Evangelicals and Torture

NO - Torture is a dehumanizing act to both the torturer and the torturee! I can not see any circumstance where a Christian could support it. Plus terrorists can and will say anything to get out of it - can that info really be that reliable?

Never is torture justified. It isn't doing onto others as we'd have them do onto us, the information is questionable, there are more effective ways of getting that information, and such policies make us less, not more, safe as a nation.

But I suspect we'd find the same results for gun ownership, the death penalty and non-universal health care.

This might be due to how people read scripture, but I think there's more of an argument to be made for the overlap of politics and religion. The religious positions of the Republican party and the political positions of evangelical Christians have much in common.

No--torture can't be justified by any Christian ethic.

Kenton, nice to see you on the relativistic utilitarian ethical side. That exact practice was called torture during the Inquisition. It was called torture when it was used against our troops. And it was called torture when, under highly controlled circumstances, we've tried to prepare our troops to face it when captured. At least CT isn't buying that particular language game.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/05/evangelicals_an.html

Of course, whatever 'leaders' believe they are hardly excused. While they are happy to speak out on a host of issues, the truth is that so many Christians believe it's ok because, at best, the 'leaders' are silent if not outright supportive.

Kenton, the party line you are regurgitating is disinformation, propaganda, and in Orwellian terms 'newspeak'. The word is not ambiguous at all. Actions like waterboarding are torture. They have been called torture and recognized as torture for centuries even by those who were using them. We have descriptions of waterboarding in the torture chambers of the inquisition. You are on the verge of being convinced that up is down and left is right. You have already been convinced that evil is good or at least acceptable.

For those surprised at the findings, keep in mind most people are probably not thinking "torture people", they are thinking "save lives". Getting information to stop the Twin Towers from being attacked is in the back of their minds.

As we hope to dialogue and show people what torture really entails, we need to make sure we are also speaking to the concerns of those who accept the practice.

I'm still having trouble understanding how Christians can support torture.

I've been thinking about this lately. We can look at torture in several ways:

Practical - Will this produce the ends we are looking for -- information that will make us safer? If this is the only question, then if the answer is yes -- then it's ok. Of course, there is some dispute as to whether it is practically useful. In fact, not only could it not get the information, but it may make us less safe (when others learn that we did it).

Legally - Is this right to do under the US or international law. If this was the only question, then we might say its ok if we find that it's legal. But again, I'm pretty positive that this doesn't pass international treaties and while it may be technically legal under our own system of laws, it's in direct contradiction of our general legal standards (eg understood in light of the Constitution, even if its not bound to it).

Ethically - Lets just speak from a purely secular point of view. Is it write to cause intense physical or mental pain to someone to gather information.

And then finally, from a Christian Ethical perspective:
Christian - Can I agree that torturing others, even if it may produce the ends I want (safer place to live), is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

I can see how Christians may accept the practical and legal reasoning for torture (though I still think they're wrong). I honestly don't know how they can think it's ok in light of Christ's teachings.

Kenton,

Considering I've heard those who have voluntarily been waterboarded only lasted a few seconds, I'd have to say that it physical and/or mental effects are torture. But even if you don't want to call it torture. Can you honestly call it right?

Torture is never permisable, per responses #1 and #3.

BTW: Which enhanced interrogation techniques would we not protest if used on the young Iranian American (former Ms. North Dakota) being held in Iran on Espionage charges?

Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

NO. Torture is wrong, and is never justified, under any circumstances... seems pretty clear for followers of Christ.

And yes, Kenton #4 & 6, water boarding is, and has been considered for a long time torture. And we can't just define torture by who we're torturing (no matter how wrong or potentially criminal the person), because then each side will have their exceptions and soon it will go badly for us (like US soldiers being tortured when captured by other countries).

This to me is just another example of the colapse of evangelicalism.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/03/will-evangelicalism-survive.html

If Christians can't recognize torture and call it what it is, a dehumanizing practice that is the opposite of the Jesus Creed, then what kind of Christians are we really producing?!

Kenny,

I think it speaks to Bonhoeffer. Can we call his attempt to kill Hitler right? I guess I'm not really all that comfortable calling either scenario "right." But Bonhoeffer did what he did out of a desire to bring peace. So in that sense, yeah, waterboarding KSM was "right."

"Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"

Never justified. While it's easy to come up with some seemingly inescapable moral conundrum (What if there were 100 babies about to be crushed by a boulder and the only way to stop it is by torturing Hitler?), the world is never that simple.

And the question of "do unto others" means, in this situation, that if I had committed a crime, or if I was a prisoner of war, how would I want to be treated? How does terrorism change this situation from any other crime? Should we torture people suspected of regular-old murder? Thieves?

Besides, it doesn't work anyway, so the moral question is moot.

Scott,

I think you just hit on for me what is so incredibly hard about the modern American political landscape. There is no viable group with a consistent ethic of life. Both major groups have a piece and the fighting rules are framed poorly and it is all completely politicized.

wm

Kenny, you misunderstand the pill. It prevents the egg from being released from the ovary and ever being fertilized. The morning after pill ("Plan B") works as you describe. THAT is abortion.

So, can I make a moral claim for torture just by questioning KSM's humanity? :)

Kenton,

Actually, the BCP primary purpose is to prevent fertilization, but that isn't always the case. When it doesn't prevent fertilization, it can and usually does prevent attachment.

In fact, the morning after pill is just a high dose of the BCP.

Ok Wikipedia says I'm mostly wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_pill#Mechanism_of_action

"Other secondary mechanisms have been hypothesized. One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Some pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[61] Others make more complex arguments against the existence of these mechanisms ,[62] while yet other scientists argue the existing data supports such mechanisms.[63] The controversy is currently unresolved."

Carry on.

O' to torture and have the false security of being safe and lose your soul.

Kenton (12): When [waterboarding] was applied to KSM, it saved lives without "costing us our soul."

We don't actually know that. We have no proof that we couldn't have got the same information without using such extreme techniques as waterboarding, which I regard as torture. If you don't think it is, have you watched any of the YouTube videos of waterboarding?

About abortion: I'm not arguing the case for it; however I see a difference between abortion and waterboarding in that the intent of waterboarding is to cause extreme emotional and physical distress. That is not the intent of abortion.

Helen-

I just watched a waterboarding youtube video. I still don't think it's "torture." (Although, it had this real eerie music background designed to make you think it was.)

Mind you, I would hate it, as I would hate the cold room, or being interrogated naked. But the victim had no broken bones, no burns, wasn't bruised, wasn't poisoned. I just think, given what KSM was responsible for, it *just*wasn't*that*bad*.

Anyone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture should go and experience it first hand and then get back to us. Make sure the people who do it aren't people you confidently know won't let you drown.

Well, and there's quite a difference between using waterboarding to get information -- and using it 180 times. Perhaps some can support the former. But the latter?

Look, we weren't using waterboarding to get information. We were doing it to make our enemies suffer, to put them in agony without causing physical damage.

Kind of like burning in hell. Nice.

From my perspective...waterboard the hell out of them if it saves American lives.

I suspect it's nice to take the moral high ground. However, I also suspect, some of you might think differently if you needed to take an action, in order to save a son or daughter, grand son or grand daughter.

There is a commandment that says “Thou Shall not kill.” No soldiering? No police with deadly force? No self-defense in a life threatening situation? Unless you are a complete pacifist then you agree that there are times when killing is justifiable.

Is being killed a worse fate than being tortured? I think most would agree that it is. Yet killing is justifiable and torture never is? Someone mentioned above how pacifist Bonheoffer opted to participate in a plot to murder Hitler. How easy it is to sit back in the relative tranquility of our Western democracies and make absolutists statements about torture.

Someone mentioned how easy it is to favor torture when you know you aren’t the one who has to do it. It’s also easy to be absolutist about “torture” when you’re not the one weighing the deaths and suffering of thousands (maybe millions) against waterboarding someone.

Michael (#45), torture has long been condemned by people who would endorse a just war/limited war philosophy. The difference is that when a soldier is on the battlefield, he is autonomous and potentially dangerous. As soon as he is captured, he is totally at the mercy of the captor. Using "interrogation techniques" that push the line toward unbearable physical and psychological pain is, in my opinion, the emotional equivalent of rape.

I see several problems with starting to make exceptions to the rule. First, the notion that torture is the only way to get information needed is not well substantiated at all. Second, the interrogator will always be acting on hunches. There is no way to know for sure if the person he is torturing is able to give the information he needs nor what the actual threat may be. There will likely be a lot of unfruitful torture, which will lead to further and broader use of torture. Third, the line between looking for information and desire for revenge can be very blurry. Give people the out of making exceptions and there very likely will be abuse. Lastly, there are a whole host of unintended consequences once you open the door to torture.

*If* a person is quite sure that using torture is the only way to save lives (which I still think is doubtful), that person needs to choose to conscientiously disobey the law and then face the legal consequences of his actions. If there were mitigating circumstances, that should be taken into account in his trial and sentencing. A person who murders in self defense or to protect the lives of others still needs to be accountable for what he did under the law.

But what I see in the current debates is all of a sudden broadening our definition of torture and making exceptions to international treaties and domestic US law because now we happen to be the ones at war. This is the height of hypocrisy, in my opinion. The "exceptions" that we want for ourselves happen to be quite common in warfare.

Michael Kruse - apart from anything else because I am a complete pacifist, torture is inflicted on people in order to extract information - information they may not even have if they are innocent. And if Americans have a reputation for using torture, you're going to have enemies who will rather fight to the death than give themselves up.

Torture should never be practiced by Christians. However, it makes sense in a liberal democratic narrative to violate the dignity of the outsider in order to secure the "freedom" of the community. So it seems the question should be do you follow the state or do you follow the Christ?

paul: what about non christians? Do you follow the state or do you follow your morals perhaps? Torture is immoral.

Scot said: "Torture is always wrong because it violates the sanctity of human integrity and conscience."

Philippians 3:15, right? That's kind of what I'm getting at -- "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear, but "the sanctity of human integrity and conscience" must be derived, and that is what needs to be spelled out.

"The intent of torture is never reconciliation. ... It breeds violence."

Says the anabaptist who believes in neither capital punishment not just war (iirc). What do you say to the person who believes in both?

Some thoughts in tension:

I am against it because I want America to have a moral superiority here. When Americans are tortured, I would like for the world to know that evil people tortured us and it is unacceptable. When Americans torture, then it opens the door for a tit-for-tat kind of discussion. I would like for us to simply be above it.

Some state that there are better ways to get the information. I wonder. If it were so easy, why get our hands dirty with this stuff in the first place? Just use those techniques. And remember that the information in question is related to plans to kill and terrorize people. By withholding the information, the torture victim himself is actively participating in a plot to do violence. So this is violence being done to a person who is participating in violence to coerce them to stop the violence.

Ticking bomb situation: If I knew that there were a ticking bomb and that people would die, and that waterboarding a suspect would reveal the necessary details to save them, I think I would, in fact, make the decision to waterboard. It's worth it to save lives. I believe this will strike Scott M as not different than relativism in sexual ethics. I would say the players and the stakes are different, making the two situations hardly parallel.

Yet, as pointed out, allowing it in the exception can lead to doing it every time, just in case. (However, that is a slippery-slope argument) So the gray area: what if there might be a ticking bomb and waterboarding might reveal needed information?

Mark Z. #46

“I should mention here that Jesus refused to kill people in self-defense.”

He chose to lay down his life at the cross to accomplish a mission. Other than that, we don’t know if he was ever confronted with a life-threatening situation where lethal defense so we don’t know that he “refused” to kill in self-defense. From very early Christian ethics has made allowance for lethal force in self defense.

“It's not possible to torture someone in self-defense.”

You missed my point. Is taking a life a greater moral evil than waterboarding someone? I suggest that most people would say that it is. Yet we see exceptions where life-taking is justified while waterboarding and various activities being classified as torture are never justified. That seems a bit peculiar to me. I’m looking for a basis of consistency.

“I'm sure we could construct some bizarre hypothetical situation …”

The official report recently released said Zarqawi (as I recall) said we would soon see the evidence of other plans in the works. There was originally a plan for west coast attacks on 9/11 that were aborted but an intention to execute them soon. Standard interrogation techniques were not effective and there was a time element involved. Thus, the movement then, and only then, to enhanced interrogation techniques done under specific protocols. Those methods, according to the report, delivered information that averted west coast attacks.

I’m not justifying the methods in these circumstances. I haven’t made an extensive personal study of the issues. I am saying that to say only “bizarre hypothetical situations” would raise the issues is a considerable overstatement.

#47 Andrea

My thoughts are very similar to yours. The consequences of using torture, even in the defense of lives, can have an insidious impact of the fabric of society. What I'm asking for here is a little entomological humility on the part of the absolutists here.

#57 MatthewS

Many of your questions are similar to mine.

I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments but I was listening to a radio program recently in which the speaker said that nations who employ torture as an anti-terrorist tactic eventually use it on their own populace. This tactic and the utilitariam arguments for its use seemingly has a corrosive effect on the moral fiber of a fearful populace,who may be willing to sacrifice their civil rights de facto, and autocratic, corrupt and power-hungry politicians.

Sorry for some of the typos I'm exhausted at the moment

Mark Z. #66

The rape analogy is not compelling to me because there is no (at least theoretically) greater good coming from rape. The purpose in this case of waterboarding was not violation for violation's sake but to save lives. That is what creates the moral quandary.

I understand that the principle of hospitality and treating others humanely. One of the wrinkles in this debate is that we don't have a war with traditional combatants but neither do we have a couple of thugs simply being destructive. We have a highly developed coordinated network of people united in a common mission to use violence to bring down legitimate government powers. It gets complicated.

I mentioned Bonhoeffer's case above; a pacifist who attempted murder. I've also read and talked with others who've made decisions in the moral chaos of Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia. Absolutes get a bit messy in the real world. There is no question that hospitality is to be our guiding light but is it an absolute?

I can appreciate the desire to have a consistent ethic to live by but I find the statements by some above that you can't be a Christian if you don't hold to absolute standards on waterboarding a bit over the top. The real world is often more challenging than our armchair analysis from comfortable western environs permits us to appreciate.

I have no simple answers and I'm unwilling to retreat to the comfort absolutism.

Mark Z #66,

Why does anyone torture anyone? "There is such a thing as malice and revenge," as Tolkien said. Some people like torture. It makes them feel powerful. It might even make them feel like they're doing something about the problem. It's very satisfying, when someone defies your efforts to get him to talk, or lies to you, or is known to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, to slam his head against a wall.>>

Mark, you make a harsh judgement. The reason for the waterboarding was to get the prisoner to divulge information about ongoing plans to perpetrate violence. Like I said earlier, the violence is being done to a person who is himself participating in violence to coerce him to help stop the violence. Your rush to judge those who did the waterboarding as though you had all the facts and are able to conclude that it was retributive: one might say this says more about you than it does about the CIA agents and others whom you are judging.

Michael Kruse: The rape analogy is not compelling to me because there is no (at least theoretically) greater good coming from rape.

One can easily be supplied. The usual ticking-time-bomb scenario works just as well if you replace "the only way to get this life-saving, time-critical information is torture" with "the only way to get it is rape". Rape is, after all, a form of torture.

I don't know if you've read the Bybee/Bradbury memos, but one of the techniques they authorize is putting insects in a confined space with a prisoner who was observed to have a particular fear of insects.[1] Well, what if he was observed to have a particular fear of sexual humiliation? I'm sure Jay Bybee could make the argument that rape does not necessarily entail "severe pain", if it's done under medical supervision and with condoms and lubrication. The goal of it is not to cause pain, after all, but just to dislodge the detainee's expectation that he will not be raped. (Here I'm cribbing directly from the language of the memos concerning, I believe, slamming prisoners into walls.)

MatthewS: You argued that they wouldn't resort to torture if there weren't a good reason; I merely offer a few plausible bad reasons, such as revenge and simple sadism. I don't especially care about their reasons, but it's foolish to think that torture must be effective for getting information because otherwise nobody would torture.

[1] In Orwell's 1984 this is called "Room 101". Room 101, it is said, contains the worst thing in the world. That is, for every prisoner who's sent there, it will contain what that prisoner fears most. I'm not sure everyone gets that about the "insect in a box" technique--it's easy to say "Well, you could put an insect on me and I wouldn't mind," but if you really wouldn't mind, they wouldn't use an insect. They'd find something that triggers your deepest fears and inflict that on you. (In this respect it's very much like waterboarding.) The insect is not the point. Getting inside your head is the point.

There is no group of believers for waterboarding in 99.99999% of the cases. You can't be waterboarded nor can I. Likewise, you and I can't decide to waterboard anyone. The question is can the President of the USA in the most unusual of circumstances order the practice upon a terrorist if the alternative is the destruction of American lives in a mass terrorist act. That is the question.A few weeks ago the President ordered a drone attack inside the Pakistan border that reportedly killed terrorist suspects, their wives and regretably killed several civilians. Interesting, this is perceived as part of the Presidents new Afgan war strategy but an uncomfortable technique is not allowed. Please present the proponants of waterboarding fairly as we to are against it in 99.999999% of the cases.

I don't think torture is ever permissable. Some may say, "but what if through torture we extract info that saves lives?". To this I would suggest we are then taking matters upon ourselves. No longer trusting God and his way, but we fall victim to the "weapons of this world". Further, we have been subdued to think that we have a right to: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" (and thus a protection of these "rights" for us and others at all costs). This may be the Gospel according the America, but it is not the Gospel of Christ. We are not entitled to a long life free of opression and pain. Moreover, tortue sets redemptive creativity aside and falls victim to the inevitability of violence in a "tit for tat" society.

99.999999% of the time women chose not to have an abortion but ever now and then there is an extreme case where a wise woman knows it is best, just as a wise president knows that is it OK to torture, for her to abort of the good of the child. OR maybe it is wrong 100 % of the time to abort or torture.

sorry - that 'your name' thing got me again :-) I was thinking though, maybe Michael Kruse's 'guesses' are correct for America, but they don't apply elsewhere in the world. Torture is a black and white issue here and conservative or not, you won't find much support for any sort of torture here. In fact we're fairly united on issues such as war and torture.

Torture goes against the command to "love your enemies" and therefore it cannot be justified. We only use it because we hold so dearly to this life that we think it to be "necessary". Yet Jesus made it very clear that Christians are not to respond to persecution or hate with violence, but instead are called to endure it, responding in love, not loving this life so much as to try to "save it", but losing our lives for his sake in order that we might find it. Since the entirety of our lives belong to him i don't believe we can compartmentalize what is "for him" and what is "secular". We have to determine which kingdom we are living for.

#82 I wasn't aware that "Joe Citizen" had anything to do with it.And some people agree that waterboarding and the rest are always wrong. No government has the right to "bear the sword" - to invade other countries, to hold prisoners without trial, or to torture (which includes waterboarding) ever. First your leaders lied about bin Laden and Hussein and responsibility for the twin towers, then about "weapons of mass destruction", then they denied that torture was used, then they denied what they did is defined as torture, and now they try to argue that if it works, it is OK. It is never OK.

And not that it makes any difference to the degree of immorality, but remember some of these victims have nothing to tell anyway, just as capital punishment has caused the death of many innocent people. And not that it makes any difference to the degree of immorality, but just remember that America's enemies will never now surrender to a country who has a reputation now for torture.

#83 You avoided talking about the issue addressed and went into a rant about "your leaders". You have no idea my political leadings. You went into 4 other issues dealing with Iraq and Bush. You got sidetracked with accusations and emotion. Our common ground is we all belive waterboarding is wrong in 99.999999% of the cases. We all agree it's wrong for Joe Citizen, you and me to do this. We agree on a lot. Let's acknowledge that about each other. The question is if the President has the right make a terrorist uncomfortable who has knowledge of an imminent attack that could kill thousands or millions in the case of the 911 2nd wave attack which had nothing to do with Iraq and they attacked us 1st.Furthermore , you fail to address whether you are a passifist? Obama reportedly recently sent a drone into Pakistan and killed civilians, terrorists and their wives. Was that torture or was that ok? Is that worse than waterboarding to have people blown into pieces?

again - caught by the your name thing

#84 Someone's temporary discomfort ?!!!! You make it sound like some sort of tickling. Not obligated to justify your actions? It's these sorts of attitudes that make so much of the world dislike America and particularly, American imperialism.

Christians don't pick fights? No less than others.

Steph- Oh my. I hope i Can be your friend? Is this an issue that if you disagree with a person they can not even be your friend? Steph- where is your outrage against the autrocities by the people waterboarded. The man planned 911 and cut off Daniel Pearl's head. I respect your conviction on waterboarding. I understand your logic. I'm not seeing equal outrage upon those who did things far worse then waterboarding. I'm not hearing your solution to evil. How would you deal with killers, despot's, terrorists. I'm not picking a fight, I truely want to hear more about your view? Maybe I can be youe 1st friend with an alternative view and maybe you can convince me your right. Isn't that what friends do...dialogue with each other respectfully?

There are certain things that would prevent me from having a friendly relationship with people. If we saw differently on things like homosexuality, war, torture, crime and punishment, the environment - there wouldn't be much to agree about and I don't like arguing. I'm more interested in a peaceful environment and so are those who are my friends.

If we didn't have those who desire and create empires there wouldn't be so many problems in the world... Yes, work for peace - peacefully. New Zealand and Kiwi I was born. But unfortunately my scholarship and studies take me away to England ;-) I'm heading back up there at the end of the month but I'll be back home again in a year or two.

Yes America came in at the end when Pearl Harbour was bombed and 'saved the world'... Communism - I won't even begin to go there with you... and all the rest. I wish you'd look after your own. You're a true patriot. I'm not enamoured with the rhetoric of patriotism. We are only a 'friend' thank goodness, not an 'ally'.

I should have explained the irony of 'saving the world' in that America 'saved the world' by inventing the bomb - and now look how that developed. I am a phd student of history (of religion) at Nottingham with Maurice Casey. If I was Christian I would be anabaptist or armish. Alot of us here like to live a bit like the Armish - peaceful sustainable eco friendly living...

I'm not opposed to Christianity as you seem to infer. I am not opposed to any religion. I am very interested in the historical Jesus and Aramaic sources of the gospels. The Jesus I think we can recover is an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who believed his mission from God was to bring Jewish people back to God (tuv translated Greek as repent). He also believed he would die for the salvation of Israel. Miracles are beyond the scope of historical enquiry so I don't discount what Christians believe in the resurrection although I still read the accounts as stories in context. I do believe that those who didn't doubt, at least three disciple, did have visions. After all they did believe Jesus would rise from the dead as he said. Yes I have read CS Lewis. He was a very thoughtful man and was a maverick in his time in a way. I am very happy to hear that you help those in need whether or not in the name of Jesus.

Steph- sorry to make you feel at first with our short discussion on waterboarding I was some sort of monster for exploring the pros and cons. Personally, I've never owned a gun,shot an animal or a person for that matter, wouldn't want to hurt anyone. I believe tolerance in personal relationships is a virtue but tolerance in truth is a travasty. We need to humbly seek truth yet not be judgemental even though we need to make judgements about things. I respect police, military but they need to have high standards and ethics. As the bible says , "and what does God require of you, do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God".

Tolerance in relationships is a virtue...yes that's what everyone likes to emphasize today and that is good..civility,respect,honoring people with dignity....but equally tolerance in Truth is a travesty and many forget that. No one wants there to be such thing as Truth with a capital T...it's just you got your truth and I got mine. We have gone from a worldview where everyone has a right to their opinions to believing everyone's opinions are right. Many don't think there are transcent Truths. I believe there are and these should be dialouged about as most important yet with civility. For instance, C.S.Lewis said Jesus is Liar, Lunitic or Lord. You can't rewrite Jesus into just a good teacher bacause He dared to say He was GOD. He is or He isn't. It's truth or false. It can't be one thing to one and another to another.

You and I do not make up TRUTH, my friend. If I step out of a 10 story floor window..not believing in gravity...I will find out quickly how wrong I am. I'm not talking about preferences...one likes it cold,another hot or one likes blue and another red..I'm talking about transcendent TRUTH. Would you admit Jesus can't be God and not God. He is or He isn't. In our views I'm wrong or You are wrong or we are both wrong. We should seek for Truth respectfully. Yes, I'm tolerant of you, respect your views and would never blow you up or not be your friend because we disagreed like radicals do. But the politically correct"you've got your truth and I've got my Truth" is not logical or intellectually sustainable. Steph.. you are entitled to any thoughts you want but we should all want to have our thoughts anchored on a firm foundation.

Steph, you are better than that statement. You are a Ph'd student who is trying to discover knowledge. You believe in gravity, you don't believe in terrorist extremism. If I said I was God you would believe I was a kook ( rightly so ). You do believe some things are true ..that's why you fight for your position. I've seen that and that is good. You don't believe just because someone is sincere that makes it true...like Jim Jone's sincere kool-aid drinkers. Steph, you are a Ph'd student...read the New Testament. Jesus said He was God over and over. ..not a god but the God and no one could come to the Father but through Him(john14:6). I think the evidence was overwelming that He is God and deserves my alligiance but it isn't my belief that makes it so. He is or He isn't. And your disbelief doesn't make it not ...He is or He isn't. 1John5:11-13 says the Bible was written that we may KNOW.