Is purposeless torture moral?

[Greatest I am]

Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let’si gnore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baGwwma5VZo&feature=relmfu

Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Just hanging about to read the fundie rebuttal.

This could be fun from many angles

 

[Stone]

Bump

 

[Stone]

Isn't it rather odd to be using an example of a man of faith, that retained his faith in God while shedding certain religious beliefs ( an immense task for a fundamentalist ) as a tool to spread hatred for God?
It's really fantastic in this day and age of materialism and cynicism, that a man would give up the benefits he once realized to tell the world of his new found revelation.

Your video shows a man of faith loving God to a greater degree. He actually says that.

It seems illogical to incorporate that into your hate theme.

Are you ill?

 

[Greatest I am]

Just hanging about to read the fundie rebuttal.

This could be fun from many angles

Seems I have scared all the apologists away.


I must have done this one well.


Regards
DL

 

[porterjack]

Seems I have scared all the apologists away.


I must have done this one well.


Regards
DL

i suppose it is indefensible

 

[Stone]

Seems I have scared all the apologists away.


I must have done this one well.


Regards
DL

Seems I have scared all the apologists away.

Indeed, you do seem to know their literal translations better than they do

I must have done this one well.

Mostly luck, it certainly wasn't your logic that defeated them

 

[Greatest I am]

i suppose it is indefensible

Yet Christians and others demand it from their God as shown in that clip.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Yet Christians and others demand it from their God as shown in that clip.

Regards
DL

So, are you a gnostic priest?
Does your fellowship work on the principle of attracting atheists into your fold by fronting a hatred of a 'Christian' God?

 

[Joe the meek]

Hell for myself is a person having to deal with their own fears for eternity.

Then again, when I look for a church and I hear people talk about "fire and brimstone" in that church, I don't go back.

Generally speaking, positive reinforcement always works better than negative reinforcement.

 

[Stone]

GIA: Question relating to your position of legalizing drug abuse and the issue of torture and religion.

If your religious position is as inferred in this thread as one of rejecting torture, how do you rationalize the torture you seek to legalize on the victims of drug abuse?

Or do you only reject 'purposeless torture'?

If that is so, of what purpose is it to torture people with addiction?

 

[Stone]

...............

Then again, when I look for a church and I hear people talk about "fire and brimstone" in that church, I don't go back.

Generally speaking, positive reinforcement always works better than negative reinforcement.

Agreed.
Lessons of morality are better taught by positive examples, not fear of punishment. Fear too often brings mistrust. This is a major flaw in much of fundamentalist thinking.

 

[darkcgi]

Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let’si gnore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baGwwma5VZo&feature=relmfu

Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL

This is a perfect example of ignorance

 

[Greatest I am]

So, are you a gnostic priest?

In a sense. All who preach their theology are doing a priestly thing. Even you.
Because of my leanings and personal experience, I would say that I act more like what Gnostics would call a bishop.
At the same time, we know that all have access to the Godhead within each of us and know that a church hierarchy is not required for personal growth.

Does your fellowship work on the principle of attracting atheists into your fold by fronting a hatred of a 'Christian' God?

No. Atheists do not believe in the Christian genocidal God so they do not hate what they do not believe in.
They do dislike what Christian thinking does to the morality of those who follow a genocidal son murdering God though.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Hell for myself is a person having to deal with their own fears for eternity.

Then again, when I look for a church and I hear people talk about "fire and brimstone" in that church, I don't go back.

Generally speaking, positive reinforcement always works better than negative reinforcement.

I agree and so does the bible that Christians ignore.
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA: Question relating to your position of legalizing drug abuse and the issue of torture and religion.

If your religious position is as inferred in this thread as one of rejecting torture, how do you rationalize the torture you seek to legalize on the victims of drug abuse?

Or do you only reject 'purposeless torture'?

If that is so, of what purpose is it to torture people with addiction?

My stance to legalize drugs is one that would end the torture imposed on addicts.
Are addicts criminals that should be dealt with by the law or are they patients that should be dealt with by the medical establishment?

Almost all major governmental reports say that they should be dealt with by the medical side just the same as we do with alcoholics.

Addiction is addiction regardless of the drug.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Agreed.
Lessons of morality are better taught by positive examples, not fear of punishment. Fear too often brings mistrust. This is a major flaw in much of fundamentalist thinking.

The carrot and stick psychology may produce the best results but the stick must be seen a just, and with hell, it is not.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

This is a perfect example of ignorance

Of Christians?

I agree.

If not then thanks for the chastisement without correction.
Exactly what an immoral hell lover would do.

Regards
DL

 

[darkcgi]

Of Christians?

I agree.

If not then thanks for the chastisement without correction.
Exactly what an immoral hell lover would do.

Regards
DL

I agree
They dont represent ALL
Christians there are many more positive christians
Than the ignorant ones

 

[Stone]

My stance to legalize drugs is one that would end the torture imposed on addicts.
Are addicts criminals that should be dealt with by the law or are they patients that should be dealt with by the medical establishment?

Almost all major governmental reports say that they should be dealt with by the medical side just the same as we do with alcoholics.

Addiction is addiction regardless of the drug.

Regards
DL

My stance to legalize drugs is one that would end the torture imposed on addicts.

Non sequitur.
Arguing for the advancement of chemical slavery in the form of addiction is not eliminating the torture done to the victim.
You are merely repeating the same fallacy you've posted in the pot threads.

However, decriminalization of drug abuse is the relieving the torture done by the current penal system to drug abusers.

Are addicts criminals that should be dealt with by the law or are they patients that should be dealt with by the medical establishment?

You well know that is my position. Drug abusers should be considered patients rather than criminals, but your argument in the pot thread was to legalize drug abuse through medical prescriptions.
You aren't considering the drug abuser as a patient, your argument projects the drug abuser as a legal consumer and at times, seem to rationalize the concept 'drug abuse' as acceptable behavior.
Do I need to keep pointing out that your position is irrational?

Almost all major governmental reports say that they should be dealt with by the medical side just the same as we do with alcoholics.

And I gave you the example of Portugal as a reference of successful decriminalization which you denounced, with out evidence or logic.
You speak out both sides of your mouth.

Addiction is addiction regardless of the drug.

So what is your answer to my questions?
What is the purpose of your argument to torture people with addiction?
Where/what is your lesson of morality concerning the torture you propose?
How does one method of purposeful torture become moral as you propose by the logic of this thread, while another method of purposeless torture ( which is actually motiveless by the very logic of the concept ) become immoral as your argument obviously projects?
Does only the concept of 'purpose' in your logic system define morality?
If so, how can you claim at the same time a purposeless, motiveless concept is immoral?
( note: none of the above is my argument, it's the questioning of your logic )

You seem to have incredible conflicts in logic and how you base your own moral codes.
How about adding some clarity to your position?