• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Osama Bin Laden... What is the Christian response to this?

What is my moral response to the death of Osama

  • I hope he burns in Hell

    Votes: 31 26.5%

  • I'm just glad he is dead. Let God Decide

    Votes: 41 35.0%

  • Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner

    Votes: 13 11.1%

  • Conflicted

    Votes: 17 14.5%

  • Other/Poll fail

    Votes: 15 12.8%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
TownieDeac said:
Nowhere does the quote suggest to mourn the loss, but rather to simply not rejoice, as violence only begets more violence.
Click to expand...

rejoicing seems the antithesis of violence. Especially in this case. Rejoicing an extremely violent man, because there is now one less person trying to kill innocent people in this world.
 
OBL wasn't any type of "human" I would want on this earth. Good riddance.
 
I would also challenge that violence necessarily begets more violence. Ask the Japanese after they were nuked...
 
KnightAtWake said:
Really not a good example, on so many levels. I'm not hating (or neg repping), just not a good example.
Click to expand...

Japanese wouldn't stop the violence, we whipped out a whole new level of violence, Japanese end war. And the nukes were so violently powerful they have never been used again, another sign of violence not necessarily begetting more violence
 
I call that prince feeble who incapable of carrying on war.
- Niccoló Machiavelli


Pacifists are annoying, and even worse, they are terribly unrealistic about the world that surrounds them.
 
deacvision7 said:
I call that prince feeble who incapable of carrying on war.
- Niccoló Machiavelli


Pacifists are annoying, and even worse, they are terribly unrealistic about the world that surrounds them.
Click to expand...

Brilliant as texts such as Machiavelli's Prince, Sun Tzu's Art of War, or any number of military texts are within their place in the literary canon, I simply cannot find it within myself to agree with the most base messages at heart.

I have gone back and forth on debates within different revolutionary schools of thought:

Martin Luther King Jr vs Malcolm X
Booker T Washington vs W.E.B. Dubois
Gandhi vs Che

Lately, I've landed mostly in the camp that violence can certainly lead to greater good, but that it is ultimately not the answer to society's ills.

As it pertains to this thread, am I glad to hear the United States have killed Osama Bin Laden? Of course I am. Even as a staunch opponent of corporal punishment, his particular death seems fitting. Hope that much is clear when I post my stance.

I only made the comments that I did because I am hesitant to join in the jubilation/riots that have ensued in the streets and on social media in this country. Osama Bin Laden, sociopathic terrorist that he was, clearly hated America for her freedoms, but also for violence and upheavals created at the behest of her government for decades. As long as both sides celebrate death and destruction, there can be no peaceful resolution.

- $.02
 
TownieDeac said:
Brilliant as texts such as Machiavelli's Prince, Sun Tzu's Art of War, or any number of military texts are within their place in the literary canon, I simply cannot find it within myself to agree with the most base messages at heart.

I have gone back and forth on debates within different revolutionary schools of thought:

Martin Luther King Jr vs Malcolm X
Booker T Washington vs W.E.B. Dubois
Gandhi vs Che

Lately, I've landed mostly in the camp that violence can certainly lead to greater good, but that it is ultimately not the answer to society's ills.

As it pertains to this thread, am I glad to hear the United States have killed Osama Bin Laden? Of course I am. Even as a staunch opponent of corporal punishment, his particular death seems fitting. Hope that much is clear when I post my stance.

I only made the comments that I did because I am hesitant to join in the jubilation/riots that have ensued in the streets and on social media in this country. Osama Bin Laden, sociopathic terrorist that he was, clearly hated America for her freedoms, but also for violence and upheavals created at the behest of her government for decades. As long as both sides celebrate death and destruction, there can be no peaceful resolution.

- $.02
Click to expand...

I agree with you that violence is certainly not ideal, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. As long as there are evil people, there is going to be violence. And one thing sure to beget violence is an evil person seeing a people unwilling or unable to retaliate or defend themselves.
 
Agreed on all counts, tintin.

I recognize my idealism comes off as naivete, but I think there are underlying issues that also must be addressed in addition to the need for occasional intervention. I don't mean to say that we should be compliant with the desires of terrorists, or anyone who would restrict civil liberties (especially in the pursuit of dogmatic and authoritarian theocracy). This may be a discussion better suited for the politics board.

Anyway, I'm proud of our men and women who serve, proud of our country, its defense, and much of our nation's promising social agenda that has made us an admirable global power.

Retaliatory violence (rationalized down to self-defense even) seems more justified than any other kind, so people have good reason to celebrate this occasion. I simply choose not to do so in the same way many Americans have.
 
TownieDeac said:
Brilliant as texts such as Machiavelli's Prince, Sun Tzu's Art of War, or any number of military texts are within their place in the literary canon, I simply cannot find it within myself to agree with the most base messages at heart.

I have gone back and forth on debates within different revolutionary schools of thought:

Martin Luther King Jr vs Malcolm X
Booker T Washington vs W.E.B. Dubois
Gandhi vs Che

Lately, I've landed mostly in the camp that violence can certainly lead to greater good, but that it is ultimately not the answer to society's ills.

As it pertains to this thread, am I glad to hear the United States have killed Osama Bin Laden? Of course I am. Even as a staunch opponent of corporal punishment, his particular death seems fitting. Hope that much is clear when I post my stance.

I only made the comments that I did because I am hesitant to join in the jubilation/riots that have ensued in the streets and on social media in this country. Osama Bin Laden, sociopathic terrorist that he was, clearly hated America for her freedoms, but also for violence and upheavals created at the behest of her government for decades. As long as both sides celebrate death and destruction, there can be no peaceful resolution.

- $.02
Click to expand...

Some very, very good points. No doubt about that.
(I hope you weren't calling The Prince a military test, btw. I don't believe you were, but I couldn't tell for sure.)

My perspective of things though...

Society's ills are not furthered by government violence when it is justified. Nobody celebrating last night was out to hurt random Muslims like they were soon after 9/11. The violence that occurred yesterday led to relief among nearly all of our American Society. FINALLY the face of the pain and suffering from nearly two straight decades of attacks was killed. (More than that when not just looking at it as a US-centrist.) Violence in this sense at least cured society's ills for one night. We all felt better here. And I would suggest many across the globe felt better knowing that OBL was dead.

I find most of the jubilation to be about OBL being killed as a justice and not a celebration of a guy getting killed. He was the face of our most recent enemy, Al-Queda. That is why his death was celebrated. He was the master mind of the most deadly single event in our nation's history.

To me, at least, it seems that the people that want to frown upon violence also want to secretly enjoy it's fruits. As I believe you showed by a few quotes:

"I glad to hear the United States have killed Osama Bin Laden? Of course I am."

COUNTER THAT WITH:

"Brilliant as texts such as Machiavelli's Prince, Sun Tzu's Art of War, or any number of military texts are within their place in the literary canon, I simply cannot find it within myself to agree with the most base messages at heart."
and
"I only made the comments that I did because I am hesitant to join in the jubilation/riots that have ensued in the streets and on social media in this country."

To which I again quote my favorite philosopher and say:

"Whoever then desires that a city should make an obstinate resistance, or that an army should fight with determination in the field, should above all things endeavor to inspire them with the conviction of the necessity for their utmost efforts."
(From: The Discourses, not The Prince, btw)
 
As with tintin, I agree with all your points, deacvision. Of course I want to live a society where I feel safe because of the security offered by those willing to take violent action against aggressors. No secret about that.

Machiavelli was a brilliant strategist, an important philosopher, and a great writer. But many of his stances are somewhat stuck between the ancient and modern, and can thus be logically debated by scholars of both times.

Plato would convincingly argue for virtuous leaders, or a democracy who strived towards virtue, whereas Machiavelli would claim virtue came from advancing the state.

"In practicing a skill, we do not aim to go beyond, but only to hit the right point. Virtue is a kind of skill, and this requires a knowledge of what is the right measure. The unjust man, therefore, is not exercising much of a skill, is he? Nor is the tyrant doing much of a job at ruling. One cannot claim to play a higher F-sharp than anyone else - since we all know that F-sharp is F-sharp, and there cannot be higher or lower F-sharp's. It is the just man who knows the proper note; it is the unjust man who exceeds it and goes out of tune in his life. It is injustice, then, that is the fool's game. It destroys individuals, as it destroys states" (Plato, The Republic. 349E, P. 35-36).

His stances can also be logically challenged by modern liberal democrats (not like Howard Dean, but as in proponents of modern liberal democracy). Frederick II would argue convincingly for many of Machiavelli's humanist doctrines, but fundamentally argue his logic in the volume he wrote that Voltaire edited.

To summarize, we don't disagree in full, just on how we get there. There should be fewer men on Earth like Osama Bin Laden. There are as of yesterday, and for that, I am grateful to the men and women who carried out his attack. I hope for a more peaceful future.
 
Good enough for me to agree that we aren't so far apart and to lay it to bed for now. (Plato was a hack, though, IMO.)

But I see your point and agree with it to an extent. And I agree with you that it is just a matter of how to get there (and I don't want to discuss that any further just like I'm sure you don't want to.)

Cheers, sir. Good discussion that got my brain moving for a bit. Much appreciated.
 
As always. Ran out of pos rep.

Plato was a hack?!! Well Aristotle said the same thing :p
 
deacvision7 said:
Cheers, sir. Good discussion that got my brain moving for a bit. Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

agreed i enjoyed the posts of you two.



Reminded me of watching a lecture series by Dr. Rufus Fears on the history of Freedom with my dad instead of some awful accounting class in high school
 
Last edited:
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
Any follower of the Jewish/Christian OT God knows the ten commandments, and in there lies "Thou Shalt Not Kill." There's no ambiguity.

Jesus was also decidedly anti-violence, even in the face of violence. You only have to read the first 4 books of the NT to understand this fully.

So anyone who believes in the Bible and especially Jesus' teachings knows the killing of OBL (or anyone) is wrong.

But we've spent thousands of years justifying our actions when they contradict what we know is right. What's one more?

I'd like to add that I'm totally cool with the execution "for the greater good" I'm just saying Jesus would be against it.
Click to expand...

mebanedeac said:
Respectfully I must insist that this is a simplistic understanding of both the Law and the Gospels.

It was in the Pentateuch that God also demanded capitol punishment for murderers: Genesis 9:6 6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.

And Christ directed His people to buy a sword:
Luke 22:36 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

In Romans 13 Paul states that God Himself gave civil government the power of the sword...meaning the authority to execute capitol punishment.

Our government possesses the legitimate authority to punish those who invade our sovereign territory and kill our citizens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for respectfully disagreeing. People keeping it civil around here is what keeps me on these boards. Otherwise I'd just have to ditch in general.

About the demand for capital punishment. That is certainly true, as long as performed by "the magistrate" IIRC.

How do we know our government has the power to be a magistrate?

Again, I'm all for the whacking of bin Laden. No moral problems here. I'm just wondering about using God and Jesus to justify/condone the action. Can Christians elect anyone a magistrate in God's eyes? Must they be in "government?" Any government? What if we elect a Muslim president, can they be a magistrate? I'm just saying it's a slippery slope.

About the sword, do people really think Jesus was saying "go buy a sword to kill people?" That doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
 
Being uncomfortable with the necessity of violence is not the same as frowning upon it or condemning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top