Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

If it's left up to governments, all the more reason to discuss it, so that those of us who live in a free government can protest and get it changed...

Our governments are made up of elected individuals. Thus, the decision on whether torture is allowed or not comes back to the people of the country. Governments would do the torturing because the people believe that the law is good. It is obvious, as you point out, that we would be involved in the process of whether such a law were rejected or accepted.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

is it not from your perspesctive ultimately for God to decide and judge?

For sure, God will judge everyone in the Last Days. However, he wishes for us to do his will here on Earth as well. This sometimes includes violence. For example, in the Old Testament the Lord set up a court system involving witnesses and judgment. These court systems also were permitted by God to use the death penalty in some cases. It's obvious that as humans were wielding the system, some mistakes inevitably were made. Nonetheless, God allowed humans to use their judgment, seeking to do his will, according to certain laws he ordered in the Old Testament days of Israel.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and not knowing that for sure ... should we not take the devil's path and in any way endorse torture?

I do not intend to endorse the use of torture until the evidence that it is morally valid outweighs to me the evidence that it is not. Usually for me, on ethical issues, I wait until I have heard a word from the Lord on the matter. The Lord speaks in many ways, but I definitely never leave him out of my thought processes on such matters as this. Prayer (which involves hearing from him directly as well as speaking to him) is essential when coming to conclusions on issues of such importance.[/sermon]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

any means to an end ultimately denies the teachings of christ and supports the 'i can do what i wish' morality of the devil ...

what's your view on this?

My view is that you are incorrect. The "means to an end" of spanking your child so that he or she does not grow up into a selfish brat is commonly accepted. People who refuse to spank their children still will often lecture their child, another "means to an end," which is less effective (I bear witness; I've only known one person who was never spanked, and she has some issues still in her adult life that I think some good early on spankings would have helped with), is still annoying to the child. The "means to an end" of putting up traffic tickets to prevent speeding and deaths is a likewise frustrating experience for those who have feel the hard end of the law. The "means to an end" of imprisonment for crimes is a hard experience too for offenders. The "means to an end" of life imprisonment or the death penalty are another step up, in my view. Might the "means to an end" of torturing to stop terrorism be acceptable?

It's an issue of drawing the line. Some "means to an end" everyone accepts, so the argument that "the ends never justify the means", is quite obviously invalid. However, it is quite obvious also that sometimes the ends do not justify the means. For example, if I hung my child up by his toes as punishment for sneaking candies, that would very likely solve the issue. It is doubtful that he will ever steal candies again. However, it is a clearly invalid means to an end. Where to draw the line is an interesting question, and the answer is not clear to me.