Can a Christian support torture?

[otherone]

Yes, but feeling guilty does not mean that you deserve to be assigned guilt.

Who assigns guilt?

[mosquitobite]

Is it moral to create a monster and then release him into society?

Because in the case of an American soldier torturing for information, even bad or no information, he is not saving his own child.

[Crashland]

Who assigns guilt?

You are assigning guilt when you claim that an act is immoral.

[otherone]

You are assigning guilt when you claim that an act is immoral.

me?
HELL NO.
For myself, I don't pretend that when I act immorally that I am justified in doing so. Maybe if everyone stopped pretending that violence can be "moral" it would end.

The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.
Philip Zimbardo

[pcosmar]

Even in the comment section of the Young Americans For Liberty Facebook page, the majority of commentators are defending what the CIA did.

If you read the comment section on Rand's Facebook page, there's a lot of people who are a lot more extreme and crazy than I am on this.

I don't need to hear what other people said in an attempt to justify it.

IT IS WRONG.
It should not be done ever..

And there is a wealth of evidence that it is not even useful.
It does not provide any usable intelligence.. it does not prevent or end war.

it serves no purpose but fear and hate.

It should not be.

[Crashland]

me?
HELL NO.
For myself, I don't pretend that when I act immorally that I am justified in doing so. Maybe if everyone stopped pretending that violence can be "moral" it would end.

The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.
Philip Zimbardo

Couldn't disagree more. The line between good and evil is entirely permeable by situational forces. It is absolutely the situational forces which make a decision moral or immoral, justified or unjustified. The difference between murder and self-defense is situational. Torture is an extreme form of violence, so the number of situations where it might be justified are few and far between. But in the end it is just another form of violence, and it is not exempt from situational factors.

[ExPatPaki]

Torture is wrong no matter who does it for any reason. This is one issue that I can safely say I am consistent on. Torture is never justified, whether its the US gov, Iranian gov, Syrian gov, Israeli gov, Pakistani gov, ISIS doing it. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, doesn't matter who does it for what reason, it's always morally wrong.

I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.

[Occam's Banana]

I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.

The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...

[Brett85]

90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position. That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct. And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.

And a very small tent for Christianity as well.

[Crashland]

Torture is wrong no matter who does it for any reason. This is one issue that I can safely say I am consistent on. Torture is never justified, whether its the US gov, Iranian gov, Syrian gov, Israeli gov, Pakistani gov, ISIS doing it. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, doesn't matter who does it for what reason, it's always morally wrong.

For what reason do you consider torture to be exempt from situational justification, as opposed to any other form of violence?

I didn't vote, but I cannot fathom how a Christian would be okay with torture, when their lord and savior was brutally tortured by the oppressive Roman government at that time.

No one is defending torture when used in a situation comparable to the torture of Jesus.


I think that torture is not justified in almost all cases. And any of the few cases where it would be justified are incredibly unlikely to occur. Even though it's only a small difference between 99.9% and 100%, I think it is an important point in principle. You shouldn't appeal to incredulity to make a blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act, when the reality is that no action is ever always good or always bad regardless of all possible circumstances.

[Jamesiv1]

The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...

Jesus did it to himself.

[jmdrake]

I have not at all mischaracterized your position. I asked you about the John Yoo hypothetical so that you could clarify it. And the four points that I made are applicable to anybody who accepts torture under any circumstances. I will address your response to the John Yoo hypothetical first. Your assertion that "I don't think that would make the terrorist any more likely to talk than using other means" is a cop out. If we are going to go that route, there are many interrogation experts that say torture in general is not an effective way to get information and you are better off gaining the detainees trust. That said, there are people who willingly go through torture before ever being detained so that they can resist torture. U.S. special forces do that. Russian spec ops do that as well. So if you had a Russian spec ops who wasn't going to give in to water boarding, how far would you go? Okay, you've put a limit that you wouldn't actually hurt someone's child. Good. I assume you think that's immoral? Well there are others, including myself, who believe torture in general is immoral. If the end justifies the means then why cut off the means at a certain point? If you're going to be moral, be moral. I see you also didn't answer the question I gave regarding gay rape. I will raise it again. Would you do that if you thought that was the best way to brake a terror suspect down so that he would answer the "ticking time bomb" question you raised? That's not hurting an innocent person. I'm asking you if you would do something that you are certain is immoral, since there are people using the silly "Jesus never said don't torture" argument, to meet an end.

Oh, and "I wouldn't do it personally" is another cop out. If you think something is wrong to do personally, then you shouldn't be okay with ordering someone else to do it yourself. You said if you were president you would give that order. Personally I think the law should be that if a president is going to order or even allow torture, at some point he has to do it himself. People who believe in the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch or turn on the lethal injection drip. People who are willing to call the cops on someone should be willing to pick up a gun and handle business themselves if need be. I have little patience for vicarious violence.

Now back to the four points that I raised. They are 100% applicable to your position as stated which is as president you would authorize torture for the "ticking time bomb" hypothetical. First off that hypothetical is itself prejudicial. Sure they use it all the time on TV, but TV is fake. On modern propaganda TV the "good" torturer never tortures someone that happens to be innocent. He's perfect and never makes a mistake. The bad guy is always so unmistakeably evil that the audience is led to root for his torture. The torture doesn't begin until the "hero" is at his wits end about some particular piece of intelligence and this is (seemingly) the "only" way to get it. And the torture always works. The bad guy never gives the good guy bad information after being tortured. That is a distorted view or reality. Accepting that distorted view of reality distorts the entire conversation.

And that's the fifth problem with accepting torture on any level. It's the "slippery slope" argument. You see, if you're going to allow torture at all there's no way to put a cap on what is or is not acceptable. Let's take the so called "stress position" torture. Somebody hears that and says "What's the big deal? My gym teacher made us do invisible chair and that caused my thighs to hurt." What they don't realize is that Jesus Christ was killed by being put in a stress position. And there was at least one Iraqi general that died from such a crucifixion. So....where do you draw the line? And, if you're really going with the fanciful, made for TV "ticking time bomb" scenario, why stop at anything? Really, once someone has started to torture people, are they really going to say "I know this guy has the information, but he hasn't broken from waterboarding. But pouring acid into one of his eyes is just going to far." Further, the universal truth about intelligence is that you don't know what you don't know. Every terror suspect you pick up might be the one that has the information about the ticking time bomb!

You are frustrated because conservatives think you are "too soft" on torture? Well....they're right. There is no middle ground on this. There are some things where there is an acceptable middle ground. Pharrel Williams caught flack from both sides of the Mike Brown issue when he said Mike Brown was a bully but Darren Wilson should have been indicted. Pharrel took an acceptable middle ground position. On the flip side I was having an argument with one of my friends on Facebook who was mad because I had posted an article on how abortion was killing so many black babies. She said "I'm pro choice and for the rights of the unborn." Cognitive dissonance? In this case, if torture is okay in "certain extreme circumstances" then those who wish to torture will simply characterize everything as "ticking time bomb." How on earth are we going to second guess that? Will there be a trial and afterwards if it turns out there was never a ticking time bomb or there was a ticking time bomb but we grabbed the wrong person then we'll punish the CIA agent who "screwed up?" It's bad enough just to look someone up indefinitely who hasn't done anything based on nothing but the fact that he was seen with the wrong person. (That has happened). Allowing him to be tortured because he might have some evidence that might stop some terror attack somewhere is unacceptable.

John Yoo, Bush presidential adviser, said that it is permissible for the president to torture someone's innocent child by crushing his genitals in order to induce the parent to talk. Would you go along with that? Why or why not? Do you think that going along with that would be a sin? Is there anything that you wouldn't do in the name of national security? How about gay rape? Would you put your penis in a man's anus in order to humiliate him to the point of talking? I mean you personally, not some CIA agent. Why or why not?

Here is the deal.

1) Innocent people have been tortured. We know this on record.

2) If you aren't willing to do the deed yourself then you shouldn't support someone else doing it.

3) It's a false choice anyway. The reason the U.S. is in danger is not because we haven't tortured enough people. It's because we've pissed too many people off by, among other things, torturing innocent people.

4) If violating human rights was the way to win a war, the Russians wouldn't have lost in Afghanistan.

I don't think I could do any of that personally. I'm a very non violent person. I've never even been in a fight before. This is a theoretical, political discussion we're having here. I wouldn't support crushing the genitals of a child, and I don't think that would make the terrorist any more likely to talk than using other means. I would just use force against the actual terrorist to get him to talk, or at the most I might stage a fake execution of the terrorist's family, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually harm them.

The problem is that people keep misconstruing my positions, either intentionally or unintentionally. People say that I do the same, and maybe I do at times, but I don't do it intentionally. But earlier on in this thread I stated that the reason I believe that torture should be illegal is because of the possibility of torturing innocent people. So I'm absolutely not taking the same position that someone like Sean Hannity is taking. I'm just saying even though I think torture should be against the law, I don't believe that it's always immoral, and there could be a situation that could arise if I were President where I would authorize torture and would then be prepared to suffer the consequences of my decision.

Ironically, I get criticized by conservatives for being way too soft on this and not being in favor of always using torture, of having torture be legal. I'm too libertarian for conservatives and too conservative for libertarians.

[jmdrake]

90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position. That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct. And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.

And a very small tent for Christianity as well.

Who said Christianity was supposed to be a big tent?

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Luke 18:26,27 Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

The biggest work of the Christian is to have faith in Jesus. Do you have the faith in Jesus that if you follow His teachings things will turn out better than if you don't? Most Christians lack that faith. Christians tend to take the pagan view that man must solve man's problems on his own. Christians don't generally believe in an all powerful God that really cares for them, listens to and answers their prayers, and can tell them the location of the "ticking time bomb" to which Hollywood and government propaganda has made them so afraid. So they put their trust in man instead of God and sacrifice essential liberty for security thus becoming deserving of neither. Seriously, why dispense with the most fundamental teachings of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and hold so fast and hard to Bible teachings about sex? And I'm not focused on you hear. I've seem much worse in the Christian "big tent." A conservative Christian republican neighbor once was telling me about the book and the movie "sole survivor." That was about the U.S. special forces in Afghanistan who were trying to capture or kill a Taliban leader. During the raid a goat farmer and his son stumbled upon them. And my neighbor said "Of course they couldn't kill them because they would have been crucified by the liberal media when they got back." Yes, a Christian was complaining that the "liberal media" wouldn't go along with U.S. special forces killing an innocent child just to keep their mission under wraps. And the thought never occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't even be in Afghanistan? Maybe, just maybe, there are better responses to terrorism than starting an endless war that creates more terrorists? Oh.....but this same Christian is probably fine with African countries that imprison people for being gay, yet will applaud right wing talk show hosts who talk about how barbaric Iran is for it's treatment of gays. The cognitive dissonance is strong in Christianity.

[jmdrake]

No one is defending torture when used in a situation comparable to the torture of Jesus.

You do understand that at least one Iraqi general was crucified by CIA interrogators right? Okay, no nails were put in his hands, but that's not how crucifixion killed people. You died from suffocation as a result of being hung by your arms.

http://www.rense.com/general63/weie.htm
Iraqi Died While Hung
From Wrists By US
By Seth Hettena
Associated Press Writer
2-17-5

SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture - suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press.


The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that the death had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances under which the man died were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging," the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations.

I think that torture is not justified in almost all cases. And any of the few cases where it would be justified are incredibly unlikely to occur. Even though it's only a small difference between 99.9% and 100%, I think it is an important point in principle. You shouldn't appeal to incredulity to make a blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act, when the reality is that no action is ever always good or always bad regardless of all possible circumstances.

No. It's incredibly stupid to excuse torture on a situational ethics basis. Those who wish to torture will merely claim that every scenario is the "ticking time bomb" scenario. I will ask you the question I asked T.C. If you thought it would help in the ".1%" of the cases where you believe torture is justified, would you commit an act of male rape? Would you personally stick your penis in a man's anus repeatedly in order to get information from him? If the answer to that question is "no because that would be wrong", then you have just taken a "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act" and you can't criticize someone else for making a different "blanket black-and-white statement about the morality of a particular act." And besides, it's Christians who have for the past half century been attacking secular humanism for teaching situational ethics in public schools.

[jmdrake]

Oh, and I realize some people will say I'm using hyperbole when talking about gay rape as a possible torture-interrogation technique. We know already that at Gitmo, menstruating prostitutes were brought in because, supposedly, that would make the detainees afraid for their soul. (See: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6876549/ns.../#.VIrizsl5WbE) Well say if the detainee didn't mind menstruating prostitutes? After all, the 9/11 hijackers seemed to like strippers and hookers. (Another reason why I believe the official story is a concoction.) So if you're trying to break detainees and the female hookers won't work, and if torture is morally acceptable, then bring in the Jeff Gannons. I mean right wing Christians didn't seem to mind Bush being around a gay prostitute. So certainly these same Christians, who are morally okay with torture, should be okay with gay rape interrogation right? In fact some might volunteer to do the deed themselves.

[mosquitobite]

90% of the comments on YAL's Facebook page are against their position. That doesn't make it right, of course, but to say that libertarians only have one view on this simply isn't correct. And a lot of people here might say that they're all fake libertarians, but in that case, you're making libertarianism a pretty small tent.

And a very small tent for Christianity as well.

Which lends itself to FF's common theory, right?

What, exactly, did Jesus say about how many people would agree with Truth? How wide is the road? How well accepted is true Christianity? Did He not warn we would be mocked & scorned?

[Natural Citizen]

I votes "YES"

[Brett85]

Which lends itself to FF's common theory, right?

What, exactly, did Jesus say about how many people would agree with Truth? How wide is the road? How well accepted is true Christianity? Did He not warn we would be mocked & scorned?

I think people misinterpret what Jesus said. If you take what Jesus said literally, all he said was that more people will be destroyed than will make it to heaven. That is obvious. That doesn't mean that only an extremely small number of people will make it to heaven, and it certainly doesn't mean that people's thoughts disqualify them from being Christians, that you have to have completely non violent political views in order to be a Christian. What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.

[mosquitobite]

What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.

No, it's about the heart.

[Brett85]

No, it's about the heart.

Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used. (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation. But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work. I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation. That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)

[Brett85]

JMDrake, you make some good points, but your post was extremely long, and I'll try to find a time to respond to it later.

[mosquitobite]

Someone who is able to torture, even if they justify it in their minds, is not an innocent being. Most of us here would not be able to pull off torture, even if our own child was the one who needed to be saved. (Can't think of that movie with Dakota Fanning and Denzel) In order to have torture, you have to have someone with a bit of evil in their heart first. Torture doesn't come out of someone with a full conscience. I just don't see how it would be possible. In order to torture, you have to view humanity with different lenses. I don't see how a Christian can do that. And if a Christian can't, but yet is willing to let Satan take this "one little piece" in order to put your child in the place of your faith...

You see, sometimes our own family can be idols. I trust. I have faith.

Considering your family... which would you consider worse for YOUR child? Being caged and tortured? Or death? Which one creates hell for them?

[otherone]

The Romans had to do that - otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have told them where the bomb was in time ...

You think this was a joke, punk?
Jesus could have undermined Rome's authority in Judea... THOUSANDS of lives were in jeopardy.
Torture was moral in this case...it was the lesser of two evils...Pilate even washed his hands...

Now sip some kool-aid and sing along...

[pcosmar]

Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used. (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation. But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work. I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation. That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)

By "Hypothetical" you mean fictional and fabricated.

It is clear that you have fully bought into the Fear Mongering and Warmongering propaganda.

Torture has never,, Never, NEVER been a good form of gathering intelligence.
It is used to make the innocent confess things that are not true.

It is immoral on it's face.. Period.

And beyond that.. Terror is a tactic.. not a political philosophy or an organization. And our Government is the primary source of terrorism and has been for decades.

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[mosquitobite]

My email devotion for today:
http://shortdailydevotions.com/devot...st-last-always
When, as Christians, we feel passionate about a particular topic it can be so difficult to remember that we are called by God to LOVE. More than that, we are not to love sometimes, or only when it’s easy, but ALWAYS. Our culture is attracted to strength, and the idea of justice or even vengeance when we feel indignation. We have a perfect example, however, in Jesus. Jesus was the most powerful being on earth, but He was the very picture of perfect love, humility and friendship.

Beloved, remember as you go through this life that you have been called by God to show love to those around; even to those you cannot understand. The next time you feel passionate, don’t let your nature become prideful, argumentative, defensive or harsh. Remember instead the divine example of Christ, the perfect love that has been shown to you, and regard others with love and gentleness.

[Brett85]

By "Hypothetical" you mean fictional and fabricated.

It is clear that you have fully bought into the Fear Mongering and Warmongering propaganda.

Torture has never,, Never, NEVER been a good form of gathering intelligence.
It is used to make the innocent confess things that are not true.

It is immoral on it's face.. Period.

And beyond that.. Terror is a tactic.. not a political philosophy or an organization. And our Government is the primary source of terrorism and has been for decades.

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

I'm not arguing that torture should be used on a regular basis, that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation. I said that I oppose the CIA torture program that's been revealed. We're merely having a theoretical discussion about whether torture is ever morally justified in any situation, and I believe that it is. All other forms of violence are morally acceptable in certain situations, and I don't think it makes sense to say that for some reason, torture is the exception and doesn't depend at all on situational ethics. I think that all forms of violence, killing, fighting, and torture are absolutely terrible, but I'm not going to say that those things are immoral in every situation. The morality of those things depends on the situation; it depends on situational ethics. In my view this issue doesn't have to be black and white, right or wrong. The only two positions that you can have on this issue doesn't have to either be that there's no moral problem with torture and that it should always be used, or that torture is always immoral and should never be used. You can be somewhere in between, which is where most Americans are.

[jmdrake]

I think people misinterpret what Jesus said. If you take what Jesus said literally, all he said was that more people will be destroyed than will make it to heaven. That is obvious. That doesn't mean that only an extremely small number of people will make it to heaven, and it certainly doesn't mean that people's thoughts disqualify them from being Christians, that you have to have completely non violent political views in order to be a Christian. What you guys are claiming is found no where in the Bible, and it's an extreme form of works Salvationism.

Really? So you believe Jesus wasn't serious when He said you can commit adultery or murder through your thoughts? And we aren't just talking about thoughts here. We are talking about people publicly taking and supporting a particular position that leads to a particular policy. Come on TC. It's not just a thought any more than someone advocating for Obamacare or immigrant amnesty or for increased taxes or for teaching kids how to have gay sex in school or any other position that you might agree or disagree with is "just a thought." Politicians look at what people are saying, not just thinking, about a particular issue and that has an influence on public policy. Why has Obama sent more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan? Because 80 percent of Americans in recent polls have voiced an opinion that they are in favor of military action against ISIS. Thoughts matter.

Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Matt 12:36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

Matt 15:18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.

A Christian will not be able to plead on the day of judgment "Well Jesus, I didn't do X, but I just thought about it and advocated for it." NAMBLA members don't necessarily have sex with little boys. But they think about it, talk about it and advocate for it. If it's wrong to do then it is wrong to advocate.

Now Jesus is merciful and God's love covers a multitude of sins. Not just the people who advocate for torture can be forgiven, but those who torture can be forgiven and even the real terrorists who actually do kill innocent people (and some of them wear uniforms) can be forgiven. And yes, there are people who push anti Christian ideas that don't realize they are doing that because they haven't been taught the truth. And then on top of that people know Bible truth and don't consistently live up to that. I'm one of them. I'm not saying if a person ever thought "I'd love to torture so and so" that they can't go to heaven any more than I would say someone who looked at someone else and said "I'd really love to sleep with him/her" is disqualified from heaven. David will be in heaven and he thought about another man's wife...then slept with her...then killed the man to cover it up. But we're talking (I thought anyway) about what Jesus defined as moral. The whole justification/sanctification/election/once-saved-always-saved/conditional-salvation debate is for another subforum.

[jmdrake]

I'm not arguing that torture should be used on a regular basis, that it should be used as a regular part of our CIA's interrogation. I said that I oppose the CIA torture program that's been revealed. We're merely having a theoretical discussion about whether torture is ever morally justified in any situation, and I believe that it is. All other forms of violence are morally acceptable in certain situations, and I don't think it makes sense to say that for some reason, torture is the exception and doesn't depend at all on situational ethics. I think that all forms of violence, killing, fighting, and torture are absolutely terrible, but I'm not going to say that those things are immoral in every situation. The morality of those things depends on the situation; it depends on situational ethics. In my view this issue doesn't have to be black and white, right or wrong. The only two positions that you can have on this issue doesn't have to either be that there's no moral problem with torture and that it should always be used, or that torture is always immoral and should never be used. You can be somewhere in between, which is where most Americans are.

Rape is a form of violence. Are you prepared to say that it's never acceptable? Or, depending on situational ethics, do you think it is sometimes okay?

[jmdrake]

Right, and apparently in order to have a "good heart" you can't be one of those people who are thinking about the millions of innocent people who could die in a terrorist attack if torture isn't used. (I'm talking about a hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, and yes I know there's still a good chance that torture wouldn't work in that situation. But asking nicely certainly wouldn't work. I just think that the unfortunate reality is that torture would be the only option left in such a situation. That doesn't even mean that it should be legal, just that I don't view it as being completely immoral in every situation)

Except you've already admitted that you wouldn't torture someone's child to save millions so there's something wrong with your moral calculus. And you have addressed the rape question at all. Either there are things that are morally wrong regardless of how many lives may be saved in the process or there isn't. If you draw the line at torturing a terrorist's child and (maybe) at gay rape, then you can't turn around at say someone else is pushing "extreme works salvation" by saying that other forms of torture are never acceptable. In fact, it's ridiculous to make this about salvation by works. You can believe something is wrong and still believe it can be forgiven. David was wrong for committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah to cover it up. But David will be in heaven. Salvation by faith does not mean change the definition of sin to one that best suits the sinner.

[otherone]

Rape is a form of violence. Are you prepared to say that it's never acceptable? Or, depending on situational ethics, do you think it is sometimes okay?

Many people appear to believe that evil only exists in the intent.

No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.
Mary Wollstonecraft