Sympathy for the devil. A mark of the unregenerate.
Along the same lines, I can't see the Romanist guy or Michael Horton in Christ's army at the consummation. If God can't trust you you ain't gonna be in His Kingdom.
I see nothing untoward in Griffith's blog comment. It is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
There is nothing here about Rome or Roman Catholicism unless one wishes to argue that because Paul Griffiths is the chair of Catholic Theology everything he says about anything is a reflection on Rome.
I do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness is somehow half-way to being a heretic. That kind of arrogance and bigotry in relation to this non-essential issue unfortunately has been seen in recent days even among the Reformed.
I point out to the poster above that God cannot trust any of us; although we can trust him.
It is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
I'll just note he's not simply "expressing his personal feelings and thoughts" on the matter. He's likewise telling others they should feel the same way he does when he says, "I’m lamenting that. So should you."
I do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness is somehow half-way to being a heretic. That kind of arrogance and bigotry in relation to this non-essential issue unfortunately has been seen in recent days even among the Reformed.
1. Hm, what makes you think this is a "non-essential" issue? Aren't many if not most Christians wondering what one's proper feelings should be with regard to the news of OBL's demise? Should we rejoice, should we be grieved, etc.? Similarly what should we rejoice or grieve about - that an evil man has died, that justice was served, etc.? Not only would these seem to be important issues in and of themselves, but if many Christians are wondering how to grapple with these issues, then it'd also seem to make such issues more than merely "non-essential."
2. Perhaps a few Reformed bloggers have made this sort of a comment. But how does it reflect the Reformed as a whole? Otherwise how do you explain this piece for example?
3. Sorry but this strikes me as caricature at best.
Why don't you take your box of kleenex and have a nice long cry in the corner. That will help to soothe your bruised feelings after the cruel emotional buffetings you suffered in the wake of UBL's demise.
You kind of proves my point. Your comment demonstrates a lack of maturity, and a lack of common courtesy, and a whole pile of fallacies. You do not even respond to the substance of my earlier post, favouring ad hominem attacks and implications that the death of OBL has upset me. Not a very rational approach, and not, shall I say, a very Christian one either.
Like it or not, whether someone feels compassion at OBL's death is not a definitional element of orthodoxy, and therefore it is a non-essential issue.
To think otherwise is to have a very bizarre conception of orthodoxy.
"You kind of proves my point. Your comment demonstrates a lack of maturity, and a lack of common courtesy, and a whole pile of fallacies. You do not even respond to the substance of my earlier post, favouring ad hominem attacks and implications that the death of OBL has upset me. Not a very rational approach, and not, shall I say, a very Christian one either."
I see. So when you accuse your opponents of "arrogance and bigotry," that's not "ad hominem." No, that's "mature, and rational, and courteous."
"Like it or not, whether someone feels compassion at OBL's death is not a definitional element of orthodoxy, and therefore it is a non-essential issue. To think otherwise is to have a very bizarre conception of orthodoxy."
Well, if you ever bothered to read a book called the Bible you might notice that Biblical orthodoxy includes essential concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and judgment.
Jason, now I don't believe your religion, but I do think even in the context of it you're being inconsistent. You say:
I do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness
But earlier you admit this is not the only point at issue:
It is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
Why do you assume that the criticism in this post is aimed at the fact that Griffiths mourns Osama's death as a human? What if it takes issue with facile statements like:
my beloved adopted country, has now stooped so low as officially, in the voice of my President, to proclaim itself, with apparent delight, a successful assassin.
which the author doesn't even bother to substantiate. If I kill someone who has murdered innocents and is plotting the deaths of many more, that's not an assassination. That's a just execution. That is the removal of a blight, and a kind act to my fellow citizens, as well as a moral duty.
He also makes idiotic statements that he cannot substantiate given that he was not there: And third, that bin Laden was killed when he could have been captured.
I might be wrong. Osama might be a spledid fellow and maybe it was scurrilous and cowardly of us to simply kill this man of profound conviction. But he never bothers to defend that assertion that contradicts all common sense and moral reasoning that you yourself probably use in other contexts. He tries to evade this objection by calling Bin Laden an "apostle of violence", but he does not explain why we should NOT, out of the moral duty to protect our fellow man, take out this "apostle of violence of profound conviction" at the earliest possible opportunity. That's the problem. See?
Sympathy for the devil. A mark of the unregenerate.
ReplyDeleteAlong the same lines, I can't see the Romanist guy or Michael Horton in Christ's army at the consummation. If God can't trust you you ain't gonna be in His Kingdom.
I see nothing untoward in Griffith's blog comment. It is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing here about Rome or Roman Catholicism unless one wishes to argue that because Paul Griffiths is the chair of Catholic Theology everything he says about anything is a reflection on Rome.
I do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness is somehow half-way to being a heretic. That kind of arrogance and bigotry in relation to this non-essential issue unfortunately has been seen in recent days even among the Reformed.
I point out to the poster above that God cannot trust any of us; although we can trust him.
The archbishop of Canterbury and N.T. Wright have made similar statements.
ReplyDeleteJason Landless said:
ReplyDeleteIt is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
I'll just note he's not simply "expressing his personal feelings and thoughts" on the matter. He's likewise telling others they should feel the same way he does when he says, "I’m lamenting that. So should you."
I do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness is somehow half-way to being a heretic. That kind of arrogance and bigotry in relation to this non-essential issue unfortunately has been seen in recent days even among the Reformed.
1. Hm, what makes you think this is a "non-essential" issue? Aren't many if not most Christians wondering what one's proper feelings should be with regard to the news of OBL's demise? Should we rejoice, should we be grieved, etc.? Similarly what should we rejoice or grieve about - that an evil man has died, that justice was served, etc.? Not only would these seem to be important issues in and of themselves, but if many Christians are wondering how to grapple with these issues, then it'd also seem to make such issues more than merely "non-essential."
2. Perhaps a few Reformed bloggers have made this sort of a comment. But how does it reflect the Reformed as a whole? Otherwise how do you explain this piece for example?
3. Sorry but this strikes me as caricature at best.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take your box of kleenex and have a nice long cry in the corner. That will help to soothe your bruised feelings after the cruel emotional buffetings you suffered in the wake of UBL's demise.
I thought John Piper's analysis of the death of Bin Laden was the best that I had read.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-god-glad-osama-bin-ladens-dead
Steve:
ReplyDeleteYou kind of proves my point. Your comment demonstrates a lack of maturity, and a lack of common courtesy, and a whole pile of fallacies. You do not even respond to the substance of my earlier post, favouring ad hominem attacks and implications that the death of OBL has upset me. Not a very rational approach, and not, shall I say, a very Christian one either.
Like it or not, whether someone feels compassion at OBL's death is not a definitional element of orthodoxy, and therefore it is a non-essential issue.
To think otherwise is to have a very bizarre conception of orthodoxy.
JASON LANDLESS SAID:
ReplyDelete"You kind of proves my point. Your comment demonstrates a lack of maturity, and a lack of common courtesy, and a whole pile of fallacies. You do not even respond to the substance of my earlier post, favouring ad hominem attacks and implications that the death of OBL has upset me. Not a very rational approach, and not, shall I say, a very Christian one either."
I see. So when you accuse your opponents of "arrogance and bigotry," that's not "ad hominem." No, that's "mature, and rational, and courteous."
"Like it or not, whether someone feels compassion at OBL's death is not a definitional element of orthodoxy, and therefore it is a non-essential issue. To think otherwise is to have a very bizarre conception of orthodoxy."
Well, if you ever bothered to read a book called the Bible you might notice that Biblical orthodoxy includes essential concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and judgment.
Jason, now I don't believe your religion, but I do think even in the context of it you're being inconsistent. You say:
ReplyDeleteI do see something unpleasant in the assumption that anyone who feels compassion for OBL, or sorrow for the fact that he has entered into everlasting darkness
But earlier you admit this is not the only point at issue:
It is a man expressing his personal feelings and thoughts at OBL death, and expresses his political views.
Why do you assume that the criticism in this post is aimed at the fact that Griffiths mourns Osama's death as a human? What if it takes issue with facile statements like:
my beloved adopted country, has now stooped so low as officially, in the voice of my President, to proclaim itself, with apparent delight, a successful assassin.
which the author doesn't even bother to substantiate. If I kill someone who has murdered innocents and is plotting the deaths of many more, that's not an assassination. That's a just execution. That is the removal of a blight, and a kind act to my fellow citizens, as well as a moral duty.
He also makes idiotic statements that he cannot substantiate given that he was not there:
And third, that bin Laden was killed when he could have been captured.
I might be wrong. Osama might be a spledid fellow and maybe it was scurrilous and cowardly of us to simply kill this man of profound conviction. But he never bothers to defend that assertion that contradicts all common sense and moral reasoning that you yourself probably use in other contexts. He tries to evade this objection by calling Bin Laden an "apostle of violence", but he does not explain why we should NOT, out of the moral duty to protect our fellow man, take out this "apostle of violence of profound conviction" at the earliest possible opportunity. That's the problem. See?