out there, and when a Christian just stands by, said Christian is a coward.

 2005/11/22 16:40









 Re: Torture?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm[/url]

[size=x-small]EU to query US 'secret prisons' [/size]

"[b]The European Union is to formally ask the US to clarify reports that it ran secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe[/b].

The US has refused to confirm or deny the reports, which surfaced in the US earlier this month...

The Washington Post newspaper first reported on 2 November that the CIA had been using Soviet-era camps in eastern Europe to detain and interrogate terror suspects....

The CIA's controversial "extraordinary rendition" programme involves removing suspects without court approval to third party countries for interrogation."

The bbc webpage displays a map of the alleged distribution of flights.






 2005/11/23 14:31









 Re: Torture

Liberty challenges UK government.

[url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/2005/torture-flights.shtml]http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/2005/torture-flights.shtml[/url]


Today human rights group Liberty called on Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to seek assurances in the next 14 days from the USA that it is not using UK airports to transport suspects to countries that torture. Liberty fears that the UK is in breach of domestic and international law by allowing CIA “extraordinary rendition” flights to land and re-fuel in Britain...

Liberty’s call to action against extraordinary rendition marks the launch of its “No torture, no compromise” campaign which seeks to make the UK government honour its positive obligation to stop torture and ill-treatment.

A Guardian article published on 12 September 2005 revealed that airports in Biggin Hill, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Brize Norton, Farnborough, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Mildenhall, Northolt, and Stansted have allowed CIA or CIA-chartered jets to land temporarily. The article also says that these aircraft had flown into the UK approximately 210 times since September 2001.

A letter to the Police in whose areas these airports fall, has also been sent - link from Liberty homepage.

Police have been asked to probe claims that the CIA has used UK airports to move terrorist suspects to secret jails in other countries to be tortured.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4483640.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4483640.stm[/url]

 2005/11/30 7:40





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy