This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Jesus and the torture debate

Jesus and the torture debate - Comments

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 1 by Eventhorizon

For once I'd like to read an article about a member of the American government that doesnt have the words 'devout christian' after their name

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:54:00 UTC | #346014

biggidee's Avatar Comment 2 by biggidee

I'm an American, and I can tell u that over here they parse the Christians into real ones (my sect) and posers (everyone else, esp. the Papists...unless you are which case it's everyone else...unless u are a practicing, church going Catholic. in which case it's slacker Catholics as well, unless you are just going to mass to meet chicks, in which....) Devout is a term suspiciously close to you don't want your fate in the hands of someone who see you as an everyone else...the Vietnamese non-combatants found that out with the Holy Napalm Baptismal they received.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:08:00 UTC | #346019

cerad's Avatar Comment 3 by cerad

For once I'd like to read an article about a member of the American government that doesnt have the words 'devout christian' after their name

Here is one about Keith Ellison.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:13:00 UTC | #346020

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 4 by Oromasdes1978

What Ashcroft never did, apparently, was ask: What Would Jesus Thor Do?"

By one simple strike-through one can show the utter stupidity of Mr Waldman's argument

I am also think of words like "against the American Constitution" would also be very helpful too.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:20:00 UTC | #346023

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 5 by Dr. Strangegod

While we're at it, how about my favorite: What Would John Wayne Do? Now, despite all the talk of "cowboys" in the White House (which pisses me off to no end) if Bush and Co. had actually asked himself/themselves this question, he/they may have made more honorable choices than those based on the Bible.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:33:00 UTC | #346031

root2squared's Avatar Comment 6 by root2squared

Jesus and torture always reminds me of the passion of the Christ - a sick 2 hour torture fest. If you can enjoy a movie like that you've probably been desensitized to torture.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:35:00 UTC | #346032

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 7 by PrimeNumbers

Christianity instead of being against torture, is, through the teachings of the good book, positively for torture. Examples being Egypt - tortured, Hell - eternal torture, Job - torture, Jesus telling us slaves should be beaten - torture. Crucifiction, a vital part of Christian theology that redeems man - torture. Need I go on.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:56:00 UTC | #346042

ewaldrep's Avatar Comment 8 by ewaldrep

This is another example of culling what one desires to see of his/her religion and conveniently forgetting the rest. The book of Job is and endless volume of physical and psychological torture that god "tests" Job with. The entire christian foundation is upon the willingness of god to endorse (and perhaps gleefully enjoy we don't know) the torture to death of his only celestial son. I would think that a christian in such a position of decision power may not neccessarily be the first voice to speak out at the outragiousness of torture. I would rather think that it may be a person who actually values a human life here on Earth!

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:59:00 UTC | #346043

Vaal's Avatar Comment 9 by Vaal

Can't recall anything about "Thou shalt not torture" in the 10 commandments. Lots they seemed to miss out in the 10 commandments. Some ethics would have been useful. The first 4 commandments are dedicated to worshipping Yahweh, or else, so they were a complete waste of air. The meat of it was the 6 commandments.

Why only 10, could Moses not count more than that? After all, he had 10 toes as well, or was his chisel getting blunt?

EDIT: Surely torture was used as a church policy against witchcraft, and apostasy for centuries.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:02:00 UTC | #346044

NMcC's Avatar Comment 10 by NMcC

Why only 10, could Moses not count more than that? After all, he had 10 toes as well, or was his chisel getting blunt?

I thought everyone knew the reason for there being 10 Commandments.

Originally, there were only 4, but then Yahweh lowered the price and, being a good Jew, Moses said "That's more like it, okay, I'll take 10"

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:11:00 UTC | #346046

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 11 by PrimeNumbers

Given the timing of the 10 commandments, and written language of the time was most likely Egyptian hieroglyphics, that's probably how the stone tablets, if they ever existed, were inscribed. Not in English.

There's no commandment against genocide as that would obviously involve Abraham engraving lots of little stick figures being smitten by Yahweh, and that would take way too much time to draw, and not really fit on the stone tablet anyway.

And there's no commandment against torture because Yahweh thinks torture is good.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:28:00 UTC | #346049

DoctorE's Avatar Comment 12 by DoctorE

Person stating superman is real, he will be thrown out of office... how come Jeebus has special status.
Ohh John Ashcroft is a devout & fine christian, slavery is ok with jeebus.
Jeebus says it's ok to beat up slaves and let the slaves suffer before they die

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:29:00 UTC | #346050

mblarson323's Avatar Comment 13 by mblarson323

I thought everyone knew the reason for there being 10 Commandments. Originally, there were only 4, but then Yahweh lowered the price and, being a good Jew, Moses said "That's more like it, okay, I'll take 10"

This is precisely how silly rumors get started. NMcC, I don't fault you. You've just bought into a long-held but mistaken belief that's often perpretrated by those who are not TRUE Christians. The reason there are only ten commandments is because they're written on stone tablets! You ever try to carry a stone tablet? Yeah, well now imagine walking all the way back down the f**king (can I say that here?) mountain carrying TWO of 'em! And Moses was no spring chicken. In fact, I have it on good authority that there were, originally, fifteen commandments, but on his way down the mountain Moses stopped for a breather and - well - he left one tablet behind. There's still heated debate among Christian apologists as to whether it was an accident or whether Moses just said "F**k it, these things are heavy. I'm sure we'll get along fine with just ten."

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:35:00 UTC | #346051

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 14 by Peacebeuponme


And the missing five included things such as

"Thou shalt nor petition thy God for assistance in sporting achievement"

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:38:00 UTC | #346053

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 15 by Oromasdes1978

Moses had just seen God's arse and been given a divine sun tan - you know how it is when you have over done it in the sun - you can't move and stuff is uncomfortable to carry - 10 Commandments was all Moses could muster...before he sent some idol worshippers off to go and kill 3000 innocent people including children.

Do these people not read their Bible or something?

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:39:00 UTC | #346054

Vaal's Avatar Comment 16 by Vaal

No, no, they were the 5 picked up by the Mormons.

"Thou shalt not drink tea or coffee"
"Thou shalt have as many wives as your ears can manage" etc :)

Of course, don't know if tea or coffee was around in Moses era :)

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:43:00 UTC | #346056

Gregg Townsend's Avatar Comment 17 by Gregg Townsend

15. Comment #362390 by Philip1978

That reminds me of Mel Brooks in...well just watch for yourself.

Fifteen Commandments

--edit-- mblarson323, That video is for you too, mate.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:47:00 UTC | #346057

DoctorE's Avatar Comment 18 by DoctorE

Everyhing goD does is good, even bad things are good.
The christians are blinded by their fake reward of eternal life in paradise.
Stone rape victims to death for not screaming loud enough to get help...
Yes reward..uhh I mean yes lard.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:55:00 UTC | #346059

Roland_F's Avatar Comment 19 by Roland_F

Always jokes about Moses.
How many heavy stone tablets you would carry down from Mt. Sinai when you are 110 years old and still need energy to order the killing of 3000 country men for dancing and shortly afterwards an old man for collecting firewood on a Sabatt.
You have to conserve energy to wander afterwards another 40 years in the desert with these tablets (version 2) before dying with 150.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:58:00 UTC | #346060

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 20 by Oromasdes1978


It would have been tea most probably - it was around 2737 B.C when Shen Nung dropped some tea leaves in his hot water. Moses might have heard of it and so wrote a separate bit for the Mormons which ended up in Mr Smith's hands by "miracle" :)

The Mormons would execute me for sure. :)


Fantastic stuff! I liked that

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:58:00 UTC | #346061

root2squared's Avatar Comment 21 by root2squared

Speaking of the 10 commandments. Since they are only meant for men, what rules are the women supposed to follow?

The "you shall not cover your neighbor's wife" suggests this. And since lesbians are not ok.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:12:00 UTC | #346063

Sciros's Avatar Comment 22 by Sciros

root2 you don't get it, the commandments are for men AND women, and "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" is what TELLS you that lesbians are not ok!

Really this is all Theology 101. If you want to learn more sign up for my free course, only $299!

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:14:00 UTC | #346064

TheLoneIguana's Avatar Comment 23 by TheLoneIguana

"The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen..."
"Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!"

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:21:00 UTC | #346068

jhm's Avatar Comment 24 by jhm

Three words about torture and Judeo-Christian mores: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:23:00 UTC | #346069

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 25 by hungarianelephant

I could never work out whether Ashcroft was knave or fool. The idea that he did a "utilitarian calculation" is quite striking. I saw no indication of him ever doing any kind of calculation at all, utilitarian or otherwise. He graduated magna cum laude from the Tony Blair School Of Deciding Which Way The Wind Is Blowing. Messages from his office seemed to be made up as he went along, with some spurious legal jargon tagged on later.

A bit like Platini, actually.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:26:00 UTC | #346070

Flapjack's Avatar Comment 26 by Flapjack

Sciros - Of course gay people are covered by "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass!" Though I always feel that really depends on who your neighbour is!

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:27:00 UTC | #346071

root2squared's Avatar Comment 27 by root2squared


But that means it's ok to covet your neighbor's husband if you are a woman or a gay man. Otherwise god would have used spouse instead of wife.

But then they still can't do anything about it because of the adultery clause. So you can look but not touch. Weird.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:29:00 UTC | #346072

severalspeciesof's Avatar Comment 28 by severalspeciesof

From the article:

There was no greater burden on Mr Ashcroft, as a devout Christian, to present the moral argument against this policy than there was on anyone else in the room. To suggest as much is to wrongfully assume that devout Christians have superior morals to people who are less religious-minded.
Brilliantly stated...

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:32:00 UTC | #346073

mitch_486's Avatar Comment 29 by mitch_486

It's pictures like the one featured in this article, that really grind on my sense of logic.

These images are CONSTANTLY overlooked by practising christians and not one person has an issue with basic physics. How does one suppose a man can fly with wings at the top of his shoulders, that are in some way attached to his spine? I suppose it would look a bit like a chicken with a bowling ball attached to its feet.

Now I know this question is just plain stupid in these parts, I guess I'm just still a bit baffeld by the details of religion.

Edit: Shouldn't one who is religious fully accept all the details as well?

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:46:00 UTC | #346079

DiveMedic's Avatar Comment 30 by DiveMedic

Maybe Ashcroft WAS being a good Christian. If they are all going to hell anyway, why not get them acclimated to it a bit here so that it isn't such a shock? Kinda like slowly getting into a cold pool as opposed to being thrown in.

Oh and in the picture with the article, it really does appear that Jesus and Satan are disco dancing.

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:00 UTC | #346082