The chapter title, "Love as a Possibility for the Individual," gave me hope that Niebuhr would finally give us something to hold on to, perhaps a method for implementing the impossible ideal of love in a fallen and sinful world. Unfortunately, I walked away from reading and reflecting on this chapter unsure of the implied meaning of the title. Is Niebuhr implying that love is indeed a possibility for the individual, and subsequently describing how, or is he simply addressing the question of whether or not it is possible? Let's see which of these two possibilities is actually the correct one. First, I want to use a somewhat divergent but ultimately useful (hopefully) test case for understanding Niebuhr. I want to take one of the current problems of our time and test it within Niebuhr's framework, or at least as I understand Niebuhr's framework. Let's use the example of the use of torture. By all accounts, torture is perhaps one of the most inhumane and despicable things that can be committed by one individual to another. Its own definition makes this point clear: torture, as defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purpose of obtaining yourself, or by a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act which he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or by intimidating or coercing him or a third person…” It should be noted that the use of torture is illegal under international law, is considered a violation of fundamental human rights, is unacceptable according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is in direct violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions...... half of the document ..... . the power of sin that Niebuhr conveys goes deeper than he admits, to the extent that even by committing the sin, the individual may attempt to justify that sin as not being sin, thus perpetuating a cycle of self-justification and not really providing any motivation . for choosing to live towards the transcendence of love rather than living towards self-interest. Niebuhr's scheme, taken to its logical conclusion, gives the power of sin the final word on the power and grace of Christ.1. Time to be Niebuhr: do you think he would justify the use of torture with its supposed power to extract information even if it's not ideal? If so, do you think it would invoke repentance and contrition in its use?2. Do you think Niebuhr developed a framework that privileges, intentionally or unintentionally, the power of sin over the transformative power of grace? Why or why not?