OBL
0 views
Skip to first unread message
SM
May 6, 2011, 1:40:49 PM5/6/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Question: "How should Christians react to the death of evil people?"
Answer: With the recent death of Osama bin Laden, many Christians are wondering how they should feel about such an event. Are we to rejoice/celebrate when evil people die / are killed? Interestingly, the authors of the Bible seem to have struggled with this issue as well, with different perspectives being presented in different passages.
First, there is Ezekiel 18:23, “’As surely as I live,’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.’” Clearly, God does not take pleasure in the death of evil people. Why is this? Why wouldn’t a holy and righteous God take pleasure in evil people receiving the punishment they deserve? Ultimately, the answer would have to be that God knows the eternal destiny of evil people. God knows how horrible eternity in the lake of fire will be. Similar to Ezekiel 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” So, in terms of the eternal destiny of evil people, no, we should not rejoice at their eternal demise. Hell is so absolutely horrible that we should never rejoice when someone goes there.
Second, there is Proverbs 11:10, “When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.” This seems to be speaking of the death of evil people in an earthly/temporal sense. When there are fewer evil people in the world, the world is a better place. We can rejoice when justice is done, when evil is defeated. A mass murderer being removed from the world is a good thing. God has ordained governments (and the military) as instruments of judgment against evil. When evil people are killed, whether in the judicial system via the death penalty, or whether through military means, it is God’s justice being accomplished (Romans 13:1-7). For justice being done, and for evil people being removed from this world, yes, we can rejoice.
There are many other scriptures that could be discussed (Deuteronomy 32:43; Job 31:29; Psalm 58:10; Proverbs 17:5, 24:17-18; Jeremiah 11:20; Ezekiel 33:11), but Ezekiel 18:23 and Proverbs 11:10 are likely sufficient to help us achieve this difficult biblical balance. Yes, we can rejoice when evil is defeated, even if that includes the death of evil people. Ridding the world of evil people is a good thing. At the same time, we are not to rejoice at the eternal condemnation of evil people. God does not desire that evil people spend eternity in the lake of fire, and He definitely does not rejoice when they go there. Neither should we.
Answer: With the recent death of Osama bin Laden, many Christians are wondering how they should feel about such an event. Are we to rejoice/celebrate when evil people die / are killed? Interestingly, the authors of the Bible seem to have struggled with this issue as well, with different perspectives being presented in different passages.
First, there is Ezekiel 18:23, “’As surely as I live,’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.’” Clearly, God does not take pleasure in the death of evil people. Why is this? Why wouldn’t a holy and righteous God take pleasure in evil people receiving the punishment they deserve? Ultimately, the answer would have to be that God knows the eternal destiny of evil people. God knows how horrible eternity in the lake of fire will be. Similar to Ezekiel 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” So, in terms of the eternal destiny of evil people, no, we should not rejoice at their eternal demise. Hell is so absolutely horrible that we should never rejoice when someone goes there.
Second, there is Proverbs 11:10, “When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.” This seems to be speaking of the death of evil people in an earthly/temporal sense. When there are fewer evil people in the world, the world is a better place. We can rejoice when justice is done, when evil is defeated. A mass murderer being removed from the world is a good thing. God has ordained governments (and the military) as instruments of judgment against evil. When evil people are killed, whether in the judicial system via the death penalty, or whether through military means, it is God’s justice being accomplished (Romans 13:1-7). For justice being done, and for evil people being removed from this world, yes, we can rejoice.
There are many other scriptures that could be discussed (Deuteronomy 32:43; Job 31:29; Psalm 58:10; Proverbs 17:5, 24:17-18; Jeremiah 11:20; Ezekiel 33:11), but Ezekiel 18:23 and Proverbs 11:10 are likely sufficient to help us achieve this difficult biblical balance. Yes, we can rejoice when evil is defeated, even if that includes the death of evil people. Ridding the world of evil people is a good thing. At the same time, we are not to rejoice at the eternal condemnation of evil people. God does not desire that evil people spend eternity in the lake of fire, and He definitely does not rejoice when they go there. Neither should we.
Tracey Maddow
May 6, 2011, 1:59:22 PM5/6/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 6, 10:40 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Question: "How should Christians react to the death of evil people?"
"Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his
faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." -- Psalm
97:10
"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." --
Romans 12:9
So, enemies are enemies, however, evil is evil. They are two different
bananas or apples or oranges. We know how we should treat our enemies,
but, I, for one, as commanded, I hate what is evil.
> *Question: "How should Christians react to the death of evil people?"
"Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his
faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." -- Psalm
97:10
"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." --
Romans 12:9
So, enemies are enemies, however, evil is evil. They are two different
bananas or apples or oranges. We know how we should treat our enemies,
but, I, for one, as commanded, I hate what is evil.
14SM.jcil
May 6, 2011, 2:31:05 PM5/6/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
Ar first glance, I was in agreement with your post...but after thinking more about what might be intended by your fruit reference, I have a couple of questions.
How do you define 'evil'? How do you define 'enemies'?
Tracey Maddow
May 6, 2011, 4:23:28 PM5/6/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 6, 11:31 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
This was your post in the form of a question and I only responded to
it:
*Question: "How should Christians react to the death of evil people?"
-- SM, May 6, 2011
Therefore let's start by you defining the evil in your post. How do
you define evil in your post? Is it the same evil as the one in the
Bible verses that I provided? Do you believe in the Bible verses that
I provided?
Enemies are adversaries, like nations against nations, classmates
against classmates, leaders against leaders, politicians against
politicians, etc. Some are not necessary evil. However there are some
who were condemned as evil by the masses, like Satan, Hitler, Bin
Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
it:
*Question: "How should Christians react to the death of evil people?"
Therefore let's start by you defining the evil in your post. How do
you define evil in your post? Is it the same evil as the one in the
Bible verses that I provided? Do you believe in the Bible verses that
I provided?
Enemies are adversaries, like nations against nations, classmates
against classmates, leaders against leaders, politicians against
politicians, etc. Some are not necessary evil. However there are some
who were condemned as evil by the masses, like Satan, Hitler, Bin
Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
SM
May 6, 2011, 6:00:13 PM5/6/11
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
To clarify, Tracey, I provided attribution for the source of the question (and the answer which followed it); the words were not mine. I don't disavow the word choice used, only point out that the words weren't mine.
In response to your question about the verses you quoted, I will naturally respond: Of course, I "believe in" those Bible verses. However, neither of the verses 'define' evil, they only inform believers as to how we should we should regard it (i.e., we should hate evil as the Lord does).
As I consider your comment further, I am again not certain about your intended meaning, but I can certainly find agreement with it if the underlying idea that you're trying to convey is that there is an elementary distinction that one should make between 'people' (even people who are 'enemies') and 'evil'.
Evil, succinctly put, is sin. Sin is rebellion toward God (1 John 3:4, Deut. 9:7). Naturally, God hates sin and its affect on his creation (Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22, Rom. 6:23).
God loves all people (and commands believers to do the same - Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27) regardless of whether those people hate Him (we have all been, or are, at enmity with God - Rom. 5:10, Php. 3:18) or whether we are recipients of His redeeming grace (Jam. 2:23, John 15:15).
However, it is important to note that God will not contend with man indefinitely. He does allow men to reap the consequence of their choice to reject righteousness and does give some over to the evil pursuit of their heart. It is accurate to say then that in such case some men are viewed by God as 'evildoers' (Pr. 17:11, Ps. 37, 1 John 2:4, Rev. 21:8).
e_space
May 6, 2011, 7:42:35 PM5/6/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
isnt there a saying in the bible to "treat your enemy as your
brother", and "when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek"? ... or
something similar? how does that jive with the verses you quote?
brother", and "when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek"? ... or
something similar? how does that jive with the verses you quote?
Tracey Maddow
May 7, 2011, 8:32:35 AM5/7/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 6, 4:42 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> isnt there a saying in the bible to "treat your enemy as your
> brother", and "when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek"? ... or
> something similar? how does that jive with the verses you quote?
Like I answered SM, Enemies are adversaries, like nations against
> isnt there a saying in the bible to "treat your enemy as your
> brother", and "when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek"? ... or
> something similar? how does that jive with the verses you quote?
nations, classmates against classmates, leaders against leaders,
politicians against politicians, etc. Some are not necessary evil.
However there are some who were condemned as evil by the masses, like
Satan, Hitler, Bin
Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
For enemies, who are not evil, we must treat them as you wrote. For
politicians against politicians, etc. Some are not necessary evil.
However there are some who were condemned as evil by the masses, like
Satan, Hitler, Bin
Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
those who are evil, we must treat them accordingly as well. If you
like the verses again, I will gladly give them to you.
Tracey Maddow
May 7, 2011, 8:36:21 AM5/7/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
On May 6, 3:00 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Bible didn't define what is evil because everybody knows what is
evil. Evil is evil and defining more than it should be is tantamount
to teaching others to like it. Enemies are no the same as evil, at
least some enemies. And those enemies are to be treated kindly and
accordingly, while evil has to be hated.
> As I consider your comment further, I am again not certain about your
> intended meaning, but I can certainly find agreement with it if the
> underlying idea that you're trying to convey is that there is an elementary
> distinction that one should make between 'people' (even people who are
> 'enemies') and 'evil'.
>
> Evil, succinctly put, is sin. Sin is rebellion toward God (1 John 3:4,
> Deut. 9:7). Naturally, God hates sin and its affect on his creation (Rom.
> 5:12, Rom. 8:22, Rom. 6:23).
>
> God loves *all* people (and commands believers to do the same - Matt. 5:44,
> Luke 6:27) regardless of whether those people hate Him (we have *all* been,
evil. Evil is evil and defining more than it should be is tantamount
to teaching others to like it. Enemies are no the same as evil, at
least some enemies. And those enemies are to be treated kindly and
accordingly, while evil has to be hated.
> As I consider your comment further, I am again not certain about your
> intended meaning, but I can certainly find agreement with it if the
> underlying idea that you're trying to convey is that there is an elementary
> distinction that one should make between 'people' (even people who are
> 'enemies') and 'evil'.
>
> Evil, succinctly put, is sin. Sin is rebellion toward God (1 John 3:4,
> Deut. 9:7). Naturally, God hates sin and its affect on his creation (Rom.
> 5:12, Rom. 8:22, Rom. 6:23).
>
> Luke 6:27) regardless of whether those people hate Him (we have *all* been,
e_space
May 7, 2011, 8:48:12 AM5/7/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
like the verses again? sorry, i dont understand
war without evil seems unlikely to me ...
war without evil seems unlikely to me ...
ornamentalmind
May 7, 2011, 10:25:56 AM5/7/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Jumping in here and not meaning to just troll, definitions of evil
abound. Add to such a wide assortment to chose from the personal
interpretation(s) involved and I find the notion of ‘evil’ to become
almost useless. At best, it morphs into “them”. Seldom or ever do I
find people saying that “I am evil.”
The lists of ‘evil people’ presented here are commonly used because
they are comprised by consensus and from specific theologies (devil)
and cultures (“condemned as evil by the masses”). They also are very
often developed from emotion. So I find little to nothing objective
about the people listed unless one embraces truth by consensus as
objectivity.
No specific behavior(s) unique to each have been mentioned yet. There
was a post indicating that ‘everybody knows what is evil’. It
continues with ‘Evil is evil and defining more than it should be is
tantamount to teaching others to like it.’
I simply respond that no, everybody does not know what is evil unless
one includes my suggested standard of “them” posted above. The very
nature of evil is theology, book and person specific. Yes, it would be
nice to think that there is a universal standard, one perhaps
suggested by “Sin is rebellion toward God”. However, again this is
interpreted by each person’s understanding of God.
As one simple example of this I will suggest that Osama Bin Laden did
not think he was in ‘rebellion toward God’…if anything, he thought he
was doing God’s work. Now, I know that: 1. This thread started out
with a question directed towards only Christians and that 2. Different
sects of Christianity and of Islam will almost automatically reject
each other’s school of thought.
So, from the ‘believers’ here I don’t expect agreement… neither
amongst themselves nor with other people and/or theologies.
In the spirit of the title of this Group, I present the above for your
consideration. Everyone *may* know what ‘evil’ is; however, this
‘evil’ is different for everyone who believes in the notion.
abound. Add to such a wide assortment to chose from the personal
interpretation(s) involved and I find the notion of ‘evil’ to become
almost useless. At best, it morphs into “them”. Seldom or ever do I
find people saying that “I am evil.”
The lists of ‘evil people’ presented here are commonly used because
they are comprised by consensus and from specific theologies (devil)
and cultures (“condemned as evil by the masses”). They also are very
often developed from emotion. So I find little to nothing objective
about the people listed unless one embraces truth by consensus as
objectivity.
No specific behavior(s) unique to each have been mentioned yet. There
was a post indicating that ‘everybody knows what is evil’. It
continues with ‘Evil is evil and defining more than it should be is
tantamount to teaching others to like it.’
I simply respond that no, everybody does not know what is evil unless
one includes my suggested standard of “them” posted above. The very
nature of evil is theology, book and person specific. Yes, it would be
nice to think that there is a universal standard, one perhaps
suggested by “Sin is rebellion toward God”. However, again this is
interpreted by each person’s understanding of God.
As one simple example of this I will suggest that Osama Bin Laden did
not think he was in ‘rebellion toward God’…if anything, he thought he
was doing God’s work. Now, I know that: 1. This thread started out
with a question directed towards only Christians and that 2. Different
sects of Christianity and of Islam will almost automatically reject
each other’s school of thought.
So, from the ‘believers’ here I don’t expect agreement… neither
amongst themselves nor with other people and/or theologies.
In the spirit of the title of this Group, I present the above for your
consideration. Everyone *may* know what ‘evil’ is; however, this
‘evil’ is different for everyone who believes in the notion.
ornamentalmind
May 7, 2011, 11:00:25 AM5/7/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
Since this is a place for “A Civil Religious Debate” and the online
graphic includes numerous religious symbols other than the cross, I’ll
chime into what was originally asked only of Christians and in a
separate post than the one above so as not as to dilute different
ideas.
First, I claim neither to be nor to not be a Christian. (Nor do I
claim for this post’s purpose to either be or not be an atheist as e-
space has suggested I am elsewhere.)
This said, on many different levels I think it was entirely wrong to
murder OBL. Since others are using the text of one book as their
reference, I’ll approach this from a different tact.
I embrace the Principle of Universality as expounded upon by Noam
Chomsky and the Bush Doctrine is the antithesis of and anathema to
such a principle. For those who are not conversant with this principle
and who are Christian, being expedient, you can simply substitute the
Golden Rule (Do Unto Others What You Would Have Them Do Unto You.) for
it.
So, on a moral ground, it was ‘wrong’ to do when this standard is
used.
Of course, the notion of intentionally murdering unarmed people
including civilians, women and children is exactly what the US
propaganda machine has been accusing OBL of doing all along. Yet, few
articles since his death note that his murder included all of these
things and on ‘foreign soil’ too!
Having presented the core substance of my argument here, I will say
that I continue to be perplexed by so many who can see the speck in
other people’s eyes yet miss their own plank.
The same principles would hold for Saddam, Omar K, etc. The US
murdered countless civilians, women and children and then attempt to
justify it. As an aside, how many were aware that within the last week
or two a USA bomb killed more of Omar Kadafi’s grand children?...all
under age 12? It was decades ago when a cruise missile murdered one of
his granddaughters while attempting to kill him.
“Evil”? Most just point to the other’s speck.
graphic includes numerous religious symbols other than the cross, I’ll
chime into what was originally asked only of Christians and in a
separate post than the one above so as not as to dilute different
ideas.
First, I claim neither to be nor to not be a Christian. (Nor do I
claim for this post’s purpose to either be or not be an atheist as e-
space has suggested I am elsewhere.)
This said, on many different levels I think it was entirely wrong to
murder OBL. Since others are using the text of one book as their
reference, I’ll approach this from a different tact.
I embrace the Principle of Universality as expounded upon by Noam
Chomsky and the Bush Doctrine is the antithesis of and anathema to
such a principle. For those who are not conversant with this principle
and who are Christian, being expedient, you can simply substitute the
Golden Rule (Do Unto Others What You Would Have Them Do Unto You.) for
it.
So, on a moral ground, it was ‘wrong’ to do when this standard is
used.
Of course, the notion of intentionally murdering unarmed people
including civilians, women and children is exactly what the US
propaganda machine has been accusing OBL of doing all along. Yet, few
articles since his death note that his murder included all of these
things and on ‘foreign soil’ too!
Having presented the core substance of my argument here, I will say
that I continue to be perplexed by so many who can see the speck in
other people’s eyes yet miss their own plank.
The same principles would hold for Saddam, Omar K, etc. The US
murdered countless civilians, women and children and then attempt to
justify it. As an aside, how many were aware that within the last week
or two a USA bomb killed more of Omar Kadafi’s grand children?...all
under age 12? It was decades ago when a cruise missile murdered one of
his granddaughters while attempting to kill him.
“Evil”? Most just point to the other’s speck.
e_space
May 9, 2011, 10:24:10 AM5/9/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
i agree ... what some consider evil, others think of as normal ... and
vice versa ... its a perception i guess ... for example, im sure
hitler didnt consider himself evil, and more likely thought that he
was doing the world a favor ...
some could actually consider the actions of others as evil, even if
what they are doing is totally accepted by the community they live
in ...
i guess to me, evil is best described as ones capacity to do something
directly opposed to what they consider pure, right, or "godly" ...
other than that, it seems mostly subjective ...
On May 7, 10:25 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
vice versa ... its a perception i guess ... for example, im sure
hitler didnt consider himself evil, and more likely thought that he
was doing the world a favor ...
some could actually consider the actions of others as evil, even if
what they are doing is totally accepted by the community they live
in ...
i guess to me, evil is best described as ones capacity to do something
directly opposed to what they consider pure, right, or "godly" ...
other than that, it seems mostly subjective ...
On May 7, 10:25 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
e_space
May 9, 2011, 10:35:10 AM5/9/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
i think we can all agree that murdering innocent women and children in
the name of "God" [or for any other reason] is abhorrent ... the
consequences of such "evil", obviously generates some reciprocal
action, which unfortunately attracts violence to those associated with
the original perpetrator ...
who is responsible for the deaths of OK's grandchildren? would they
have been hurt of killed if he had not been responsible for the
atrocities attributed to him? if not, isnt he the one that brought
these unfortunate events to bear, and therefore is responsible for the
deaths within his own family?
cowards often surround themselves with the innocent in order to
guarantee their own safety ... i presume the justification of those
who fight against terrorism, think that it is better to sacrifice the
lives of a few, in order to save the lives of many, something that i
have to agree with, however unfortunate ... its in the numbers ...
On May 7, 11:00 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the name of "God" [or for any other reason] is abhorrent ... the
consequences of such "evil", obviously generates some reciprocal
action, which unfortunately attracts violence to those associated with
the original perpetrator ...
who is responsible for the deaths of OK's grandchildren? would they
have been hurt of killed if he had not been responsible for the
atrocities attributed to him? if not, isnt he the one that brought
these unfortunate events to bear, and therefore is responsible for the
deaths within his own family?
cowards often surround themselves with the innocent in order to
guarantee their own safety ... i presume the justification of those
who fight against terrorism, think that it is better to sacrifice the
lives of a few, in order to save the lives of many, something that i
have to agree with, however unfortunate ... its in the numbers ...
On May 7, 11:00 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ornamentalmind
May 9, 2011, 12:39:18 PM5/9/11
to A Civil Religious Debate
I hope to get a chance to respond to this e-space...good topic IMV
> > > > > > > but, I, for one, as commanded, I hate what is evil.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages