Heh. Mine too.

We're horrible aren't we?

Notice that nobody else is standing there helping to hold or load the mortar rounds.

I'm suspecting this is common knowledge how dangerous these makeshift mortar tubes are, especially when using suspect/inferior/old ammunition.

I bet this happens a lot more than we might think, yet they still volunteer to do it.

I admit it.

I was initally curious with the "content warning," and I asked myself, "what in the world could PRCaldude possibly be posting that would warrant a content warning?"

After watching the graphic, violent death of a Jihadist, I immediately thought about his family.

Did this radical Jihadist leave a wife behind? What about any children? Any sons? I wondered how his sons are going to be affected growing up in yet another father-less home. I thought about my dad and my appreciation for him. I wondered aloud if the sons of the Jihadist, because of their loss, pain, and sorrow over their dad's death, will grow up and become even more violent, even more wicked followers of the demon religion Islam.

I thought aloud about my life, and about how little I have control over. I then thought about how previously years ago I did erroreously believe that I had control over everything, etc. Upon serious reflection years later, I realized I was wrong. There is so much I have no control over. I did not chose my parents. I did not chose the country of my birth. I did not chose my skin color, nor did I chose the economic context in which I was born. Nor did I chose the religious and cultural context in which I was born.

I think about this radical Jihadist trying to hurl bombs at US soldiers. And how my theology entails that this individual is not in heaven right now.

And yet I, left to myself, am no different, no less wicked than him. But for the grace of God go I.

Did this radical Jihadist leave a wife behind?

A large majority of the jihadists are single men 15 to 30 years old. Generally unmarried and otherwise unemployed. They have minimal access to women who are cloistered behind their father's doors, or behind the doors of what we would otherwise call harems. The also are generally lower to middle class men with little access to jobs that would make them eligible for marriage.

They are, effectively, an expendable element of Middle Eastern Culture. Many fight voluntarily, but many others are conscripted by their culture.

After watching the graphic, violent death of a Jihadist, I immediately thought about his family.

Did this radical Jihadist leave a wife behind? What about any children? Any sons?

and had I a more tender conscience, I might have thought the same thing.

When anyone tries to contemplate life's difficult choices that occur in a harsh, brutally evil, unpleasant context or environment, one soon realizes "how little" one has direct control over. Just think for a second about that particular (now dead) Jihadist's childhood upbringing (which he had no control over) or his environment (very little control over) or the cultural or religious context in which he was born. Pretty overwhelming.

These are the issues which the secular existentialists are concerned about. That is why Albert Camus later raised the question of suicide. Life is painful. And it is full of evil. And Scripture does indeed provide answers, particularly in the Incarnation.

But one wishes the Christian community could at least sympathize with how difficult and gut-wrenching life's choices, and their harsh contexts, really are.

When I first saw the graphic, violent death of the Jihadist on video, I did think about his family, but I also quickly thought about the incredible scene in Lord of the Rings where Sam and Frodo are captured by Faramir in the Twin Towers movie 2. Faramir touches the body of a dead Mordor foreigner mercenary, and asks, "you wonder if his heart is full of evil. You wonder if he was forced beyond his control to join an evil band of men and taken to a faraway country away from his family. You wonder if he indeed is truly full of evil, or was he simply trying to provide for his family." (paraphrase big-time---not a quote)

Faramir asks some serious philosophical questions that most Christians do not wrestle with. Indeed, most Christians (me included) are even oblivious to them.

I remember I had a conversation a couple of years ago with Trinity International University professor Dr. John Feinberg, who is a well known scholar (Ph.D in philosophy at University of Chicago) whose work is often hindered by the terminal disease (Huntington's chorea) of his sick wife, Patricia. He later wrote a book about his wife. I made a comment to him that his new book is already out of print, and that I have not been able to find a copy anywhere. He gently replied: "the Christian community does not ask, or even try to answer, the hard questions, the difficult existential questions of pain, suffering, and hardship. My book may sell a few copies worldwide, and then it immediately goes out of print because there is no demand for them. Book publishers often lose money on my books because I want to raise the tough questions. The Christian community does not want to address the existential questions of suffering and evil."

My whole point is not to condone the evil actions of the Jihadist. Rather, my point is only to humbly acknowledge, "but for the grace of God go I." And I do not rejoice in seeing the death of another human being. I believe a tough, realistic, honest appraisal of existential questions really humbles me. The only thing I have control over is my human response. And this is true of the Jihadist. The Jihadist could have said "No" to the cultural pressures of his context. His human response (like many in the USA) was to choose the broad road leading to destruction.

I ask myself, "if I myself was born with the same context, same environment, same upbringing of the dead Jihadist, would I have chosen any differently?" Apart from divine intervention, I would say, the chances are almost overwhelmingly that I too would follow the popular culture, or obey the prevailing customs and practices of my surrounding upbringing or dominant cultural customs. I too would probably make the same sinful choices as did the Jihadist, apart from Christ's divine intervention.

And my only purpose was to point out that, for me, that last sentence above really humbles me.

This journal entry also raises the question of why I am so opinionated and dogmatic about the errors of the Federal Vision group, Roman Catholicism, and the New Perspective of Paul group.

I am so convinced, utterly convinced that I am a sinner who, in a second's moment, will choose the popular "broad road of destruction" instead of the narrow one. And the answer for my existential human condition here is grace and MORE GRACE.

I need grace and more grace.

And any theology that contains ANY ounce or degree of human effort for salvation is a direct slap in the face of Jesus Christ himself, who knows my utter inability and thus the need for the Second Person of the Trinity to accomplish for ColtsFan what he himself cannot do on his own.

Either way, I get a big kick out of watching this jihadi blow himself up. "Allahu AkBOOM!" Haha!

And my only purpose was to point out that, for me, that last sentence above really humbles me.

August 29, 2007 | ColtsFan

There, but for the Grace of God...

Either way, I get a big kick out of watching this jihadi blow himself up. "Allahu AkBOOM!" Haha!

I found your response very unfortunate and sad. Your "haha" attitude is very tragic.

When I think about my sin, I rejoice that the Lord Himself does not share your human perspective.

Ezekiel 33:11 refers to the fact that "God does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live."

This Jihadist is no different from me.

I received grace, and in God's providence, the jihadist did not.

And that Scriptural fact should humble us, rather than producing a "haha" attitude.

I found your response very unfortunate and sad. Your "haha" attitude is very tragic.

Er hem.

Psalm 58:10
The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.

Care to explain what's up with that?

Aside from that, ultimate sin and ultimate judgment are distinct from what happens here on earth. The jihadi made a terrible choice that even most Muslims don't make, and he paid the price. I see no reason to feel anything but satisfaction at the well-deserved judgment meted out here for an egregious crime.

Really? Nothing makes you happy about God's judgment being meted out temporally? So much for the two-kingdoms view then.

PRCaldude,

Do you love your enemies, the way Jesus told Christians to?

Do you love this dead Jihadist?
Your "haha attitude" is quite revealing of your heart.

Another question, if this dead Jihadist was, in fact, your son, would you love him?

It is really you who do not subscribe consistently to the Reformed Two-Kingdom view, not me.

As Christians, we rejoice when government discharges its God-ordained functions. At the same time, as individual Christians we are sad that an image-bearer of God the Father (not understood in a salvific sense--but a "Creator-Creation" sense) has chosen wickedness and committed evil choices. For we ourselves, as humble recipients of God's monergistic activity, believe that if it wasn't for God unilaterally saving us, then we ourselves would be no different from this Jihadist. There is no basis for gloating or a giddy "haha attitude" concerning the death of anyone, not even Osama bin Laden, on the part of the individual Christian believer.

The above represents clearly two different Kingdoms, not one.

But you are confusing and conflating the Two Kingdoms when you try to identify the attitudes of the secular government with that of the individual Christian. You are submerging the two Kingdoms into one, and making the government view the only view.

But you forget that Jesus commands us to "love our enemies." Jesus never commanded secular government to do that, because Jesus intended for the attitude of the individual Christian to be markedly different in tone and spirit than government.

Your view is really one Kingdom, not Two.

Do you love this dead Jihadist?
Your "haha attitude" is quite revealing of your heart.

Another question, if this dead Jihadist was, in fact, your son, would you love him?

It is really you who do not subscribe consistently to the Reformed Two-Kingdom view, not me.

And still, I point to the above verse. That's not consistent with Colt's view.

What's more, I think we're getting wonky with the definition of love. Love is not an emotion, it's an action. We have limited control over our emotions, and can hardly be held accountable for them.

I see no reason to feel anything but satisfaction at the well-deserved judgment meted out here for an egregious crime.

Joseph,

You are misunderstanding my position.

The individual Christian does indeed "feel satisfaction" that secular government (Kingdom of Man) has fulfilled and discharged its God-ordained functions.

While at the same time, the individual Christian believer (Kingdom of God) understands and internally grasps from his heart that all men are Image Bearers of God, and that God commands us to love our enemies, and that apart from God's grace, we the elect are no different from fellow image bearers who commit wicked deeds.

I think I grasp that whole "two different kingdoms thing." And perhaps, deriving enjoyment or fun from the death of even and evil man with whom we have the right to be angry is wrong. On the other hand, that particular image bearer of God seems to have been (erhem) hell bent on defacing that image as thoroughly as possible.

"we the elect are no different from fellow image bearers who commit wicked deeds."

Eh? How so? I get that we're all sinful, but some sin more than others and so get different treatment. Unless you'd like to tell me that anyone with that genetic makeup and in that environment would behave exactly the same way. In which case, I'd have to disagree - I'm not much for that brand of behavioral determinism.

"we the elect are no different from fellow image bearers who commit wicked deeds."

Eh? How so?

"We are no different" in the specific sense of, apart from the divine monergistic intervention of Christ, we stand in utter judgment of God's law ourselves because of our sin and our guilt. Thus there must not be any pride or a haughty spirit or even a "worldly attitude" in Christians. For this is incompatible with the humility of Christians who should be aware and cognizant of their need and dependence for Christ.

I get that we're all sinful, but some sin more than others and so get different treatment.

Outwardly, the external actions of nonChristians may differ. Total depravity does not mean that everyone is morally as bad as they could possibly be. Total depravity just means that outwardly, external actions flow out of an internal heart that radically requires a divine Cardiac Surgeon to perform heart surgery.

Unless you'd like to tell me that anyone with that genetic makeup and in that environment would behave exactly the same way. In which case, I'd have to disagree - I'm not much for that brand of behavioral determinism.

And I agree with your position here.

Biological or behavioral determinism is logically incompatible with Calvinistic determinism.

We have limited control over our emotions, and can hardly be held accountable for them.

I would be interested in having you explain your thought processes. I disagree with the above, but I hesitated responding out of fear that I perhaps may be misunderstanding your position.

I would actually argue that to say we are different and sin differently, thus showing we are not the same as this jihadist, is Pelagian in that it views our nature apart from God's grace (common or salvific) better than another fallen human. Even the devil is restrained by God's grace upon man (and even perhaps upon him). That, however, does not mean that the devil or any man apart from God's grace would not be equal in their love of evil, and therefore take any evil action opportunity gave to express that total corruption. I therefore would argue that anyone on this site would be a far worse murderer than this jihadist if both the providential and salvific grace were to be taken away. To say that we are different, therefore, is to not understand one's own nature. This sort of elitism stems only from self-righteousness, not from recognition of divine action (glorification to God rather than self) of any good (or lack of evil) done within an individual's life.