Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:13 pm

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Have you seen this rather well done movie?

They end asking about a God who tortures babies as God did to King David’s baby.

God also killed many innocent babies in his great flood as well as the innocent first born of Egypt.

Dwindling In Unbelief: God slowly killed David's baby boy to punish David for adultery

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Regards

DL

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:11 pm

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

No nor do I suspect do most people. But I do think you need help.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:16 pm

Actually, I don't think God, the Creator of the Universe, ever tortured any babies. Men did that in His name though....many times. And it was evil every time.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:55 pm

That's a question that should never be needful to ask.

Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:27 pm

gmc;1481808 wrote: No nor do I suspect do most people. But I do think you need help.

I would speak to this but have been arguing against Christians all day who praise God for the justice inflicted on King David's baby.

Tell me again who need help.

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:30 pm

Saint_;1481823 wrote: Actually, I don't think God, the Creator of the Universe, ever tortured any babies. Men did that in His name though....many times. And it was evil every time.

Strange. You believe that men did it in God's name, from scriptures that you seem to believe, but do not believe the scriptures that show God doing it without the help of men.

Why not? Why the cherry picking?

Regards

DL

Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:32 pm

Smaug;1481833 wrote: That's a question that should never be needful to ask.

You are right and I would not ask it if Christians were not adoring a God who practiced it quite a bit.

Regards

DL

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:01 pm

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1481878 wrote: You are right and I would not ask it if Christians were not adoring a God who practiced it quite a bit.

Regards

DL

You will have to excuse my somewhat limited knowledge in this field.

You stated that scriptures have many examples of God directly torturing babies. I've not heard of babies being tortured in Biblical tales, but then I know very little about it!

Have you some examples?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:36 am

He's using a strange meaning of the word "tortured". He actually means "caused the death of". The bible nowhere suggests that Bathsheba's son suffered before death, nor any of the firstborn of Egypt, nor those drowned in the Flood, nor any of the other deaths of minors he could recount. The prolonged pain aspect of torture isn't part of his allegation at all. Not even Elisha's Bears were torture.

Bathsheba's son became ill and died seven days later. For all the bible says, the child could have been unconscious for the entire period. To read any element of torture into the death is just wishful thinking, it's speculative. The torture is certainly there in the story but the person being deliberately tortured by God is King David, whom he refuses from the outset to kill.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:54 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1481876 wrote: I would speak to this but have been arguing against Christians all day who praise God for the justice inflicted on King David's baby.

Tell me again who need help.

Regards

DL

well you won't find many of those around here.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:04 am

LarsMac;1481925 wrote: well you won't find many of those around here.

Oi. I'm a Christian. I'm just very annoyed that anyone in today's world should be so insane as to believe an external God exists. Christianity gets on perfectly well without one.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:10 am

spot;1481927 wrote: Oi. I'm a Christian. I'm just very annoyed that anyone in today's world should be so insane as to believe an external God exists. Christianity gets on perfectly well without one.

I was being a little more specific.

I am Christian, as well, but don't really get all glassy-eyed over anything that happened to David's kids.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:17 am

LarsMac;1481928 wrote: I am Christian, as well, but don't really get all glassy-eyed over anything that happened to David's kids.

As far as I'm concerned life is a vale of tears and any child leaving early has had a lucky escape. It's those still suffering who've drawn the short straw. Life is not a zero-sum game, it is invariably a negative experience and the longer it goes on the worse it becomes.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:30 am

spot;1481929 wrote: As far as I'm concerned life is a vale of tears and any child leaving early has had a lucky escape. It's those still suffering who've drawn the short straw. Life is not a zero-sum game, it is invariably a negative experience and the longer it goes on the worse it becomes.

You are more morose than I am!

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:42 am

AnneBoleyn;1481930 wrote: You are more morose than I am!

My favorite funeral hymn was written by Charles Wesley and it should be used, not left on the shelf. It starts outRejoice for a brother deceased,

Our loss is his infinite gain;

A soul out of prison released,

And freed from its bodily chain;

Hymn 49, "A Collection of Hymns..."

He captures the essence there, I think.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:46 am

That's only if you believe the dead's spirit will reach heaven, although existentially I can see it fits for anyone.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:51 am

AnneBoleyn;1481935 wrote: That's only if you believe the dead's spirit will reach heaven, although existentially I can see it fits for anyone.

I find I can use the words as metaphor without any need for a dualist universe. The emotions are equally valid, but the Godless tripe about sheep and goats, and graves giving up their dead, and celestial choirs offering eternal praise, would be a definition of evil incarnate if they had any reality beyond the imagination.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:38 am

Why not just convey the thought in realistic terms then? Why use inappropriate metaphors at all? There are plenty of alternatives.

I wholly agree with your summation on life; it has no purpose or meaning other than the one[s] we give it, which are all illusions in reality anyway. I wish I could say for sure regarding my feelings and opinions about the suffering we endure, being taught a lie about life from my youth, but I can say, that at least for me, it's the fact that I was taught to view life in unrealistic terms that causes any actual anguish I experience regarding it. Not that I do anguish over it much at this point because I have offspring and grand kids to assist through the maze of illusion we are so inundated with.

Most Atheists I know who were raised that way appear to be capable of handling the reality about life with more ease, I think. Though that doesn't mean they don't "suffer" through it. They tend to become scientists instead of philosophers, poets and artists trying to unconsciously work it out using those venues. Or even worse, participating in religious belief in the face of knowledge regarding it. I'd prefer to suffer through anguish than voluntarily participate in a blatant misconception.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:58 am

spot;1481929 wrote: As far as I'm concerned life is a vale of tears and any child leaving early has had a lucky escape. It's those still suffering who've drawn the short straw. Life is not a zero-sum game, it is invariably a negative experience and the longer it goes on the worse it becomes.

I popped in here because of a slow Saturday afternoon after seeing Ahso being the last post in an Agnostic Bishop thread.........now I shall have to go off and top myself......thanks.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:19 am

Ahso!;1481940 wrote: Why not just convey the thought in realistic terms then? Why use inappropriate metaphors at all? There are plenty of alternatives.

That's a very good question, I'm glad you asked me that.

Christians have a concept of communion. Together in communion they form a body. It's the same body today as it was a thousand years ago.

So long as I can continue to use the common language which informs that body then I can continue in communion with it. If I ditch the vocabulary then nothing they wrote will have any meaning to me, it will be dead words from an unfathomable tradition. So long as I can continue to find meaning in that vocabulary, even though it's not a meaning those who used it would necessarily have accepted, I can remain attached to the body.

Literalism has no place in any form of Christian interpretation. I happily dissociate myself from anyone today who continues the appalling errors of past practice in Christianity. The fact that earlier generations were so sublimely, awesomely ill-informed and badly behaved merely warns me that those to come will look at me and think similarly dismissive thoughts. They have my best wishes along with my apologies.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:23 am

Bruv;1481943 wrote: now I shall have to go off and top myself......thanks.Good lord, now what have I got wrong?

It never rains but it pours.

Though that's not, perhaps, on reflection, the wisest of comments.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:43 am

spot;1481959 wrote: That's a very good question, I'm glad you asked me that.

Christians have a concept of communion. Together in communion they form a body. It's the same body today as it was a thousand years ago.

So long as I can continue to use the common language which informs that body then I can continue in communion with it. If I ditch the vocabulary then nothing they wrote will have any meaning to me, it will be dead words from an unfathomable tradition. So long as I can continue to find meaning in that vocabulary, even though it's not a meaning those who used it would necessarily have accepted, I can remain attached to the body.That is, of course, an illusion as well, as I believe you're probably aware.

spot;1481959 wrote: Literalism has no place in any form of Christian interpretation. I happily dissociate myself from anyone today who continues the appalling errors of past practice in Christianity. The fact that earlier generations were so sublimely, awesomely ill-informed and badly behaved merely warns me that those to come will look at me and think similarly dismissive thoughts. They have my best wishes along with my apologies.Literalism, it seems, has no place in any interpretation of any fictitious story. We should all be wearing "I Apologize" t-shirts 24/7. Or better yet have it tattooed on our forehead once we reach the age of reason, whenever that is. At birth would probably due just as well. It's actually a better idea than any genital mutilation that's performed today.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:49 am

spot;1481920 wrote: He's using a strange meaning of the word "tortured". He actually means "caused the death of". The bible nowhere suggests that Bathsheba's son suffered before death, nor any of the firstborn of Egypt, nor those drowned in the Flood, nor any of the other deaths of minors he could recount. The prolonged pain aspect of torture isn't part of his allegation at all. Not even Elisha's Bears were torture.

Bathsheba's son became ill and died seven days later. For all the bible says, the child could have been unconscious for the entire period. To read any element of torture into the death is just wishful thinking, it's speculative. The torture is certainly there in the story but the person being deliberately tortured by God is King David, whom he refuses from the outset to kill.

Thanks for the clarification there, Spot. There's nearly always quite a lot of "spin" and interpretation added to stories, from deep history right up to the present. That's why I've always been cautious when interpreting meanings from The Bible.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:04 pm

Typical of the Bible. Just one quote of the many where the identical words can be either be read literally, which clearly implies suffering, or to change the parameters so that it doesn't. Then comes the next edition & the new parameters are included to reflect the preferred interpretation.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:09 pm

FourPart;1481968 wrote: Typical of the Bible. Just one quote of the many where the identical words can be either be read literally, which clearly implies suffering, or to change the parameters so that it doesn't. Then comes the next edition & the new parameters are included to reflect the preferred interpretation.

I'm interested to see a passage from any bible translation which clearly implies the suffering, as opposed to the mere death, of a child at the hand of God. Any child will do. I'm just wondering what you had in mind when you wrote the phrase.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:12 pm

FourPart;1481968 wrote: Typical of the Bible. Just one quote of the many where the identical words can be either be read literally, which clearly implies suffering, or to change the parameters so that it doesn't. Then comes the next edition & the new parameters are included to reflect the preferred interpretation.

Distortions happen to old stories, usually. "First editions", so-to-speak, are best but there are few GENUINE first-hand accounts of anything from a couple of thousand years ago or more, although more and more artifacts and historical texts/notes/accounts are being discovered all the time, so nothing's "set in stone".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:22 pm

Surely suffering which could mean torture because we're talking about a God is implied. What would you say might have been the results in the case of the flood had it actually happened? Since the story does not describe the suffering drowning would cause for any of the victims are you denying that would be the case? Would you rather say that it's more likely this God put them all to sleep, or something, beforehand?

I see no harm in the extrapolation of suffering/torture in this case. What about the slaughter of the innocent? Are we to extrapolate that none suffered because the bible didn't specify it? Not that any of this actually occurred, mind you.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:26 pm

spot;1481970 wrote: I'm interested to see a passage from any bible translation which clearly implies the suffering, as opposed to the mere death, of a child at the hand of God. Any child will do. I'm just wondering what you had in mind when you wrote the phrase.

15 Then Nathan went home. And the Lord caused the son of David and Bathsheba, Uriahâ€™s widow, to be very sick.

16 David prayed to God for the baby. David fasted and went into his house and stayed there, lying on the ground all night. 17 The elders of Davidâ€™s family came to him and tried to pull him up from the ground, but he refused to get up or to eat food with them.

18 On the seventh day the baby died. Davidâ€™s servants were afraid to tell him that the baby was dead. They said, â€œLook, we tried to talk to David while the baby was alive, but he refused to listen to us. If we tell him the baby is dead, he may do something awful.â€

19 When David saw his servants whispering, he knew that the baby was dead. So he asked them, â€œIs the baby dead?â€

They answered, â€œYes, he is dead.â€

This may not specify the term 'suffering' directly. Nor, of course does it state that the baby was unconscious & not suffering, but the implication seems unmistakeable. He was made to be sick & took 7 days to die, rather than just being allowed to die a quick & painless death.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:31 pm

Ahso!;1481972 wrote: I see no harm in the extrapolation of suffering/torture in this case. What about the slaughter of the innocent? Are we to extrapolate that none suffered because the bible didn't specify it?

I don't recall the bible ever claiming that Herod the Great was a manifestation of God, even though the chap quite likely thought he was at the time.

I think we need to use plain English meanings. Torture has a very specific sense of deliberately applying pain over a prolonged period. Suffering has a different meaning. Death has a different meaning. The thread title specifically talks about torture of a baby by God. Anyone can spread a net wide enough to negate the original question. Let's not do that.

Drowning everyone on the planet except eight virtuous survivors from a single family isn't torture by any known definition, it's genocide.

You can obviously what-if pretend a story in which someone suffers to such an extent that it qualifies as torture. I could equally what-if pretend the same passage into a peaceful death. Let's not what-if anything, let's actually discuss the words in the book if anyone can suggest some that might apply. As I say, I know of no instance. Call it, name one, we'll look.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:32 pm

FourPart;1481973 wrote: This may not specify the term 'suffering' directly. Nor, of course does it state that the baby was unconscious & not suffering, but the implication seems unmistakeable. He was made to be sick & took 7 days to die, rather than just being allowed to die a quick & painless death.

What it most definitely isn't, is torture. I'm quite happy to say Solomon's elder brother suffered and died. We all suffer and die. Very few of us, Solomon's elder brother included, get tortured.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:38 pm

Made to suffer over a prolonged period of 7 days. That fits in with your own definition of torture.

This particular instance was not just a chance happening that could happen to anyone. It was supposedly brought about by God as an act of vengeance on David. That is not a matter of interpretation. That much is clearly stated.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:26 pm

FourPart;1481977 wrote: Made to suffer over a prolonged period of 7 days. That fits in with your own definition of torture.

This particular instance was not just a chance happening that could happen to anyone. It was supposedly brought about by God as an act of vengeance on David. That is not a matter of interpretation. That much is clearly stated.You're reading into it what you want to find in it. It doesn't even have the "made to suffer" bit which you take as your starting point, and then you claim being made to suffer for seven days amounts to torture, which is a second leap into your own story-telling. Yes, one can imagine circumstances in which the actuality involves torture, but it's not what's there.

Having thought for a bit, the worst death that God is directly held responsible for in the Bible is this one. It's not a baby, but I'd call it torture.Jehoram received this message from Elijah the prophet:

â€œThis is what the Lord, the God your father David followed, says, â€˜Jehoram, you have not lived the way your father Jehoshaphat lived. You have not lived the way King Asa of Judah lived. But you have lived the way the kings of Israel lived. You have caused the people of Judah and Jerusalem to stop doing what God wants. That is what Ahab and his family did. They were unfaithful to God. You have killed your brothers, and they were better than you. So now, the Lord will soon punish your people with terrible suffering. He will punish your children, your wives, and all your property. You will have a painful sickness in your intestines that will get worse and worse. Your intestines will finally come out.â€™â€

The Lord caused the Philistines and the Arabs living near the Ethiopians to be angry with Jehoram. They attacked Judah and carried away all the riches in the kingâ€™s palace. They also took Jehoramâ€™s sons and wives. Only Jehoramâ€™s youngest son, Ahaziah, was left.

After this happened, the Lord made Jehoram sick with a disease in his intestines that could not be cured. His intestines fell out two years later because of his sickness. He died in very bad pain. The people did not make a large fire to honor Jehoram as they did for his father. Jehoram was 32 years old when he became king. He ruled eight years in Jerusalem. No one was sad when he died. The people buried Jehoram in the City of David, but not in the graves where the kings are buried.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ERV

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:11 pm

spot;1481975 wrote: I don't recall the bible ever claiming that Herod the Great was a manifestation of God, even though the chap quite likely thought he was at the time.Isn't any person who ever lived a manifestation of God in some aspect at least? This is the problem with conceding the notion of a God. God would be ultimately responsible for every action and reaction.

spot;1481975 wrote: I think we need to use plain English meanings. Torture has a very specific sense of deliberately applying pain over a prolonged period.Yes, but doesn't the bible say that it rained for something like forty days and forty nights? In order to flood the entire planet in that short a time strictly from rain, I'd think it was a downpour the likes of which we've never witnessed. The consequences implied from that alone could no doubt cause some prolonged pain. I realize you asked not to do this but it's a must in this conversation. Imagine if you will a family of say seven one by one from the oldest to the next to last youngest of say a six year old child dying in succession in order to protect the children. As each dies the next in line takes on the role of protector down to the last. That could definitely qualify as prolonged pain and suffering in a psychological sense for the last to die on day forty, not to mention the bruises and so forth that would probably occur during the event, like say a broken jaw on day one. God, of course being omnipotent is not only aware of this happening to this particular family but even planned it this way. spot;1481975 wrote: Suffering has a different meaning. Death has a different meaning. All true in the generic sense, but we're not talking generic, we're talking supernatural, so everything we know to be factual and true gets thrown out the window. spot;1481975 wrote: The thread title specifically talks about torture of a baby by God.It does, and I think in this context any prolonged suffering by any child qualifies..But let's take one: what about the guy in John 9 which states that he was born blind. Can blind be considered torture in the first century? In fact any and all children born with any painful and debilitating illness would be considered by the hand of God, no?spot;1481975 wrote: Anyone can spread a net wide enough to negate the original question. Let's not do that.But we're talking about a far fetched story about a far fetched individual (God). Reason goes out the window. When it comes to the bible one doesn't get to cherry pick meaning unless everyone gets to. We have no facts to refer to.

spot;1481975 wrote: Drowning everyone on the planet except eight virtuous survivors from a single family isn't torture by any known definition, it's genocide. Yeah, the sucker would be guilty of that as well.

spot;1481975 wrote: You can obviously what-if pretend a story in which someone suffers to such an extent that it qualifies as torture. I could equally what-if pretend the same passage into a peaceful death. True, however, my scenarios are reasonable and logical while yours require more supernatural intervention. spot;1481975 wrote: Let's not what-if anything, let's actually discuss the words in the book if anyone can suggest some that might apply. As I say, I know of no instance. Call it, name one, we'll look.Any instance where any person was born with any lifelong, or even prolonged, infirmity. John 9 for one.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:29 pm

spot;1481982 wrote: You're reading into it what you want to find in it. It doesn't even have the "made to suffer" bit which you take as your starting point, and then you claim being made to suffer for seven days amounts to torture, which is a second leap into your own story-telling. Yes, one can imagine circumstances in which the actuality involves torture, but it's not what's there.

It's not a case of reading into it what I want to at all. These are not my words. They are a direct quote. The wording is quite clear. You, yourself, made the definition of torture, and this seems to apply. God apparently made the child ill & then made that illness last for 7 days until he finally died from that illness. Is that, or is it not what it says? Regardless of the cause, when anyone is ill do they not suffer - especially when they're terminal? By your trying to brush over it & accuse me of reading what I want into it you are doing exactly the opposite by desperately trying to turn a blind eye to something you don't want to admit to & claim that the words mean something different without any foundation to do so.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:48 pm

The thread will be visited by outsiders over the years, they'll each make the final call for themselves. Does the death of Bathsheba's son constitute torture, or is it an abuse of language to claim it. Neither of us can make the call for them.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:03 pm

spot;1481988 wrote: The thread will be visited by outsiders over the years, they'll each make the final call for themselves. Does the death of Bathsheba's son constitute torture, or is it an abuse of language to claim it. Neither of us can make the call for them.Some will come down on one side and others will come down on the other. My personal hope is that nobody will care.

Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:30 pm

Smaug;1481879 wrote: You will have to excuse my somewhat limited knowledge in this field.

You stated that scriptures have many examples of God directly torturing babies. I've not heard of babies being tortured in Biblical tales, but then I know very little about it!

Have you some examples?

The three in the O.P. should do and that link shows where God orders the destruction of babies.

This link shows that even parents are to stone their unruly children as well as other causes to kill children.

Murder in the Bible

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:38 pm

spot;1481920 wrote: He's using a strange meaning of the word "tortured". He actually means "caused the death of". The bible nowhere suggests that Bathsheba's son suffered before death, nor any of the firstborn of Egypt, nor those drowned in the Flood, nor any of the other deaths of minors he could recount. The prolonged pain aspect of torture isn't part of his allegation at all. Not even Elisha's Bears were torture.

Bathsheba's son became ill and died seven days later. For all the bible says, the child could have been unconscious for the entire period. To read any element of torture into the death is just wishful thinking, it's speculative. The torture is certainly there in the story but the person being deliberately tortured by God is King David, whom he refuses from the outset to kill.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 12.14

And that's what God did, but not all at once. He let the baby suffer for a while.

The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.15

When God made the baby sick, David pleaded with God to stop tormenting him. But God wouldn't listen.

David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 12.16

Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.

On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18

You should have read the link before your reply.

"the person being deliberately tortured by God is King David,"

Why then does scriptures say that God struck the baby with illness?

As to the great flood, how long does it take to drown and is drowning not an extended form of waterboarding and is waterboarding not considered torture?

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:39 pm

LarsMac;1481925 wrote: well you won't find many of those around here.

Your post may have followed one.

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:45 pm

spot;1481929 wrote: As far as I'm concerned life is a vale of tears and any child leaving early has had a lucky escape. It's those still suffering who've drawn the short straw. Life is not a zero-sum game, it is invariably a negative experience and the longer it goes on the worse it becomes.

If you really believed that you would take a long walk off a short pier.

Here is reality for most.

Regards

DL

Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:00 pm

Smaug;1481971 wrote: Distortions happen to old stories, usually. "First editions", so-to-speak, are best but there are few GENUINE first-hand accounts of anything from a couple of thousand years ago or more, although more and more artifacts and historical texts/notes/accounts are being discovered all the time, so nothing's "set in stone".

Enjoy your point being proven.

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:06 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482004 wrote: is drowning not an extended form of waterboarding
Not even slightly, no.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 am

I'd like to concede that I agree with Spot that the bible story in question does not specify that the baby was "tortured" by said God, though it can be inferred. Is that fair, Spot?"

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:26 am

Ahso!;1482023 wrote: I'd like to concede that I agree with Spot that the bible story in question does not specify that the baby was "tortured" by said God, though it can be inferred. Is that fair, Spot?"

It could indeed be inferred but not, I suggest, by any reasonable person in command of his faculties.

Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:05 pm

spot;1482011 wrote: Not even slightly, no.

The blind who refuse to see.

What does the victim of waterboarding fear?

Regards

DL

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:26 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482108 wrote: The blind who refuse to see.

What does the victim of waterboarding fear?

Regards

DL

The New Scientist had an article last year contrasting dread with fear. Here's a couple of paragraphs.Although a few people always chose to experience the minimum pain, 70 per cent of the time, on average, participants chose to receive the extra shocks sooner rather than a smaller number later. By varying the number of shocks and when they occurred, the team was able to figure out that the dread of pain increased exponentially as pain approached in time. Similar results occurred in a test using hypothetical dental appointments.

"This study demonstrates that the fear of anticipation is so strong it can reverse the usual pattern of time discounting," says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "It's probably not an exaggeration to say that as much, or more, of the pains of life come from anticipation and memory than from actual experience."

"Waiting for pain can cause more dread than pain itself" Updated 10:57 25 November 2013 by Simon Makin

That may be relevant. Drowning traditionally has a reputation, reported by many who have been rescued late into the experience, of being a peaceful death.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:16 am

spot;1482119 wrote: The New Scientist had an article last year contrasting dread with fear. Here's a couple of paragraphs.Although a few people always chose to experience the minimum pain, 70 per cent of the time, on average, participants chose to receive the extra shocks sooner rather than a smaller number later. By varying the number of shocks and when they occurred, the team was able to figure out that the dread of pain increased exponentially as pain approached in time. Similar results occurred in a test using hypothetical dental appointments.

"This study demonstrates that the fear of anticipation is so strong it can reverse the usual pattern of time discounting," says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "It's probably not an exaggeration to say that as much, or more, of the pains of life come from anticipation and memory than from actual experience."

"Waiting for pain can cause more dread than pain itself" Updated 10:57 25 November 2013 by Simon Makin

That may be relevant. Drowning traditionally has a reputation, reported by many who have been rescued late into the experience, of being a peaceful death.A friend related this experience to me. He said after the struggling was over and he gave up he then experienced comfort in the dying process.

I would not be surprised that it is an evolved condition that assists in the dying process. The brain is certainly an interesting organ.

Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:36 am

spot;1482119 wrote: The New Scientist had an article last year contrasting dread with fear. Here's a couple of paragraphs.Although a few people always chose to experience the minimum pain, 70 per cent of the time, on average, participants chose to receive the extra shocks sooner rather than a smaller number later. By varying the number of shocks and when they occurred, the team was able to figure out that the dread of pain increased exponentially as pain approached in time. Similar results occurred in a test using hypothetical dental appointments.

"This study demonstrates that the fear of anticipation is so strong it can reverse the usual pattern of time discounting," says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "It's probably not an exaggeration to say that as much, or more, of the pains of life come from anticipation and memory than from actual experience."

"Waiting for pain can cause more dread than pain itself" Updated 10:57 25 November 2013 by Simon Makin

That may be relevant. Drowning traditionally has a reputation, reported by many who have been rescued late into the experience, of being a peaceful death.

Interesting but not relevant to the issue at hand.

I was not looking for degree of fear.

What does the victim of waterboarding fear?

Regards

DL

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:42 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482160 wrote: Interesting but not relevant to the issue at hand.

I was not looking for degree of fear.

What does the victim of waterboarding fear?

Regards

DLWhy don't you just stick to the thread title. Waterboarding is way off topic.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:55 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1482160 wrote: What does the victim of waterboarding fear?

I have never met anyone who has either inflicted or suffered waterboarding. Neither have I ever red any first-hand accounts written by anyone who has either inflicted or suffered waterboarding. I have no idea what the answer might be, but if you're going to inform the thread you'd better be damned sure you have convincing first-hand accounts by people who have actually suffered - not just experienced experimentally, but genuinely been tortured with - waterboarding, to back up your post. I have a dreadful suspicion that you're going to guess the answer, and claim your guess is actually true, on no basis whatsoever.

Tell us, what does the victim of waterboarding fear?