So we have former administration people defending the use of "extraordinary" methods, otherwise known as torture, because it "got results" and "saved American lives" because several key figures broke under torture and gave verifiable information.
Immediately, using the illogical that passes for logic in these modern times, some people who waffle on the issue will join the stout defenders of torture, saying, "Well, if it's proven to save lives then we have to condone it."
Well no, you don't. Here are the two errors in logic and how to properly discern your own morality on this issue.
1. Let's assume that apologists are right and "torture works" because it "saves American lives." All right, then let's start using it everywhere that American lives are at risk. For example, let's waterboard Americans who have addictions to alcohol and drugs. We can waterboard Americans who drink and drive until they "stop" and thus "save lives." We can waterboard everyone who purchases illegal drugs to get the names of their dealers and thus "save lives."
If it's so effective, let's use it where we are having many losses of lives, rather than just for one or two terrorist plots that may or may not have been serious or worked anyways.
2. If you measure the "good information" gotten from torture, and thus the plots stopped, how do you measure the other half of the cost/benefit analysis, which is how many new recruits and new plots are devised because people's hatred of America grows in response to torture and other abuses? What I am saying is that logic dictates that when you measure a benefit, such as "lives saved," just like in a spread sheet you have to deduct additional lives lost to get from the "gross" to the "net" lives saved. We'd have to know how many new terrorists, or recommitted terrorists (such as those who return to terrorism after release) do so because they are invigorated in their despising of the American methods of torture.
You see, it won't be that they are not used to even cruder methods, possibly, in their home country. It is the hypocrisy that earns additional loathing by terrorists. So don't be hypocrites, touting American sensibilities, and then defend torture, and expect terrorists to think, "Well, at least the Americans don't 'torture as bad' as some other countries might." No one thinks that; instead, they focus on the American hypocrisy.
Those are the two errors in logic in claiming that because torturing a handful of terrorists 'saved lives' because it gave 'good results' that it is therefore a free pass to torture with no consequences.
Hey, let's waterboard all corporate executives who have stolen and swindled money and hidden it. Seriously. I mean, that would give good results, no?
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Torture advocates: please take a vacation
I'm not impugning your patriotism or trying to limit your freedom of speech, but could you please go off and take a vacation for a while and stop whining that 1) "we need torture" but 2) "we didn't torture."
How about setting up a torture fan club and just watching some old episodes of "24" for a while? Or maybe set up some tours of the famous "patriotic" torture spots of the world?
Geez, your fifteen minutes of fame (more like fifteen years, though it seems like fifteen centuries) is over. Give your flapping gums a rest and shut up for a while.
By the way, have you noticed how an unseemly number of women favor torture? So much for the fairer sex, but we've known that since Eve.
How about setting up a torture fan club and just watching some old episodes of "24" for a while? Or maybe set up some tours of the famous "patriotic" torture spots of the world?
Geez, your fifteen minutes of fame (more like fifteen years, though it seems like fifteen centuries) is over. Give your flapping gums a rest and shut up for a while.
By the way, have you noticed how an unseemly number of women favor torture? So much for the fairer sex, but we've known that since Eve.
President Obama: 1st step back to USA dignity
Congratulations on the closing of Gitmo declaration and the statement that the military should never torture and instead stick to what they are supposed to, which is the Army field manual. These steps are a first step back to dignity, morality and decency, after years of having gone far over the edge.
To those new to this subject or my blog, follow the "torture" label to my post of February, 2007 (yes, two years ago) on this subject, explaining that "we need the information" scenarios are fallacious "justifications" for torture as a policy.
Now the American people, especially the media, need to understand that torture is never a "tool," it is always a mental disorder and one of the signs of the warping of the human soul. Thus it is not "entertainment." I was disgusted to see torture quickly glamorized in early episodes of "Lost" (you know, the dark hero Iraqi Republican guard character 'had' to try torture because they 'needed' the information). I never watch "24" but understand it has much in it about torture, thus mainstreaming it as entertainment.
I don't even need to point out that the glut of violent slasher films have all polluted a generation of young and older viewers into seeing torture as entertainment.
Torture is a sign of humanity's great potential for depravity. Some of it results from mental disorders, as you see in criminally insane cases. The other potentiality for torture resides in the reservoir of the darkness that almost every human is capable of (witness the experiments where the subjects will happily torture people using electrical shocks for absolutely no reason whatsoever). With the potential for torture within humans they have absolutely no reason to crow about how evolved, enlightened or "clear" they are.
The elimination of torture as entertainment is a critical next step. In the meantime, congratulations to President Obama for being a man of his word and decency.
To those new to this subject or my blog, follow the "torture" label to my post of February, 2007 (yes, two years ago) on this subject, explaining that "we need the information" scenarios are fallacious "justifications" for torture as a policy.
Now the American people, especially the media, need to understand that torture is never a "tool," it is always a mental disorder and one of the signs of the warping of the human soul. Thus it is not "entertainment." I was disgusted to see torture quickly glamorized in early episodes of "Lost" (you know, the dark hero Iraqi Republican guard character 'had' to try torture because they 'needed' the information). I never watch "24" but understand it has much in it about torture, thus mainstreaming it as entertainment.
I don't even need to point out that the glut of violent slasher films have all polluted a generation of young and older viewers into seeing torture as entertainment.
Torture is a sign of humanity's great potential for depravity. Some of it results from mental disorders, as you see in criminally insane cases. The other potentiality for torture resides in the reservoir of the darkness that almost every human is capable of (witness the experiments where the subjects will happily torture people using electrical shocks for absolutely no reason whatsoever). With the potential for torture within humans they have absolutely no reason to crow about how evolved, enlightened or "clear" they are.
The elimination of torture as entertainment is a critical next step. In the meantime, congratulations to President Obama for being a man of his word and decency.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Bible Reading and Commentary re: forgiveness
Many people correctly focus on the importance of forgiveness in the Christian faith, and as a principle for humanity as a whole. The Gospels and Epistles are filled with the teaching of Jesus in regard to the importance of and necessity for forgiveness. The Old Testament also discusses God’s requirement for forgiveness, but that is expressed in terms of the Law, where debts must be forgiven, both of monetary debts and the lending of goods. But there is a problem with how moderns have transmuted the understanding of forgiveness in ways that are contrary to the words of the Bible, in black and white, that are plain to be read.
The reason that moderns now misunderstand and actually preach an incorrect gospel is that they hope that Christians are obligated to forgive all sins. Therefore moderns feel that they are easily let off the hook of sin. That is far from true and a very dangerous “interpretation.”
First of all, forgiveness for sin only comes from God, not from humans. Humans cannot forgive each other their sins! Humans can forgive individual wrong doing against one another with one huge exception that will be bulk of my discussion here today. So a human can and should forgive wrongs if it is reasonable to do so. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a parent, for example “must” forgive the murderer of their child. One cannot transfer responsibility for a wrong from the shoulders of the wrong doer onto the shoulders of the victim. So look again with clear eyes at how Jesus taught the “Our Father” prayer:
Matthew 6:12
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
This is one of the two passages that people constantly point to as Jesus teaching forgiveness. But notice that Jesus is consistent in the Lord’s Prayer with referencing the Old Testament viewpoint of a forgiveness of debts. His parables also focused on the forgiveness of debts. No where in the Bible, either Old or New Testament is it portrayed as necessary to forgive grave wrongs of a behavioral nature. I know, as you read this you are burning to point out to me the second example I mentioned above, but hang on for a minute. There is another point to first make about Matthew 6:12. Notice that it is a chain of forgiveness. The one praying forgives another person his or her debts to him or her, and then in return God forgives the one praying for sins. God is still in control of the forgiving of sins! The humans can forgive each others debts, but they cannot forgive each other’s sins.
The Bible teaches, repeatedly, that sin is an offense against GOD. When someone sins and harms another person, yes, one has then harmed a person with that sin, and the harm is legitimate discussion for potentially generous forgiveness. But the sin itself cannot be forgiven by the victim of the sin because sin is an offense against God because it is defiance of God, his will and what he has plainly ordered of humans. Suppose someone robs you. Yes, you can forgive the person for the harm of the robbery, but you cannot forgive them of their sin that violates one of the Commandments. Do not ever forget that. Ultimately God alone judges whether sin is forgiven.
Thus the important exception to what is the Christian credo of forgiveness is that one cannot forgive a sin that is directed against God, even if the actions of the sin are directed toward the person. The obvious example is that prophets sent by God cannot and did not ever forgive those who persecuted them. I know, you are itching to tell me that I am wrong, but no, you are wrong. Prophets cannot forgive those who defy God by refusing his messengers. It is not within their power because their bodies and what happens to them is in the service of God. So it’s not as though “their feelings are hurt” or they are tortured in and of themselves. When a prophet is persecuted it is sin against God to his face, even if the prophet’s body is the one who bears the scars. No prophet can forgive their persecutor; only God can do that.
So now you are not so eager to point out the second example of Jesus, are you? For now you are beginning to understand. Jesus did not forgive his tormentors. He ASKED God to do so. What was done to Jesus was sin against God and can only be forgiven by God. First of all, recall what Jesus said after he had been scourged and is carrying the cross to his own crucifixion:
Luke 23:27-32
A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’ At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ for if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” Now two others, both criminals, were led away with them to be executed.
Now, this was a lot for Jesus to say as he was suffering up the path to Golgotha. Jesus did not say, “Hey, it’s going to be alright, because I forgive them all and so does God.” Instead, Jesus takes the time to point out that they should not mourn him, God’s prophet about to be executed, but they should mourn themselves because as a result really bad times will come. Jesus is the green wood. To understand this you must understand that green wood is freshly cut wood that still has water in it as it is still alive, and thus it is nearly impossible to burn. So Jesus is the living green wood, there as a sign of God’s love among people, with the water of life still in him. Jesus is saying that if they crucify him, the green wood, while he is still among them, how much worse will it be when Jesus has been away from them, the green wood is now gone, and only the dry brown wood that will quickly burn is remaining. So Jesus is warning the women who mourn him that people will deeply regret the sin against God that is the crucifixion of Jesus.
Luke 23:33-34
When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” They divided his garments by casting lots.
Um, notice that Jesus is not forgiving the people himself. Jesus is not leaning over (as best as he can as he is being crucified after being scourged) and offering forgiveness as he is being crucified. Jesus asks God to forgive them. Jesus does not attempt to forgive them himself. People continually misquote this passage even though it is as plain as the nose on your face. Jesus does NOT do what he cannot do, which is forgive those who are putting to death God’s prophet. Jesus never can or would want to say anything that is misleading, and is anything but perfect in God’s will and truthfulness. So obviously he can not and would not “make a good example by forgiving those as they are nailing him.” I mean, would you actually read the scripture please?
Jesus had previously made the point that sins are the purview of God to forgive, and not humans forgiving each other for sin. That is plain when Jesus actually lists what sins (those against the Holy Spirit) that God will NOT forgive.
Matthew 12:31-32
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
This seems difficult to understand but it is not. Notice that Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man, not the Son of God. Thus he is referring to his bodily presence. Therefore if someone blasphemes Jesus he is wronging another human person, and thus can be forgiven by God, in theory. Jesus is saying that any wrong done against him (foreshadowing the crucifixion) can be forgiven if one repents and God wills forgiveness, as it is a “human on human” sin. However, one cannot sin against the Holy Spirit in a “human on human” way. A sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin that is totally different from a sin against Jesus himself, because a sin against the Holy Spirit is directly against God.
Thus Jesus is underscoring that he is God’s prophet, in human body, the Son of God but also the Son of Man. However, the point that anything against him can, in theory, be forgiven, should there be genuine repentance is only made in order to deliver one of his starkest and blunt warnings. When one sins against the Holy Spirit one is not committing a “human on human” offense, but defying and blaspheming God’s will to his face. This is true even if it is a human-on-human method by which one sins and blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
That is why Jesus says “speaks against the Holy Spirit.” Speaking is a human on human action, where someone is speaking and someone listens. So if someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit to someone else, it’s not like the listener can say, “Wow, you said a really bad thing about the Holy Spirit, but I forgive you.” THAT is the point that Jesus is driving home and it is crucial that people understand.
This is because, again, like killing a prophet, it’s not a matter of hurting the feelings of the listener or bruising, cutting or killing the prophet’s body. Just as the persecution and murder of a prophet of God is a direct sin against God, and not per se against the prophet, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an attempt to hinder the work of salvation that the Holy Spirit is engaged in, constantly. A Holy Spirit blasphemer is not “hurting the feelings of the Holy Spirit” or of the person who reads or overhears the blasphemy. A Holy Spirit blasphemer is attempting to thwart God’s will to save as many people as possible by attacking the faith through blasphemy. Thus the Holy Spirit blasphemer is saying to God, “No, I will not allow you to save people and reach their souls, and bring them to salvation, because I with my mind and my mouth and my deeds will oppose you.” A Holy Spirit blasphemer is assigning his or herself the role of Lucifer.
So when moronic teenagers get on the Internet and “deny the Holy Spirit” in order to test God and demonstrate that they do not believe, they are totally being childish and missing the point. A Holy Spirit blasphemer works against the saving of souls, not just mouth a stupid test into the cameras. Thus someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit when they tear down and embarrass and profane those who are working for salvation under the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit. THAT is what cannot be forgiven because the Holy Spirit blasphemer is attempting to hinder God’s work through the Holy Spirit of the rescuing and saving of souls.
Suppose a nun is raped. That is an example of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and the nun cannot forgive that on God’s behalf. Why? Because the rape is done to degrade and terrorize the faithful and take them off of the path of salvation. The nun can forgive the battering of her body and her degradation, but she cannot forgive the reasoning and objective of the attack and degradation, which was to terrorize and spread disbelief. Thus when someone rapes a nun, in this example, he or she is basically saying, “Look, I have defiled one of your believers. If you, God, actually exist, you would have stopped it.” Thus the rapist is not only a dirty beast of a human, but defying God in order to destroy the salvation of those around who observe the nun’s disgrace.
How do we know this? Again, look at the example of Jesus.
Matthew 27:26-31
Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus inside the praetorium and gathered the whole cohort around him. They stripped off his clothes and threw a scarlet military cloak about him. Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” They spat upon him and took the reed and kept striking him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak, dressed him in his own clothes, and led him off to crucify him.
Do you notice Jesus is not “forgiving” them as they rip his flesh off with whips, tear his forehead and head with the crown of thorns, strip him in front of the invited throng of the audience, strike him on the head, spit on him, and mock him? Notice that the soldiers “gathered the whole cohort around” Jesus. They deliberately got together a crowd to witness his mockery and torture. That is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, using Jesus as the mechanism. They degraded Jesus in order to defy and degrade the Holy Spirit, and those are the people who will not be forgiven. Jesus only asks God to forgive those who are nailing him to the wood when he is actually being crucified and raised on the cross. There is, as in everything Jesus said and did, great significance, for both hope but also for dire warning. Jesus did not walk in a procession of forgiving everyone as they did it because he would not and could not. Prophet killing and the degradation of those who preach God’s word is direct sin against God, not human on human subject for forgiveness.
This is why God is asked by Jesus to forgive those who are actually doing the nailing of him to the cross. Jesus does not speak a word of forgiveness during all the torture as lead up to the crucifixion, and he never presumes to forgive sin against God on God’s behalf as the sin is taking place. Jesus warned that some sin, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven. That is why he told the women that they should mourn themselves and their people, going forward, not Jesus himself, because the consequences of such sin will be dire. Jesus could not have been more clear throughout the Gospel of the difference between sinning against him as the Son of Man (and thus the potential for forgiveness though, as we saw with Judas, he did not avail himself of that possibility) and “speaking against” and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The reason that moderns now misunderstand and actually preach an incorrect gospel is that they hope that Christians are obligated to forgive all sins. Therefore moderns feel that they are easily let off the hook of sin. That is far from true and a very dangerous “interpretation.”
First of all, forgiveness for sin only comes from God, not from humans. Humans cannot forgive each other their sins! Humans can forgive individual wrong doing against one another with one huge exception that will be bulk of my discussion here today. So a human can and should forgive wrongs if it is reasonable to do so. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a parent, for example “must” forgive the murderer of their child. One cannot transfer responsibility for a wrong from the shoulders of the wrong doer onto the shoulders of the victim. So look again with clear eyes at how Jesus taught the “Our Father” prayer:
Matthew 6:12
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
This is one of the two passages that people constantly point to as Jesus teaching forgiveness. But notice that Jesus is consistent in the Lord’s Prayer with referencing the Old Testament viewpoint of a forgiveness of debts. His parables also focused on the forgiveness of debts. No where in the Bible, either Old or New Testament is it portrayed as necessary to forgive grave wrongs of a behavioral nature. I know, as you read this you are burning to point out to me the second example I mentioned above, but hang on for a minute. There is another point to first make about Matthew 6:12. Notice that it is a chain of forgiveness. The one praying forgives another person his or her debts to him or her, and then in return God forgives the one praying for sins. God is still in control of the forgiving of sins! The humans can forgive each others debts, but they cannot forgive each other’s sins.
The Bible teaches, repeatedly, that sin is an offense against GOD. When someone sins and harms another person, yes, one has then harmed a person with that sin, and the harm is legitimate discussion for potentially generous forgiveness. But the sin itself cannot be forgiven by the victim of the sin because sin is an offense against God because it is defiance of God, his will and what he has plainly ordered of humans. Suppose someone robs you. Yes, you can forgive the person for the harm of the robbery, but you cannot forgive them of their sin that violates one of the Commandments. Do not ever forget that. Ultimately God alone judges whether sin is forgiven.
Thus the important exception to what is the Christian credo of forgiveness is that one cannot forgive a sin that is directed against God, even if the actions of the sin are directed toward the person. The obvious example is that prophets sent by God cannot and did not ever forgive those who persecuted them. I know, you are itching to tell me that I am wrong, but no, you are wrong. Prophets cannot forgive those who defy God by refusing his messengers. It is not within their power because their bodies and what happens to them is in the service of God. So it’s not as though “their feelings are hurt” or they are tortured in and of themselves. When a prophet is persecuted it is sin against God to his face, even if the prophet’s body is the one who bears the scars. No prophet can forgive their persecutor; only God can do that.
So now you are not so eager to point out the second example of Jesus, are you? For now you are beginning to understand. Jesus did not forgive his tormentors. He ASKED God to do so. What was done to Jesus was sin against God and can only be forgiven by God. First of all, recall what Jesus said after he had been scourged and is carrying the cross to his own crucifixion:
Luke 23:27-32
A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’ At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ for if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” Now two others, both criminals, were led away with them to be executed.
Now, this was a lot for Jesus to say as he was suffering up the path to Golgotha. Jesus did not say, “Hey, it’s going to be alright, because I forgive them all and so does God.” Instead, Jesus takes the time to point out that they should not mourn him, God’s prophet about to be executed, but they should mourn themselves because as a result really bad times will come. Jesus is the green wood. To understand this you must understand that green wood is freshly cut wood that still has water in it as it is still alive, and thus it is nearly impossible to burn. So Jesus is the living green wood, there as a sign of God’s love among people, with the water of life still in him. Jesus is saying that if they crucify him, the green wood, while he is still among them, how much worse will it be when Jesus has been away from them, the green wood is now gone, and only the dry brown wood that will quickly burn is remaining. So Jesus is warning the women who mourn him that people will deeply regret the sin against God that is the crucifixion of Jesus.
Luke 23:33-34
When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” They divided his garments by casting lots.
Um, notice that Jesus is not forgiving the people himself. Jesus is not leaning over (as best as he can as he is being crucified after being scourged) and offering forgiveness as he is being crucified. Jesus asks God to forgive them. Jesus does not attempt to forgive them himself. People continually misquote this passage even though it is as plain as the nose on your face. Jesus does NOT do what he cannot do, which is forgive those who are putting to death God’s prophet. Jesus never can or would want to say anything that is misleading, and is anything but perfect in God’s will and truthfulness. So obviously he can not and would not “make a good example by forgiving those as they are nailing him.” I mean, would you actually read the scripture please?
Jesus had previously made the point that sins are the purview of God to forgive, and not humans forgiving each other for sin. That is plain when Jesus actually lists what sins (those against the Holy Spirit) that God will NOT forgive.
Matthew 12:31-32
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
This seems difficult to understand but it is not. Notice that Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man, not the Son of God. Thus he is referring to his bodily presence. Therefore if someone blasphemes Jesus he is wronging another human person, and thus can be forgiven by God, in theory. Jesus is saying that any wrong done against him (foreshadowing the crucifixion) can be forgiven if one repents and God wills forgiveness, as it is a “human on human” sin. However, one cannot sin against the Holy Spirit in a “human on human” way. A sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin that is totally different from a sin against Jesus himself, because a sin against the Holy Spirit is directly against God.
Thus Jesus is underscoring that he is God’s prophet, in human body, the Son of God but also the Son of Man. However, the point that anything against him can, in theory, be forgiven, should there be genuine repentance is only made in order to deliver one of his starkest and blunt warnings. When one sins against the Holy Spirit one is not committing a “human on human” offense, but defying and blaspheming God’s will to his face. This is true even if it is a human-on-human method by which one sins and blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
That is why Jesus says “speaks against the Holy Spirit.” Speaking is a human on human action, where someone is speaking and someone listens. So if someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit to someone else, it’s not like the listener can say, “Wow, you said a really bad thing about the Holy Spirit, but I forgive you.” THAT is the point that Jesus is driving home and it is crucial that people understand.
This is because, again, like killing a prophet, it’s not a matter of hurting the feelings of the listener or bruising, cutting or killing the prophet’s body. Just as the persecution and murder of a prophet of God is a direct sin against God, and not per se against the prophet, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an attempt to hinder the work of salvation that the Holy Spirit is engaged in, constantly. A Holy Spirit blasphemer is not “hurting the feelings of the Holy Spirit” or of the person who reads or overhears the blasphemy. A Holy Spirit blasphemer is attempting to thwart God’s will to save as many people as possible by attacking the faith through blasphemy. Thus the Holy Spirit blasphemer is saying to God, “No, I will not allow you to save people and reach their souls, and bring them to salvation, because I with my mind and my mouth and my deeds will oppose you.” A Holy Spirit blasphemer is assigning his or herself the role of Lucifer.
So when moronic teenagers get on the Internet and “deny the Holy Spirit” in order to test God and demonstrate that they do not believe, they are totally being childish and missing the point. A Holy Spirit blasphemer works against the saving of souls, not just mouth a stupid test into the cameras. Thus someone blasphemes the Holy Spirit when they tear down and embarrass and profane those who are working for salvation under the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit. THAT is what cannot be forgiven because the Holy Spirit blasphemer is attempting to hinder God’s work through the Holy Spirit of the rescuing and saving of souls.
Suppose a nun is raped. That is an example of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and the nun cannot forgive that on God’s behalf. Why? Because the rape is done to degrade and terrorize the faithful and take them off of the path of salvation. The nun can forgive the battering of her body and her degradation, but she cannot forgive the reasoning and objective of the attack and degradation, which was to terrorize and spread disbelief. Thus when someone rapes a nun, in this example, he or she is basically saying, “Look, I have defiled one of your believers. If you, God, actually exist, you would have stopped it.” Thus the rapist is not only a dirty beast of a human, but defying God in order to destroy the salvation of those around who observe the nun’s disgrace.
How do we know this? Again, look at the example of Jesus.
Matthew 27:26-31
Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus inside the praetorium and gathered the whole cohort around him. They stripped off his clothes and threw a scarlet military cloak about him. Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” They spat upon him and took the reed and kept striking him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak, dressed him in his own clothes, and led him off to crucify him.
Do you notice Jesus is not “forgiving” them as they rip his flesh off with whips, tear his forehead and head with the crown of thorns, strip him in front of the invited throng of the audience, strike him on the head, spit on him, and mock him? Notice that the soldiers “gathered the whole cohort around” Jesus. They deliberately got together a crowd to witness his mockery and torture. That is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, using Jesus as the mechanism. They degraded Jesus in order to defy and degrade the Holy Spirit, and those are the people who will not be forgiven. Jesus only asks God to forgive those who are nailing him to the wood when he is actually being crucified and raised on the cross. There is, as in everything Jesus said and did, great significance, for both hope but also for dire warning. Jesus did not walk in a procession of forgiving everyone as they did it because he would not and could not. Prophet killing and the degradation of those who preach God’s word is direct sin against God, not human on human subject for forgiveness.
This is why God is asked by Jesus to forgive those who are actually doing the nailing of him to the cross. Jesus does not speak a word of forgiveness during all the torture as lead up to the crucifixion, and he never presumes to forgive sin against God on God’s behalf as the sin is taking place. Jesus warned that some sin, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven. That is why he told the women that they should mourn themselves and their people, going forward, not Jesus himself, because the consequences of such sin will be dire. Jesus could not have been more clear throughout the Gospel of the difference between sinning against him as the Son of Man (and thus the potential for forgiveness though, as we saw with Judas, he did not avail himself of that possibility) and “speaking against” and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Brave and honorable former POWs
I remember debating with high school friends how difficult it is to withstand years of torture. Do read about this remarkable friend of John McCain and his testimony.
http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10629060
Five-and-a-half years in a North Vietnamese prison isn't what would make Sen. John McCain a great president - it's what he did during those years that shows a former fellow prisoner what kind of president he will be.
Col. Thomas N. Moe stopped in Gettysburg Thursday afternoon for a brief meet-and-greet on behalf of the man he said will be the next president of the United States.
Moe, a retired fighter pilot, spent five-and-a-half years in the cell next to McCain while the two were prisoners of war in Hanoi, North Vietnam.
http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10629060
Five-and-a-half years in a North Vietnamese prison isn't what would make Sen. John McCain a great president - it's what he did during those years that shows a former fellow prisoner what kind of president he will be.
Col. Thomas N. Moe stopped in Gettysburg Thursday afternoon for a brief meet-and-greet on behalf of the man he said will be the next president of the United States.
Moe, a retired fighter pilot, spent five-and-a-half years in the cell next to McCain while the two were prisoners of war in Hanoi, North Vietnam.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Catholic priest tortured and killed in India
http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=11080
August 17, 2008
Carmelite Priest Tortured, Killed in Andhra Pradesh
BALAMPILLY, AP (ICNS): The tortured and disfigured body of a Carmelite priest was reportedly found in the Yellareddy area of Naxalites-infected district of Nzamabad in Andhra Pradesh.
The body of Father Thomas Pandippallyil, 37, a member of Carmelite of Mary Immaculate, as found when people waiting for Sunday Mass in a village began a search after the priest failed to turn up. On a way side in Yellardy they found his body with legs and hands crushed with sever beatings, and eyes were pierced with a sharp weapon. He is believed to be killed on Saturday night. His motor bike was also found abandoned. The body was found almost a kilometer from the motor bike that he used. His head and also had serious injuries. The body was found in a deserted area in Balampilly village.
On Saturday he reportedly offered a Mass Burgida village, where he stayed and started for another village to say Sunday Mass. On his way he visited an FCC convent in Lingapetta and had his supper. On Sunday the sisters were waiting for the priest for the mass in Yellareddy, and not finding him there initiated a search. A Post mortem was conducted and the burial would be at the Balampilly Provincial house on Wednesday morning.
The priest was actively involved in educational field. He joined the Chanda mission of the CMI on 24th June 1987. He was ordained a priest in 2002. He was the rector for the Chanda mission province of the CMI, and also worked as hospital administrator, school manager and mission centre director.
http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=11098
August 19, 2008
Murdered priest suffered 30 stab wounds
HYDERABAD (ICNS): The missionary priest who was killed in Andhra Pradesh suffered multiple head injures and more than 30 stabbings. It took place in a region with “a history of antisocial and communal disturbances,” says Anthoniraj Thumma, executive secretary of Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches.
The following statement from him gives more details about the incident. The Christian Community in Andhra Pradesh was once again terribly shaken by the brutal murder of one of its pastors and missionaries. A series of massacres of pastors in recent years had left the Churches in the State in anguish. Fr. Thomas Pandipally, aged 38, a Catholic Priest working in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad, was ruthlessly assassinated on the night of August 16th 2008 on the way back to his residence after the Eucharistic service at a substation of Yellareddy parish, in Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh.
Fr. Thomas Pandipally CMI was born in the year 1971 to late Mr. Mathew and Mrs. Saramma at Monippally in Kottayam district, Kerala. He joined in the religious order of the Carmelite Missionaries of Immaculate (CMI) in the mission province of Chanda with its headquarters at Bellampally in Adilabad (Dt) in the year 1987 and took his first religious vows in 1992. He completed his B.Sc in Christ College, Bangalore, from 1994 to 1997. He did his studies in Philosophy in Darshana Institute, Wardha, and completed his Theological studies at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune. After his college and priestly studies he was ordained a priest in the year 2002. Fr. Thomas Pandipally had rendered his services as assistant director of a hospital at Bamini, Ballarshah district in Maharashtra. At the time of his death, he was the parish priest of St. Francis of Assisi Church and correspondent of Jeevadan High School, established in 1976, at Yellareddy. He was residing with Fr. Tomy Layippally CMI, the principal of Jeevadan High School.
Fr. Thomas was known to be a pleasant and kind person who would not hurt anyone. He was very generous and service-minded. He was always ready to undertake demanding tasks even in life threatening circumstances and dangerous locations.
As a zealous parish priest, Fr. Thomas Pandipally was celebrating Mass in different sub-stations throughout the week apart from his responsibility in the school. On August 16, 2008 he had left to Yellareddy to celebrate Mass at Burigidda near Lingampet. Fr. Thomas had gone to the convent at Lingampet at 7.15 p.m. on his Hero Honda motorbike. From there he went to Burigidda to celebrate Mass and returned to Lingampet at 9.00 p.m. At this moment, he received a phone call in his mobile enquiring in Telugu about the time of his return to Yellareddy. Sr. Dona FCC overheard the conversation of Fr. Thomas answering that he would proceed to Yellareddy at 9.30 p.m. after his dinner.
On August 17, 2008 the sisters from Lingampet on their way to attend Sunday Mass in the parish church at Yellareddy at 6.45 a.m. by their Jeep passed by a body lying on the road. They proceeded further to inform the parish priest about "the accident". On reaching the Yellareddy parish, the sisters were surprised to hear Fr. Thomas had not returned back to his residence from Lingampet the previous night. The sisters rushed back to the spot of offence where a dead body was lying and identified it as the body of Fr. Thomas brutally stabbed to death.
Immediately the police station at Lingampet was contacted by Sr. Dona where a case was registered under the section 302 of IPC and the investigation started.
There were more than 30 stab injuries all over the body of Fr. Thomas, especially at abdomen.
His head was hit with sticks and boulders and the scull was spit open.
All over his faces, on his eyes, lips and cheeks, deep wounds were found.
His motor cycle was thrown in bushes about 4 kms away.
He was done to death at a hidden place far away place in the forest and his body was brought back and thrown in the middle of the road.
Due to heavy rain the foot prints were washed away so much so the police dog squad brought in later could not trace the spot of murder.
On hearing the sad news, Archbishop Marampudi Joji of Hyderabad rushed to the spot with Fr. Alex Raju, the legal advisor of the Archdiocese, and other priests. He met the higher officials and the police officers and insisted that proper enquiry be conducted to bring out the truth and render justice. Meanwhile, Fr. Alex Thannippara CMI, the Provincial of the Chanda Province and other CMI priests had reached the place. The remains of Fr. Thomas Pandipally will be laid to rest on August 20, 2008 in the Carmelite provincial house at Balampally.
There has been a history of antisocial and communal disturbances in the locality.
False cases were filed and protests staged against the priests and nuns with the intention to drive them out from the place.
Very presence of Christians and missionaries is being resisted alleging that they convert to Christianity and destroy Hinduism. T
heir institutions are being considered as threat to the other schools and hospitals run by the private agencies for profit.
Fr. Sebastian, the previous principal of the same school in which Fr. Thomas Pandipally served, was also implicated in a false case. At Lingampet of the same parish, at the time of inauguration of the duly government sanctioned and constructed Snehalaya Hospital cum Care and Support Center for the HIV/AIDS patients at the Home for the Aged run by the Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC) sisters was blocked by the communal forces. Despite support of District Collector and Magistrate of Nizamabad, till date it has not been inaugurated after completion. Fr. Thomas Pandipally had resisted the communal and self-seeking groups that had opposed the opening of the Care center.
Denouncing the brutal murder of the Carmelite missionary Thomas Pandipally, Archbishop Marampudi Joji of Hyderabad, who is also the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Bishops' Council (APBC) and Executive Vice-President of Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches, stated:
"Father Thomas is a martyr; he sacrificed his life for the poor and marginalized. He did not die in vain, because his body and his blood enrich the Church in India, particularly the Church in Andhra Pradesh. The Indian Church is shocked and deeply saddened by this barbarous killing which is the result of a growing climate of intolerance and violence against Christians in the country". He maintains that the crime is the result of a climate of jealousy of the Catholic Church, whose only fault is that of trying to help develop the abandoned rural areas of the country and support and aid those who are victims of violence and oppression.
"The priests and nuns", stressed the Archbishop of Hyderabad, "have for decades been at the service of the less fortunate in India, and this makes them targets of evil forces who do not want the marginalized and impoverished to become empowered." The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches (APFC) strongly condemns the gruesome massacre of Fr. Thomas Pandipally and demands that the violent communal gropus be banned. The State and Central Governments have not banned the militant outfits like Hindu Vahini, an affiliate of Bajrang Dal in A.P., which had claimed murdering the pastors in the State and had threatened to kill more of them. The APFC would take up the case of Fr. Thomas with the Chief Minister of A.P., the A.P. State Minorities Commission and others concerned while expressing its protest in union with other Christian groups all over the State against the communal forces.
Fr. Anthoniraj Thumma
August 17, 2008
Carmelite Priest Tortured, Killed in Andhra Pradesh
BALAMPILLY, AP (ICNS): The tortured and disfigured body of a Carmelite priest was reportedly found in the Yellareddy area of Naxalites-infected district of Nzamabad in Andhra Pradesh.
The body of Father Thomas Pandippallyil, 37, a member of Carmelite of Mary Immaculate, as found when people waiting for Sunday Mass in a village began a search after the priest failed to turn up. On a way side in Yellardy they found his body with legs and hands crushed with sever beatings, and eyes were pierced with a sharp weapon. He is believed to be killed on Saturday night. His motor bike was also found abandoned. The body was found almost a kilometer from the motor bike that he used. His head and also had serious injuries. The body was found in a deserted area in Balampilly village.
On Saturday he reportedly offered a Mass Burgida village, where he stayed and started for another village to say Sunday Mass. On his way he visited an FCC convent in Lingapetta and had his supper. On Sunday the sisters were waiting for the priest for the mass in Yellareddy, and not finding him there initiated a search. A Post mortem was conducted and the burial would be at the Balampilly Provincial house on Wednesday morning.
The priest was actively involved in educational field. He joined the Chanda mission of the CMI on 24th June 1987. He was ordained a priest in 2002. He was the rector for the Chanda mission province of the CMI, and also worked as hospital administrator, school manager and mission centre director.
http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=11098
August 19, 2008
Murdered priest suffered 30 stab wounds
HYDERABAD (ICNS): The missionary priest who was killed in Andhra Pradesh suffered multiple head injures and more than 30 stabbings. It took place in a region with “a history of antisocial and communal disturbances,” says Anthoniraj Thumma, executive secretary of Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches.
The following statement from him gives more details about the incident. The Christian Community in Andhra Pradesh was once again terribly shaken by the brutal murder of one of its pastors and missionaries. A series of massacres of pastors in recent years had left the Churches in the State in anguish. Fr. Thomas Pandipally, aged 38, a Catholic Priest working in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad, was ruthlessly assassinated on the night of August 16th 2008 on the way back to his residence after the Eucharistic service at a substation of Yellareddy parish, in Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh.
Fr. Thomas Pandipally CMI was born in the year 1971 to late Mr. Mathew and Mrs. Saramma at Monippally in Kottayam district, Kerala. He joined in the religious order of the Carmelite Missionaries of Immaculate (CMI) in the mission province of Chanda with its headquarters at Bellampally in Adilabad (Dt) in the year 1987 and took his first religious vows in 1992. He completed his B.Sc in Christ College, Bangalore, from 1994 to 1997. He did his studies in Philosophy in Darshana Institute, Wardha, and completed his Theological studies at Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune. After his college and priestly studies he was ordained a priest in the year 2002. Fr. Thomas Pandipally had rendered his services as assistant director of a hospital at Bamini, Ballarshah district in Maharashtra. At the time of his death, he was the parish priest of St. Francis of Assisi Church and correspondent of Jeevadan High School, established in 1976, at Yellareddy. He was residing with Fr. Tomy Layippally CMI, the principal of Jeevadan High School.
Fr. Thomas was known to be a pleasant and kind person who would not hurt anyone. He was very generous and service-minded. He was always ready to undertake demanding tasks even in life threatening circumstances and dangerous locations.
As a zealous parish priest, Fr. Thomas Pandipally was celebrating Mass in different sub-stations throughout the week apart from his responsibility in the school. On August 16, 2008 he had left to Yellareddy to celebrate Mass at Burigidda near Lingampet. Fr. Thomas had gone to the convent at Lingampet at 7.15 p.m. on his Hero Honda motorbike. From there he went to Burigidda to celebrate Mass and returned to Lingampet at 9.00 p.m. At this moment, he received a phone call in his mobile enquiring in Telugu about the time of his return to Yellareddy. Sr. Dona FCC overheard the conversation of Fr. Thomas answering that he would proceed to Yellareddy at 9.30 p.m. after his dinner.
On August 17, 2008 the sisters from Lingampet on their way to attend Sunday Mass in the parish church at Yellareddy at 6.45 a.m. by their Jeep passed by a body lying on the road. They proceeded further to inform the parish priest about "the accident". On reaching the Yellareddy parish, the sisters were surprised to hear Fr. Thomas had not returned back to his residence from Lingampet the previous night. The sisters rushed back to the spot of offence where a dead body was lying and identified it as the body of Fr. Thomas brutally stabbed to death.
Immediately the police station at Lingampet was contacted by Sr. Dona where a case was registered under the section 302 of IPC and the investigation started.
There were more than 30 stab injuries all over the body of Fr. Thomas, especially at abdomen.
His head was hit with sticks and boulders and the scull was spit open.
All over his faces, on his eyes, lips and cheeks, deep wounds were found.
His motor cycle was thrown in bushes about 4 kms away.
He was done to death at a hidden place far away place in the forest and his body was brought back and thrown in the middle of the road.
Due to heavy rain the foot prints were washed away so much so the police dog squad brought in later could not trace the spot of murder.
On hearing the sad news, Archbishop Marampudi Joji of Hyderabad rushed to the spot with Fr. Alex Raju, the legal advisor of the Archdiocese, and other priests. He met the higher officials and the police officers and insisted that proper enquiry be conducted to bring out the truth and render justice. Meanwhile, Fr. Alex Thannippara CMI, the Provincial of the Chanda Province and other CMI priests had reached the place. The remains of Fr. Thomas Pandipally will be laid to rest on August 20, 2008 in the Carmelite provincial house at Balampally.
There has been a history of antisocial and communal disturbances in the locality.
False cases were filed and protests staged against the priests and nuns with the intention to drive them out from the place.
Very presence of Christians and missionaries is being resisted alleging that they convert to Christianity and destroy Hinduism. T
heir institutions are being considered as threat to the other schools and hospitals run by the private agencies for profit.
Fr. Sebastian, the previous principal of the same school in which Fr. Thomas Pandipally served, was also implicated in a false case. At Lingampet of the same parish, at the time of inauguration of the duly government sanctioned and constructed Snehalaya Hospital cum Care and Support Center for the HIV/AIDS patients at the Home for the Aged run by the Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC) sisters was blocked by the communal forces. Despite support of District Collector and Magistrate of Nizamabad, till date it has not been inaugurated after completion. Fr. Thomas Pandipally had resisted the communal and self-seeking groups that had opposed the opening of the Care center.
Denouncing the brutal murder of the Carmelite missionary Thomas Pandipally, Archbishop Marampudi Joji of Hyderabad, who is also the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Bishops' Council (APBC) and Executive Vice-President of Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches, stated:
"Father Thomas is a martyr; he sacrificed his life for the poor and marginalized. He did not die in vain, because his body and his blood enrich the Church in India, particularly the Church in Andhra Pradesh. The Indian Church is shocked and deeply saddened by this barbarous killing which is the result of a growing climate of intolerance and violence against Christians in the country". He maintains that the crime is the result of a climate of jealousy of the Catholic Church, whose only fault is that of trying to help develop the abandoned rural areas of the country and support and aid those who are victims of violence and oppression.
"The priests and nuns", stressed the Archbishop of Hyderabad, "have for decades been at the service of the less fortunate in India, and this makes them targets of evil forces who do not want the marginalized and impoverished to become empowered." The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Churches (APFC) strongly condemns the gruesome massacre of Fr. Thomas Pandipally and demands that the violent communal gropus be banned. The State and Central Governments have not banned the militant outfits like Hindu Vahini, an affiliate of Bajrang Dal in A.P., which had claimed murdering the pastors in the State and had threatened to kill more of them. The APFC would take up the case of Fr. Thomas with the Chief Minister of A.P., the A.P. State Minorities Commission and others concerned while expressing its protest in union with other Christian groups all over the State against the communal forces.
Fr. Anthoniraj Thumma
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Another view of the portraying torture controversy
It is wrong for the media to explore, even in a "socially responsible" way the use of torture - ever. The reason for this is simple. One cannot prepare oneself for "situations" where one "must" do something that is morally wrong or sinful. Let us use the extreme example that a "terrorist" knows of the location of a weapon of mass destruction that is about to be used and could kill millions of people. Yes, it should be illegal to use torture ever, and EVEN in that situation. To save the world as a moral people, wrong must be wrong, illegal must be illegal, and sin must be sin, even in dire and extreme circumstances. However, the "saving grace" in such a situation is that the top decision maker (and I do mean the top) can make a determination to break the law and sin, in order to, in this one case, save the people.
For example, if this was the case and people knew FOR SURE that a terrorist knew of a nuclear bomb about to explode, it would be the responsibility of the President or the top military person to be notified and to make a one off decision, just as they do in any true crisis. One cannot justify torture in any case in advance. And it remains a wrong act, both criminally and sinfully, to do so even in the most extreme case. Part of being a leader, however, is to be the one to make the personal and professional decision to break the law and sin, given an extreme crisis.
That is why the media is doing a disservice and is propogandizing to their viewers when they explore "what if" scenarios. Torture is always wrong and always sinful. A person who is the chief and must make that decision is making the decision to commit a crime and to sin. That is his or her rightful decision to make. They must then answer for that decision. Justice, both earthly and heavenly, will - as it always does - weigh what has occurred and then decide penalties or justification. So no one should ever take it upon themselves to ever say torture is right or justified, or portray those "decisions" because the premise is wrong. Torture is never right. However, all people have to make a decision in a crisis point in their lives and take responsibility in a criminal or soul threatening context. A decision to torture is a commission of crime and a sin, and must be the responsibility of the top military commander or civilian leader.
I do not believe there would ever truly be a "missed opportunity"(on the scale of the potential nuclear bomb, for example) though the use of this principle. These black and white scenarios are more the basis of fiction. The reality is that terrorists hate America because some of them perceive that many Americans have abandoned God and morality. The moral high ground must be regained by America, or it will be at its peril. I actually think that there is less likelihood of these extreme situations ever occurring if we re-occupy the moral high ground and refuse to endorse torture. I think terrorism loses recruits in the long and short run, and less recruits equals less real risk.
For example, if this was the case and people knew FOR SURE that a terrorist knew of a nuclear bomb about to explode, it would be the responsibility of the President or the top military person to be notified and to make a one off decision, just as they do in any true crisis. One cannot justify torture in any case in advance. And it remains a wrong act, both criminally and sinfully, to do so even in the most extreme case. Part of being a leader, however, is to be the one to make the personal and professional decision to break the law and sin, given an extreme crisis.
That is why the media is doing a disservice and is propogandizing to their viewers when they explore "what if" scenarios. Torture is always wrong and always sinful. A person who is the chief and must make that decision is making the decision to commit a crime and to sin. That is his or her rightful decision to make. They must then answer for that decision. Justice, both earthly and heavenly, will - as it always does - weigh what has occurred and then decide penalties or justification. So no one should ever take it upon themselves to ever say torture is right or justified, or portray those "decisions" because the premise is wrong. Torture is never right. However, all people have to make a decision in a crisis point in their lives and take responsibility in a criminal or soul threatening context. A decision to torture is a commission of crime and a sin, and must be the responsibility of the top military commander or civilian leader.
I do not believe there would ever truly be a "missed opportunity"(on the scale of the potential nuclear bomb, for example) though the use of this principle. These black and white scenarios are more the basis of fiction. The reality is that terrorists hate America because some of them perceive that many Americans have abandoned God and morality. The moral high ground must be regained by America, or it will be at its peril. I actually think that there is less likelihood of these extreme situations ever occurring if we re-occupy the moral high ground and refuse to endorse torture. I think terrorism loses recruits in the long and short run, and less recruits equals less real risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
