Originally posted by Nellinator
Self-control is a wonderful thing. We can always choose to do the right thing. We are not forced, however, sometimes our judgement can be clouded. The physical pain should especially never be an excuse in my books.
it doesn't sound like you're drawing up these priniciples from practical experiences, more like idealized stories and whatnot. I'd hold off on making judgements on people who have broken under torture.
Also, it is not always clear what the right choice is. Ever hear of the dark night of the soul?
Originally posted by Oncewhite
if you look at the egyptians and dogons, the dogans claim they are from a dwarf star (could be a fallen star), the eyptians claim their overlords or rulers are from snakes that hide behind the sun (hence the snake on the forhead or third eye location), and some think that either these hybrid-aliens had to leave or that they only mixed with their own genetic type of dragon ruling class...but you have the catholic church that was able to help the British conquer most of the entire world from slaying dragons...who knows...I just think that there are the Adamic Race, Pre-Adamic race, Post-Adamic, and those that rule them may not be the same breed, that's why they don't mixing with them, and they are in every race on earth, they take form of any race and breed with each other because their true "soul" or "self" is alike or kin.
🤨 a brief history of everything... very enlightening clapping
glad you got that out of your system
*Sighs.*
You all cause me so much pain, as though my testicles are being incised with a scalpel.
Really, talking about forcing someone into sin via torture is fairly ridiculous--if I'm misinterpreting this, please correct me. Let's ask ourselves: how much sin is caused by people being "forced" into sinning by something like torture?
Okay. How much sin is caused by willful disobedience?
End of discussion.
Originally posted by m. sade
well, if somebody is forced to compromise their principles under extreme duress, should that be considered a sin? How much lenience is there when weakness if a factor.As I see it, there is still need to repent, but forgiveness and understanding should be more forthcoming.
Originally posted by m. sade
well, if somebody is forced to compromise their principles under extreme duress, should that be considered a sin? How much lenience is there when weakness if a factor.
I think this verse says it all --
“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13
God is not going to allow anyone to be tempted to sin - any more than they can bear. People have different tolerance levels - and God knows this, since he gives each of us these various levels(of tolerance).
EDIT:
Also God is a righteous/merciful/and loving judge. He will take all things(evidence) into consideration - before making any type of judgement against us(for any sinful behaviour).
Originally posted by FeceMan
*Sighs.*You all cause me so much pain, as though my testicles are being incised with a scalpel.
Really, talking about forcing someone into sin via torture is fairly ridiculous--if I'm misinterpreting this, please correct me. Let's ask ourselves: how much sin is caused by people being "forced" into sinning by something like torture?
Okay. How much sin is caused by willful disobedience?
End of discussion.
You are misinterpretting it.
Nellinator beleives you cannot truly be forced into doing something against your will. I argued, yes you can. Torture is one method.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are misinterpretting it.Nellinator beleives you cannot truly be forced into doing something against your will. I argued, yes you can. Torture is one method.
Granted, some forms of torture leave little room in true choice, but one has chosen it. It is not as though one's body is being manipulated by someone.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nellinator beleives you cannot truly be forced into doing something against your will. I argued, yes you can. Torture is one method.
Or, alternatively, psychological coercion and manipulation.
But then it is still debatable about choice in the whole thing. Arguably everyone has a price, a line, where they could theoretically be faced with a choice to do something they would never wish to - either for gain or alternativly to avoid something (loss of life, loss of others lives etc.) They would surely feel, in the second case it was against their will - hence why such examples can be used as mitigating factors should a crime be committed - since they will feel they had no valid choice, they were forced into it, and the option of not doing it unacceptable.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, theoretically, Nellinator is correct. Unless you have been dominated--as the spell or spell-like ability--you have chosen to perform an action. It might have been under duress, but you have chosen it.Granted, some forms of torture leave little room in true choice, but one has chosen it. It is not as though one's body is being manipulated by someone.
Have you ever heard of something called unbearable pain ? Well Torture falls into that category.
The Choice is not truly yours when someone has violated your limits. Torturing someone takes away thier mental faculties, because all they experience is pain....they no longer contain logic or thier usual thought processes. All they can think of is escape
Choice is only VALID when you had absolute freedom to make it. Or at least when you are in your right mind to make it. You are not in your right mind when you are being tortured.
Nellinator is factually incorrect.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Have you ever heard of something called unbearable pain ? Well Torture falls into that category.
The Choice is not truly yours when someone has violated your limits.
Torturing someone takes away thier mental faculties, because all they experience is pain....they no longer contain logic or thier usual thought processes. All they can think of is escape
Choice is only VALID when you had absolute freedom to make it. Or at least when you are in your right mind to make it. You are not in your right mind when you are being tortured.
Nellinator is factually incorrect.
Feceman.....the choice is not your own when someone forces you to make it. Torture, like Blackmail, is a type of force.
Especially when someone provokes unbearable, mind-shattering pain on the person....there is no choice, because naturally, the person will do whatever his or her torturer demands.
I do not care what you or Nell have to say on the matter. You are both wrong....you obviously do not know what Torture actually is, which explains your acceptance of Hell....
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Feceman.....the choice is not your own when someone forces you to make it. Torture, like Blackmail, is a type of force.
Of course not. But the choice was still made.
And what about the drunkard? The chemicals have affected his brain, skewed his thoughts--but are his choices not made by his own accord?
Especially when someone provokes unbearable, mind-shattering pain on the person....there is no choice, because naturally, the person will do whatever his or her torturer demands.
I do not care what you or Nell have to say on the matter. You are both wrong....you obviously do not know what Torture actually is, which explains your acceptance of Hell....
I myself have not been tortured, but believe me when I say that I know what torture is.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And yet the choice is still made by the person. The choice to give in, the choice to accept weakness instead of pain. Do I condemn or even blame anyone for collapsing under the weight of torture?Of course not. But the choice was still made.
And what about the drunkard? The chemicals have affected his brain, skewed his thoughts--but are his choices not made by his own accord?
Not always according to the law. Hence mitigating factors - that the responsibility is not completely ones own.
It doesn't necessarily clear one completely of culpability, but it recognises the grey area that exists, that it is possible to coerce a person into doing something they don't want to do, and would most likely never do normally. Choice in such a case is less prominent then the factors that force them to choose in opposition to what a person would usually do. That is the choice is tainted, or not true choice.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not always according to the law. Hence mitigating factors - that the responsibility is not completely ones own.It doesn't necessarily clear one completely of culpability, but it recognises the grey area that exists, that it is possible to coerce a person into doing something they don't want to do, and would most likely never do normally. Choice in such a case is less prominent then the factors that force them to choose in opposition to what a person would usually do. That is the choice is tainted, or not true choice.
Furthermore, I reiterate that this discussion is rather ridiculous, as any sin done out of force is less offensive to God--at least, in my opinion, limited scope of view, and human judgment--as it involved no "true" temptation (and thus there was no succumbing to "true" temptation), probably involved instantaneous regret/repentance/apologies to God, and was done against one's natural desires.
Also, in what event(s) does a drunk get off easy?
Originally posted by FeceMan
The fact of the matter is that it was still a person's choice. Whether he made the choice under duress is not the point--the choice was consciously made.
I'm not really saying either way, that just in terms of law it is neither clear cut as you or Lord Urizen are saying. But then again law and religion don't always mix.
Also, in what event(s) does a drunk get off easy?
Two components to a crime - actus reas (the guilty act) and mens reas (the guilty mind) - it is possible to commit a crime (AR) without have sufficient intent (simply) - intoxication, by drug or alcohol or helium or whatever serves to diminish ones ability think correctly (etc) and can be used to mitigate the guilty act as the act was carried out when the person lacked the sufficient mental faculties to make a correct, conscious choice.
Thus intoxication can serve then as a mitigating factor/defense (that is lessen the severity of punishment, charge) - not though, usually, as a total defense (that is something that will see a person escape all charge) except in case of involuntary intoxication - eg. Australian case were a chemical leak led to the intoxication of a worker which led to a manslaughter death of a fellow co-worker. It was judged that he was not responsible for the intoxication, and as he was incapable of choice in this matter could not be held fully accountable (that is he didn't know he had become intoxicated, and as such had no choice to remove himself from the situation where harm could be done to others.)
Of course the most common "drunk" crime - drink driving. This is usually what people think of, and is not subject to mitigating factors for a number of reasons - except in a case where the defendant can prove his intoxication was involuntary.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Two components to a crime - actus reas (the guilty act) and mens reas (the guilty mind) - it is possible to commit a crime (AR) without have sufficient intent (simply) - intoxication, by drug or alcohol or helium or whatever serves to diminish ones ability think correctly (etc) and can be used to mitigate the guilty act as the act was carried out when the person lacked the sufficient mental faculties to make a correct, conscious choice.
What a crock.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13
*cough* conveniently ignored *cough*
No man(nor demon) can tempt an individual any more than they can bear. So in the end - there truly is no excuse. So to simplify - everyone is responsable for their actions(of course this is assuming they are of the right mental capacity to understand the consequences those actions may bring about.)
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
*cough* conveniently ignored *cough*No man(nor demon) can tempt an individual any more than they can bear. So in the end - there truly is no excuse. So to simplify - everyone is responsable for their actions(of course this is assuming they are of the right mental capacity to understand the consequences those actions may bring about.)
*Checks to make use that both socks are on my feed*