Re: Osama - Are Christian Hypocrites?

[MJAlltheWay24]

Here is something I struggle with understanding. Why are most (not all) Christians pro-capital punishment? Why, when Osama was killed, did many conservative Christians say "justice has been done"? Isn't God the only one who can pass that judgement?

 

What about when he says-

Luke 6:37-42 [37] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

 

Later he goes on to say that he did not come to preach "eye for an eye".

 

I just don't get it. Where do (some) Christians get off thinking that capital punishment is a just thing?

 

Maybe its that we as Christians should not judge their soul or where they belong after death? But they can be judged on their actions?

[mcpapa]

I have nothing to add to the conversation.

 

But it's the occasional thread liks this one that makes the P&R forum worth coming back to every so often.:thumb:

[Zoot Soup]

I guess I just don't understand - however evil OBL's actions - how I could feel it's my place to say he deserves death.

[Randy Parker]

Maybe its that we as Christians should not judge their soul or where they belong after death? But they can be judged on their actions?

 

There's a lot to what you're saying here IMO. Jesus asked us, in essence, to judge the words and actions of certain prophets so that we would be able to identify whether or not they were legitimate. "By their fruit you will recognize them."

 

I do think that Jesus, in this particular passage Zoot refers to, is coming down on hyper-criticism or fault-finding. The Pharisees, many of whom were likely a part of Jesus' audience in Luke 6, were notorious for this--especially in their dealings with Jesus. I believe Scripture encourages constructive criticism, which from my perspective means: (1) Going straight to the person you're criticizing. (2) Going with tact and love, as opposed to a clenched fist & raised voice. (3) Going for the purpose of bringing about a solution or a peaceful resolution of some sort.

[halfback20]

I guess I just don't understand - however evil OBL's actions - how I could feel it's my place to say he deserves death.

 

It's a him or us type of thing. If he lives, he will do everything in his power to kill as many innocent Americans as he can. It's not your place, but as a country it is our leaders place to make that decision for the better of the world, and the USA.

[Habib]

I think the larger passage is worth quoting as well:

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

While no one is perfect, I think it's something Christians should be aspiring to. I think Zoot's overall point here is that when you see Christians exuberant over killing and lusting over vengeance (and this is certainly applicable to other situations outside of the specific one mentioned here) it's worth remembering Ghandi's quote: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

[formerkywrestler]

I highly doubt that, I think most just try to justify it. Especially considering the number of them that oppose gambling and same sex marriage.

Totally agree.

[PepRock01]

Totally agree.

 

One of the many reasons we are both Libertarians. :thumb:

[Alabama Larry]

Look at Romans chapters 12/13.

 

Jesus died for Bin Laden, but he may not accepted the salvation that was offered.

[Zoot Soup]

If you haven't been following, Rashard Mendenhall pretty much asked the same question on Twitter and got blasted for it.

[Getslow]

If you haven't been following, Rashard Mendenhall pretty much asked the same question on Twitter and got blasted for it.

 

Rashard Mendenhall tweeted a lot of things, some of which he's rightly getting blasted for, including:

 

"We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."

 

Loose Change, 9/11 conspiracy garbage will never meet with anything other than ridicule and derision in a public forum.

 

As for the Bin Laden specific stuff, he raised an interesting question. If watching the development of the American political mind in the last 30 years has taught us anything, it's that the American political mind HATES interesting questions; it likes, nay requires, simple ones. Chris Douglas-Roberts raised a similar question, asking if billions upon billions of dollars and two wars were a justifiable expense to kill this one man. I think Roberts framed his question poorly and it too oversimplifies all the reasons for entering Afghanistan and the reasons for staying, but again he brought up an idea and got blasted for it. This is life in the public eye when taking an unpopular opinion.

 

All this would maybe even make a little more sense if professional athletes weren't trying to express themselves within Twitter's 140 character limit...

[AirYardGo]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party.

[Zoot Soup]

Rashard Mendenhall tweeted a lot of things, some of which he's rightly getting blasted for, including:

 

"We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."

 

Loose Change, 9/11 conspiracy garbage will never meet with anything other than ridicule and derision in a public forum.

 

As for the Bin Laden specific stuff, he raised an interesting question. If watching the development of the American political mind in the last 30 years has taught us anything, it's that the American political mind HATES interesting questions; it likes, nay requires, simple ones. Chris Douglas-Roberts raised a similar question, asking if billions upon billions of dollars and two wars were a justifiable expense to kill this one man. I think Roberts framed his question poorly and it too oversimplifies all the reasons for entering Afghanistan and the reasons for staying, but again he brought up an idea and got blasted for it. This is life in the public eye when taking an unpopular opinion.

 

All this would maybe even make a little more sense if professional athletes weren't trying to express themselves within Twitter's 140 character limit...

 

Mendenhall actually provided a thoughful and articulate defense of his point on his blog today (from ESPN)-

 

 

"This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics," he wrote.

 

After quoting a bible verse, he wrote: "I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death."

 

He apologized later in the posting and said he was just trying to "generate conversation."

 

"I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm," he wrote. "I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.

 

"It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think."

[5wide]

Mendenhall actually provided a thoughful and articulate defense of his point on his blog today (from ESPN)-

 

 

"This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics," he wrote.

 

After quoting a bible verse, he wrote: "I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death."

 

He apologized later in the posting and said he was just trying to "generate conversation."

 

"I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm," he wrote. "I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.

 

"It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think."

 

That sounds good, but I'm not buying it. He's backtracking.

 

I think the implication of the two tweets, the first saying "we've only heard one side" and the second saying "I find it hard to believe..." are obvious. Its not hard to read between the lines on those two and I don't think it meshes with what he's apparently saying now.

[Hatz]

That sounds good, but I'm not buying it. He's backtracking.

 

I think the implication of the two tweets, the first saying "we've only heard one side" and the second saying "I find it hard to believe..." are obvious. Its not hard to read between the lines on those two and I don't think it meshes with what he's apparently saying now.

 

:thumb:

 

The first tweets were what he wanted to say.

 

This response is what his "agent wanted him to say."