Christian Torture Devices

[indigobusiness]

I wonder which are used at Gitmo?



The Judas Cradle:

The victim is raised up by the rope or chain and then lowered until the vagina, anus or the coccyx rests on the point. The torturer could vary the pressure by hanging weights from the victim or rocking or raising and dropping the victim from various heights.



The Pope's Pears:

The vaginal pear was used on woman who had sex with the Devil or his familiars. The rectal pear was used on passive male homosexuals and the oral pear was used on heretical preachers or lay persons found guilty of unorthodox practices. Inserted into the mouth, anus or vagina of the victim, the pear was expanded by use of the screw until the insides are ripped, stretched and mutilated, almost always causing death. The pointed ends of the 'leaves' were good for ripping the throat, intestines or cervix open.



Slow Burn

A 16th century device to lift the victim in and out of the fire, roasting him alive slowly instead of burning him all at once.

Crushed. Squeezing heresy out of the foolish

Extreme Makeover

The rack – everybody's favourite. Well, perhaps only of Inquisitors for whom it was the instrument of choice after the pulley had failed. For the helpless victim dislocation of every joint in the body and elongations up to 12" were possible. 'Surgeons' might reset joints to allow the torture to be repeated. Severe lacerations and loss of blood would result from racking even without the additional use of red hot pincers to tear off nipples, tongues, ears, noses, and genitals.


A sadist's banquet – and of course it brought the wretched heretics closer to God.

---

Karmic note: What goes around...comes around. Payback is a bitch.

[indigobusiness]

1. Apologies to an earlier thread

which I didn't see before posting this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2855570#

More fun photos!

[indigobusiness]

2. "If I only had a heart."

[izzie]

3. Ever read those old stories on what they did?

I can see why many left England. Course England was not the only country that did these things. Half the time you could not even say I made an error as it still was death for you.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

7. Why should you care where I stand?

It's not my beliefs that are doling out the torture at Gitmo.

And, I didn't write history.

This is not a smear, it is fact.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

8. Smearing people of today with 400-year-old information

Is YOUR doing. It is spin worthy of the major media.

As for Gitmo, people have always been tortured in war. It's naive to think otherwise.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

13. You have no idea what I worship

So don't go claiming you do.

[indigobusiness]

17. It's obvious.

You are defending the actions of sadists masquerading as Christians, but not Christianity itself. There is no mystery to you.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

18. I have defended nothing here except current Christianity

So you can make all the wrong assumptions you wish about me. There is certainly no mystery to you.

[BiggJawn]

19. "Current" Christianity?

As espoused by James Dobson and Jerry Foul-Well?

Or do you mean Alternating Current?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

21. I have made it clear before

I am not part of their ilk and to claim we all are is as offensive as saying all Americans support Bush.

It's just as wrong as well.

[Cronus Protagonist]

43. So true

There are also Jews for Nazis, Gays for Bush, Jews for Jesus, Christians against torture and Republicans against imperialism.

There will always be a group of dissenters that proves the rule.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

24. Of course Christianity changes

Beliefs, a key part of Christianity, also change.

You seem to want to deny one of the most basic facts of life -- things change.

[indigobusiness]

25. The Christian message is immutable.

That is central to the Christian ethos.

You can't rationalize Christianity to suit your purposes.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

28. Belief in Christ is immutable

The rest can and has changed over time.

And that's not a rationalization, it's a fact.

[indigobusiness]

29. Belief is mutable. Even Christ's beliefs were tested.

"Why hast thou foresaken me Lord?" - etc.

The essence of the Christian message is immutable.

It is not about sentiment. Are you sure you've studied this?

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. I talked to a Christian once who professed Christ attacked others

He used this as justification for attacking gay people. Jesus was intolerant, he claimed. I asked him where was that passage and he had it all chapter and verse.... something about bringing a sword and throwing people out of the temple, demanding others worship his god over others, etc.

From that, I can only conclude that, if you have hate in your heart, Jesus is your friend and foil.

Joy and happines to you this solstice.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fifth of Five]

46. I may be wrong, but

I think the point is that the same men authorizing torture in the name of the U.S. also spend an inordinate amount of public time talking about their "Christian" beliefs, their "mandate," and that "values" (i.e. Christian fundamentalism) put them in office.

They equate their rule with their religion.

This is why revisiting things done in the name of the Christian religion is appropriate here. Bad things have been done throughout history in the name of Christ. Bad things could be happening today in the name of Christ. Men today are still men. We cannot trust them to do good just because they cloak themselves in the "word of God."

Unfortunately for Alicia and other Christians, to many today, fundamentalism and dominionism are the face of modern American Christianity.

I am not a Christian, but I know that one name given to Jesus is the "Prince of Peace." That sounds like a philosophy I can live with. I just can't jive that with what I hear and see from so many today proclaiming themselves to be Christian.

[CatWoman]

118. Thank you for injecting sanity and reason in this thread

some people just don't fucking get it, and blame others for their lack of focus.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

10. It's 400 years ago

I don't have any need to deny history. But to blame people of today for it or to use it to smear them is complete and utter disinformation.

[indigobusiness]

12. You are distorting the message and defending the torturers of today.

The parallels should be obvious to an enlightened mind. We should never forget what those in power are capable of.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

14. I didn't distort any message and I didn't defend any torturers

The people in Gitmo who are accused of torture are military, not a religious group. And to try and blame religious people for something that happened about TWENTY generations ago is so silly that it's almost laughable.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

88. The Catholic Church was complicit in the deportation of Jews

to concentration camps in some countries, namely Italy. So it wasn't 400 years ago that Christians expressed their hateful side.

[RUDUing2]

and some jews and some synogogues were also complicit...

it had nothing to do w/the religion of the person or institution.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

101. The Vatican collaborated with the Ustashe (pro-Nazi Croats)

in Yugoslavia. Croatia was a very Catholic country, and had a pro-Nazi Archbishop at that time. The Ustasche stole wealth from the Jews that they killed or deported to concentration camps and funneled it throught the Vatican.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm

"The Vatican quarreled with both Hitler and Mussolini on race, but hardly out of concern for the welfare of Jews. Throughout this period the Church seldom opposed anti-Jewish persecutions and rarely denounced governments for discriminatory practices; when it did so, it usually admonished governments to act with "justice and charity", disapproving only of violent excesses or the most extravagant forms of oppression."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Marrus.html

I'm Catholic, and even I know that the Church has blood on its hands.

[RUDUing2]

110. That is one viewpoint of what the vatican did...

another is that the Vatican knew it was in a very tenuous position..and that they could achieve more through quiet means then by face to face confrontation.
There is plenty of evidence of Vatican behind the scenes working, and individual churches and priest doing the same to rescue jews...
There were bigots in the church that embraced the Nazi's, but there were others that didn't...
Schindler was viewed as a war criminal until evidence of how he worked quietly to rescue some jews while officially cooperating and even allowing other jews to be taken...but he is still considered a hero in Israel..

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/heroes.htm
...............But what of the official Church? In the past year there has been a fresh irruption of stories about the alleged inaction of the hierarchy, and especially the "silence" of Pope Pius XII, stories worse in some ways even than Rolf Hochhuth's scurrilous 1963 play, "The Deputy." Even The New Yorker, in its April 7, 1997 edition, printed an article that asserted Pius and the hierarchy turned their backs on the Jews; and journals such as The Catholic Times and The National Catholic Register (owned by the Legionaries of Christ) in reporting the progress of a document on the Holocaust being prepared by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, treat the question as open.

Probably the most systematic and comprehensive study of the Pope's and the hierarchy's handling of the Holocaust is Pinchas Lapide's 1967 book, Three Popes and the Jews. Lapide, an Israeli diplomat, was a member of the Palestinian Brigade that found many interned Jews in Italy at the end of World War II. After exhaustive research, Lapide concluded that at least 700,000 Jews, and more likely 860,000, owed their lives directly to the Church; he also concluded that Pius simply could not have done more than he did. The suggestion that Pius ought to have spoken more forcefully he treats with near derision; he quotes many Jewish leaders, many of them rescued by Catholics, to the effect that more forceful speeches would certainly not have caused the Nazis to moderate the persecutions, and would most probably have induced them to intensify them.

Not that the Pope was silent. As early as April 1935, as Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli addressed 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes: "These ideologues are in fact only miserable plagiarizers who dress up ancient error in new tinsel. It matters little whether they rally round the flag of the social revolution...or are possessed by the superstition of race and blood." He was responsible for the final wording of Pius XI's March 1937 encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning sorrow"), and made it more strongly antiracist. The encyclical, the first ever written in German, was read in all German churches on Palm Sunday; the Nazi Foreign Office characterized it as "a call to battle…as it calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the Reich."2

In 1938 Italy passed its first anti-Jewish laws. Pius XI condemned them. He took action, as well. In January 1939 he asked the ambassadors to the Vatican to procure entry visas to their countries for German and Italian Jews. He also called a German bishop to Rome to plan a resettlement project in Sao Paulo. Presumably his Secretary of State was involved in these initiatives (General Ludendorf wrote: "Pacelli was the live spirit which stood behind all the anti-German activities of Rome's policy"3); but he would not be Secretary of State much longer. Pius XI died in February.

Cardinal Pacelli was elected as Pius XII in March. As one of the standard first steps in the persecution, Jews were now banned from the learned professions. The new Pope invited many to the Vatican and offered to help them to emigrate; many accepted, and Pius intervened with the diplomats of other countries to obtain entry visas for them.

Italy declared war on France on June 10, 1940. The Pope was determined to keep the Vatican neutral, and to make it a refuge. He brought the diplomats of nations at war with the Axis into the Papal Hospice of Santa Marta, close to the Holy Office and the German College. He assigned the Holy Office to develop its contacts throughout Europe into a chain of agents who would deal with intelligence, prisoners of war and refugees. One of the most fascinating rescuers of the war, Msgr. Hugh O'Flaherty, Primo Notario of the Holy Office, thus became involved early on in the Vatican's information-gathering and humanitarian activities—informally, also, as he lived in the German College, next door to the diplomats' new quarters.

Also during June, some 500 Jews left Bratislava on a small boat bound for Palestine. Four months later the boat tried to enter the harbor at Istanbul and was denied permission. An Italian patrol boat picked up the passengers and took them to a prison camp on Rhodes. Warned that they were to be handed over to the Germans, these Jews sent one of their number to Rome, where he obtained an audience with the Pope. Pius intervened with the Italian government and all 500 were interned in southern Calabria, where they survived the war.

Pinchas Lapide reports arriving at Ferramonti-Tarsia to find 3,200 Jews, mostly refugees from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. "They had been not only saved by papal intervention but also fed, clad and looked after at Vatican expense by two papal emissaries who set up a kosher kitchen, organized a school for the children…."4

But do the Pope's efforts qualify him as a rescuer, as someone who risked his life to save Jews? In 1940 Martin Bormann prepared "Operation Pontiff" on Hitler's instructions. Pius was to be imprisoned in a monastery on the Wartburg. Lapide thinks it probable that Pius knew of the plan. If so, it did not deter him. As the Nazi persecution of the Jews intensified, and as it spread to the countries occupied by German forces, so did Vatican efforts at rescue and shelter. And Pius instructed the European hierarchy to follow his lead. "There is no doubt," says Leon Poliakov, a Jewish historian of the Holocaust, "that secret instructions went out from the Vatican urging the national churches to intervene in favor of the Jews by every possible means."5 ......................

[The Stranger]

107. Offense comes easy to the self-righteous.

Don't expect an apology for the history you don't like and therefore must deny.

[davidwhite0570]

5. so this is the compassionate christianity i've been

hearing about......we have to save their souls no matter what...even if we have to break the 10 commandments doing it....

i guess the same goes for iraqi prisoners....

[gottaB]

6. Rumsfeld Iron Maiden question

I saw this reference in a DoD briefing:

Q Mr. Secretary, a number of times from the podium you've said U.S. troops do not torture individuals. There was a joking colloquy one time here about the iron maiden, remarks -- I mean, does this report undercut your notion that the U.S. doesn't torture, this is -- is this one of those rare exceptions here that torture took place?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think that -- I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture.

Just a minute.

Q (Off mike.) SEC. RUMSFELD: I don't know if the -- it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word.

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040504-secdef1423.html

The only previous reference I can find is here:

Q: There's a growing list of verboten words.

Q: "Iron maiden."

Q: I guess the question is, if you --

Rumsfeld: Just a minute. Let me -- I pause to smile but not to take a breath. (laughter) The -- it isn't unraveling at all. Indeed, it's really been kind of impressive that -- what's taken place. If you're going to try to hold Afghanistan to a standard of tidiness and stability that you're going to find in the United States, you're not going to find it. Does that mean something's unraveling? No. Indeed, it is that the environment there, compared to six months ago, is so much better than it was that the very thought -- I don't know how your mind even found that word to characterize what's taking place; it's such a stretch. (scattered laughter)

....

http://www.pentagon.mil/transcripts/2002/t04082002_t0408sd.html

And there is one prior instance of what appears to be a reporter saying "No iron maiden questions today, please" (is that transcription correct?). See: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t04032002_t0403sd.html


To me that looks like an inside joke, like there must have been a previous mention of "iron maiden." Anybody have more on this connection?

[indigobusiness]

15. When I heard Rumsfeld say that about Abu Ghraib...

I lost all respect for him. I should've trusted my gut, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm too easy, I know.


BTW-I'd be interested in your opinion of AliciaKeyedUp's point of view.

[immoderate]

20. Replacing "Christian" with "inquisition" would avoid this argument.

You know I've taken shots too, particularly at misapplication of the notion of faith. And I'm not now or never have been a Christian (in the capital C sense.)

Presenting it as you did was provocative. I do it myself sometimes.

--IMM

[indigobusiness]

23. But, it is called "The Christian Inquisition."

To distinguish it from others, I suppose.

And, Torquemada has his party in Spain, so England doesn't get all the glory here.

[Branjor]

40. The Inquisition.....

the one which took place in Europe during the Middle Ages WAS specifically Christian. It's handbook was the Malleus Maleficarum, which means "the hammer of witches". It was written by two Dominican priests, Kramer and Sprenger, and endorsed by the pope. It was carried out under the auspices of the church.

[Tsiyu]

26. Thanks for sharing these, Indigobiz

People are in denial about their own history. Thus, they are destined to repeat it.

Unfortunately, there are those Christians (INO) today who would justify the use of these devices on homosexuals and uppity wimmin and fornicators and Democrats.

I can see Falwell and Graham and Asshat and Robertson (the Robber Baron) and Dobson "lovingly and with Christian compassion" overseeing the use of such atrocious items and sadistically getting their rocks off for Jeebus. I can. And I can see Shrubby snickering and giggling from his balcony seat, in it for the bloodletting and the sadism, but happy the Moral Elite are covering his ass.

Now don't show anyone! Don't tell the truth, IndigoB!!!!!! How dare you tell the truth about the past!!!!!!!!

[indigobusiness]

27. Thank you.

Do I smell horse?

[Tsiyu]

34. Hell yes

Nothing like the smell of Horse in the morning..

[indigobusiness]

38. Smells like

victory.

[America is great]

30. Maybe this liberal Christian is at the wrong place

I just signed on to this web site, went to a forum and suddenly I wonder what in the hay is going on.

Why aren't the Muslim torture devices listed? Why aren't the Communist torture devices listed? Why aren't the native american torture devices listed? How about the Greek torture devices? How about the pagan torture devices? How about the Roman torture devices?

To single out a religious belief and then post this information as a slap in the face of Christians is wrong. Utterly wrong.

Throughout history evil men have used Christianity (and other beliefs) for evil selfish purposes - mainly getting power.

That does NOT mean the message of Christianity is wrong. I think this whole thread should be deleted. It is an attack on Christians.

[indigobusiness]

33. Helluva thread for your first post.

Welcome to DU. It gets better.

[Tsiyu]

35. Some of us follow Christ

even some who posted on this thread.

We, like the true Jesus, will chastise, berate and insult the Pharisees.

We take a risk. We could be crucified.

But we still keep telling the truth.

The media showed you hour after hour of Saddam's atrocities.

How much of what went on at Abu Ghraib did you see?

[America is great]

39. Abu Ghraid ???

As far as I know, Abu Ghraib was not STATE sponsored torture, murder and mayhem. It appears to be individual acts of mistreatment of prisoners, something that will unfortunately always happen during a war. To believe anything else about our soldiers is a direct insult to the integrity, spirit, and honor of the 99.99% of our sons & daughters fighting there.

In my book anyway.

[Tsiyu]

52. Did any of yours fight there, my friend?

And pointing out a typo is graceless, but oh, well.....

[indigobusiness]

For a clear picture, read Sy Hersch's book.

You might be surprised. His reporting is impeccable and the story is shocking and deeply disturbing.

This story must not be whitewashed.

[Telly Savalas]

42. Bear in mind Abu Ghraib was AMERICAN torture.

Does it reflect the values of all Americans? No more than it reflects the values of Christians.

But if certain individuals want to come to terms with their own insecurities by painting other groups with broad brushes, there's not really much we can do.

[Telly Savalas]

36. Nah.

Like the Democratic party itself, DU is a big tent operation. It's home for mainstream Dems, far left Socialists, the occasional conservative/moderate Dem, liberal Christians, and folks who like to antagonize their fellow progressives with inane name-calling.

[America is great]

41. Really?

Some would call this thread a hate crime, as I would.

[Telly Savalas]

44. Sorry.

I left the <snarky> tag off the post.

[indigobusiness]

47. You obviously haven't read the thread,

or, if you did, you obviously misunderstood it. Unless you are sympathetic to torture? And, I doubt that.

[Telly Savalas]

68. Actually I have read the thread...

and your attempts to label torture as a Christian phenomena and then your backpedalling when people point out the bigotry implicit in those accuastions.

[Razorback_Democrat]

84. Nailed it! n/t

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

103. I'm only trying to clarify my position.

Which you continue to fail to acknowledge. When someone makes a valid and germane criticism, I'll defend. Until then it is not necessary.

[Razorback_Democrat]

114. Evidently you consider my criticism valid and germane

since you continue to respond defensively to most of my posts

thanks, I think

[indigobusiness]

50. Point out the name-calling on this thread.

Inane, or otherwise.

[indigobusiness]

37. This in NOT about Christians. It is about using Christianity for evil

purpose.

It is about the abuse of Christianity, by false Chrsistians.

[Razorback_Democrat]

60. Then you shouldn't have titled it "Christian Torture Devices"

you should have titled it Torture devices used by false Christians

but you didn't

wonder why?

[StClone]

57. "America is a Christian Nation"

If you've heard that then you'll understand why "this Christian" sees the value of Indigo's post. Liberal means opening your mind to new or different interpretation including those that are painful to consider.

[America is great]

70. There is zero value in this post

To take events from 500 years ago performed by evil men using Christianity for evil purposes and trying to relate them to today is utterly wrong and insulting to this Christian.

Liberalism does NOT mean that I will allow my harassers to put us in the arena and release the lions on us EVER again or that I must "open my mind" to why they did it to us!

[SheepyMcSheepster]

99. you act as if christianity is not used for evil puposes today?

it relates because people are still manipulating an otherwise innocous belief system into something very desctructive and harmful.

[America is great]

108. Says you.

Not says I.

[Tsiyu]

111. Uuuuuhhhhhhh

Do the Ten Commandments not apply?

Or the Beatitudes?

They don't meet your 500 year test of relevance.......


:wtf:

[Razorback_Democrat]

59. I agree and it's pissing me off today! n/t

[anti-fundie]

63. Agreed. Something tells me that such torture devices

are nothing compared to those employed by secularists and pagans. Remember Hitler and Stalin, anybody? I love the lectures the secularists give Christians about being more loving.

[Kingshakabobo]

105. Because.

We'll worry about THEM when communists, Muslims and native Americans are running the country while claiming a religious "mandate" while attempting to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs.

>"Why aren't the Muslim torture devices listed? Why aren't the Communist torture devices listed? Why aren't the native American torture devices listed?"<


Sorry, but it is the ALLEGED "Christians" that we have to worry about today. Sorry that we have to point out the evil that has been done in the name of YOUR religion but it is true.

>Throughout history evil men have used Christianity (and other beliefs) for evil selfish purposes - mainly getting power. <

[goodboy]

31. I saw all those and more at the Torture Museum in Amsterdam

to think...all that was done in the name of God.

[JNelson6563]

32. Ah yes, the good ol' days!

These morans in power today would be ahppy to see us regress back to this barbarism that Christianity helped to keep alive long after the dark ages.

I know this history well, I have long read about the reformation, the inquisition and a whole lot about history in general. In most cases those doing "God's work" were head&shoulders above others in viciousness.

Julie

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. So tell us what you are doing to change Christianity?

Surely you want to change the face of Christianity into something less about hate and more about peace, joy and happiness?

Surely you are working against these heretics, the ones that condone torture and cheer when they hear of another dead "rag head".

So what are you doing about it?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[America is great]

58. I could not have said it better myself! Great post!

Good work. As Ed Schultz would say "you are on the money with that one"!

[indigobusiness]

65. This is about the undeniable history of Christianity.

Not true Christianity, or true Christians.

What does it take to get through to you?

I made a clear distinction.

[Razorback_Democrat]

67. It's about your undeniable anger at Christianity n/t

[indigobusiness]

71. My anger is with the abuse of Christianity.

More dismay than anger.

[Razorback_Democrat]

100. On that we can agree!

All religions have been abused for power by people who lust for more power.

That's how torture devices used by Christians, Muslims, and I'm sure other religions as well come about.

[indigobusiness]

104. That's the whole point

of this thread.

[Cronus Protagonist]

66. Yet you claim the same title, the same gods and the same bible?

Surely you want to purge the Dominionist Bush and his Klan out of your religion?

Instead, you defend your religion, which of course I would expect, and I wholeheartedly support. But you defend your religion from people who point to the imperialist Dominionist threat from within, instead of defending it against those who are poisoning the well of Christianity.

No wonder it sticks in your throat. Ask yourself this, "What would Jesus do?". When I ask myself that question, I know what to do - why don't you?

[Razorback_Democrat]

I defend my religion from zealots right and left

who in my mind are no different from the * dominionists who say you are either this or that

You know nothing of what I do or don't do to defend my religion from zealots (aka dominionists)

but I also defend it from people who bash all of Christianity because of the beliefs of a small few

* supporters bash all of Islam because of the zealotous beliefs of a small few

so, where does that put you?

[Cronus Protagonist]

78. Could you just answer my question then?

I threw you a softball and asked you to let us all here know what you're doing to defend your religion from the Dominionists and Christians who are also racists, imperialists, fascists and haters.

Beleive it or not, I wanted to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself.

Still, you refuse to answer, preferring instead to defend your religion against clear references that are about well documented facts and real events that occurred and some that still occur today.

Defending your religion against truth seems like a head-in-the-sand type of attitude, and to cap it off, you defend it with no evidence, nothing at all other than your verbal attacks on the people who expose the murder done in its name (both current and past).

I was calling you to a higher purpose, but I see you are unwilling to deal with reality and instead live in a fantasy world where no one may point to the killing Bush is doing in the name of Christianity in his "crusade" (direct quote) without you attacking THEM and, as a result with your silence, condoning the killing.

If you truly want your religion to survive, I assert you must address its shortcomings, particularly when these shortcomings are resulting in the deaths, mutilation and torture of thousands and may result in the end of the world.

May your god have mercy on your soul.

[Tsiyu]

115. Excellent post, Cronus

"Though they have eyes, they see not.

Though they have ears, they hear not....."

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Razorback_Democrat]

64. So now he who titled his thread "Christian Torture Devices"

is accusing me of bearing false witness

I would like to tell you where to stick it, but that would be against the rules

so have a nice day

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

81. They are Christian Torture Devices. They were developed by

the Christian Church, in Christian workshops. That is history, not propaganda.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

56. it is funny how those who would declare this is a christian nation

don't like it when you take a look at what has been done in christianity's name in the past. It seems all other religions only become important when it is time to defend christianity's practitioners of torture.

[Razorback_Democrat]

62. My objections to this thread have nothing to do with what you say

the title of the thread is "Christian torture devices"

makes it sound like all Christians endorse this.

all Christians didn't endorse it then

false Christians who use the religion for their own means

just like false Muslims who use the religion for their own means

so why title it in the inflammatory way?

because it is meant to be inflammatory

[SheepyMcSheepster]

73. you would like it better if the title was

"torture devices used by some christians"

i am just curious.

[Razorback_Democrat]

77. It would be a more accurate thread

yes, my objection is to the title, and the inflammatory response that the title got from those who wish to bash Christians

[SheepyMcSheepster]

85. another question if you don't mind

and i am very serious, why do you think people wish to bash christians?

[Razorback_Democrat]

109. I think some people on the left and even the right

despise religion for the actions of some bad actors in those religions.

Example: I can't stand Falwell, Robertson, etc., but I don't believe that they represent Christianity. Yet the media calls on them as representatives of Christianity all the time in discussing issues.

Why is it that the media calls on them? Because they have loud mouths, lots of money, and influence with media's corporate masters I imagine.

As for the original poster's intentions? I have no idea. Maybe he is as he says a Christian and was highlighting the way that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib torture is being ordered by professed "Christians".

However, the title of his post was inflammatory and misleading in that no torture device is a Christian, but rather the users of the torture devices he pictures professed to be Christians and used them in ways to increase their power over others.

Bashers of other religions, for example Islam, use the actions of terrorists (a small percentage of Muslims) to justify the hatred of all Muslims.

So that is my thinking, what's yours?

[indigobusiness]

74. TheContext is clarified in the thread, it was not meant to be inflammatory

I never dreamed anyone would be unable to distinguish between the abuse of Christianity with the read deal.

Knee-jerk hostility is everpresent, it seems.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Razorback_Democrat]

96. I'm ranting?...................

yes I am

but my criticisms are valid

check out the other posters who seem to agree with my assessment

I'll take that as validation

[ProdigalJunkMail]

72. hot damn...nothing like a good flame war in the morning to

keep you warm in the chilly winter air...woohoo.

People hijack religion/politics/whatever to suit their own pupose...Christianity didn't invent those torture devices...sick people with twisted agendas did...regardless of what they call themselves.

theProdigal

[indigobusiness]

76. No, Christianity did not. But, those abusing Christianity, did.

That's the whole point.

And we are seeing similar things today.

[Razorback_Democrat]

82. But titling your post the way you did

made sure that the flames would fly

(note: interesting that I'm talking about flames in post #666?)

[indigobusiness]

83. The title was accurate

and apropos.

[Razorback_Democrat]

87. From your keyboard

to my eyes

just a lovely thread

thanks for sharing

(sarcasm)

* would be proud of you, you've learned well

[indigobusiness]

89. Shouldn't you be out

slaying demons?

[Razorback_Democrat]

90. I'm here slaying them! n/t

[indigobusiness]

93. You are waging the wrong war...

sadly.

[Razorback_Democrat]

94. Indigo..............

never mind



not worth it

you get the last word

[Razorback_Democrat]

80. Thanks Prodigal

hijackers come in all shapes, sizes, and religions

with the same motives

[shockra]

91. The End of Faith author...

Sam Harris just put up a discussion board on his website. He wrote a great new book about the dangers of religious belief.

http://www.samharris.org

He also has up an excerpt of the first ten pages, concluding with this:

"With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us—culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.

Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word “God” as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance."

[indigobusiness]

116. I don't think Christianity or Islam is about violence.

It seems to me the rhetoric was written to resonate with the people of the era, but the message was timelass. The admonishment to a devotion to spiritual transformation, at all cost, is often seen as a call to violence. I don't believe it is, personally.

[RUDUing2]

97. Non christian torture devices...currently being used NOW..not 400 yrs ago.

http://www.clearharmony.net/articles/200407/20897.html

http://www.zarc.com/english/consumer/stungun_amnesty1.html

[Razorback_Democrat]

102. Good post! n/t

[indigobusiness]

106. You realize Kerik made millions on stun-gun options,

for doing virtually nothiing, don't you?

It all feeds into the corrupt cabal.

[Razorback_Democrat]

112. Yes, and Kerik is an example of a corrupt minion of *

now don't go and say that the stun gun is now a "Christian torture device" because Kerik is a professed Christian (I have no idea if he is or not) or something like that.

devices are devices, people are Christians. some people who profess Christianity use terrible devices to control and hurt others.

[RUDUing2]

113. so? how does that invalidate the post...I posted examples of

torture and torture devices being used currently by non-christians as part of official state business..whereas you posted about ones used 400 yrs ago by christians..as part of official church and state business...

[indigobusiness]

117. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that, at all.

Your post was appreciated and well recieved by me.

[Moderator]

119. Locking.

This thread has degenerated into a flamefest.