Mike:
Thanks for this post.
Rejoicing over death was the initial discussion.
I'm sorry you were misunderstood because you linked to my post.
I appreciate you drawing us back to the initial issue and cutting through the nonsense.
The morgue pictures are sobering.Blog on!

This incident is an example of why I don't visit certain blogs, and why I have been tempted to quite blogging at times. Thank goodness that it's not the norm.

I don't think Josh lives in a dorm room in Bloomington...last I checked he's one of the top students at my law school....

I just caught up on the conversation.

I read Josh's controversial post that seems to have started all this. I fail to see how a comic comparison of a terrorist leader to an evil wizard is even noteworthy compared to the wickedness the deceased orchestrated.

It's like arguing that calling Stalin a "ding-bat" is cruel.

While I understand that experience following the Lord counts for something and we often need to be sensitive to the leading of those older in the faith than we,it seems, in this case, age could make you less discerning.

You admit almost as much yourself when you write, "I empathized with a friend's recollection of enough blood witnessed to cover a lifetime."

I don't know exactly what you mean by that statement, but what does seem clear is that whatever experience you've had it has contributed to a sensitivity so great you wince at satirizing even those who condone and encourage murder.

If this is, in fact, the case, it seems to me that Josh's post may show a more youthful and vital willingness to grapple with evil more ruggedly than you are disposed to do.

Ultimately, I suppose, age is irrelevant to the discussion because the issue is whether we will meet evil with force strong enough to contain it, even if we have seen more than our share of violence. I believe we have a duty to do this and satire is one of the more civilized ways we have at our disposal for discharging this necessary, if often ugly, duty.

Dean, you've identified one of the issues, and I can handle that one okay. Joshua is smart, and I like a good debate.

The subtext to this is a little bit of bullying. It's veiled, but it's there. It's disappointing that some extremely smart people stoop that low.

I wish the debate had stayed to the issue rather than descending to name-calling and the like.

I remember a "Christian" conference I was at while a senior in high school where one of the "Christian" adult leaders, a good four decades older than myself, responded to my invocation of the Great Commission by saying: "I used to think that I needed to try to show people the light when I was young, but then I figured out it did more harm than good." Well, golly. What could Jesus have been thinking when he said that, when a much "older and wiser" Christian than I says he doesn't mean what he said.

I've heard "older and wiser" "Christians" say that Jesus is the only way. I've heard them say that Jesus is one of many ways. I've heard them say that abortion in all cases is wrong. I've heard them say that abortion in most cases is fine. I've heard them say that I should vote Republican. I've heard them say that I should vote Democrat.

There were some youthful prophets in the Bible. I'm sure there were "older, wiser" Jews sitting around wishing that the young 'uns would just shut their yappers. But they didn't, and now their words are recorded for us to live by.

Long story short, age doesn't necessarily equal right. Youth are to respect and pay heed to their elders, but given the diversity of opinion among the elders, ultimately the youth are going to have to decide for themselves. And in some cases, the youth display more maturity than the adults. I don't see Josh running around asking for a Sunday School gold star for first prize in the "who's loved Christ longest?" contest.

It seems people are obsessed with Josh's young(er) age.

What possible difference does this make?

Reverend Mike,

As I recall, Jesus said something about coming to Him with the faith of a child.

The older we get, the more structured and rehearsed our Christianity becomes.

I believe what "the youthfull Christians" such as Claybourn and myself have is passion. This passion is good. Paul had this kind of passion. So did Peter. So did Moses.

One of the most interesting things about Moses was that he climbed up the "forbidden mountain" to see God. How many decades past while the elder Sheiks of Mideon sat on their duffs talking about God and praising Him, before Moses actually went further and said, "I must see this great sight!" God may have used anyone to free the slaves if someone had only the passion to climb that mountain and see Him. But no, they were content to waller in the knowledge of the Lord instead of using it.

I believe we should be respectfull to elders in the faith just as the Bible teaches.

But don't confuse "a lack of respect" with "the faith of a child."

You can be 100 years old and have the faith of a child. You can also be 20 and be dead in your faith.

Therefore, I fail to see where your age arguement is going.

If you mean "I've known God longer than you, so shut-up."

Guess what? That's aint happenin'

Frets over silly little things like tact and name-calling are clear ear-marks of a Christian who is more concerned about approval before men rather than approval before God. They're also ear-marks of someone who is very immature.

I was brought up believing in the old "sticks and stones" saying. I've been called plenty of names and I've never boo-hooed about it. People need to remember what Christ said, "If anyone ever hates you, remember...the world first hated Me."

I too, think that Josh's age is irrelevant.

But, isn't the issue what the timing of his post indicated? It was a clever post but I think illtimed.

Even if we think that Israel did the right thing (which, I don't for a couple of different reasons), surely we can approach the killing of another human being with more distaste and regret than the jubliation that seems to be floated by some of Josh's commenters.

We are becoming what we hate.

I haven't commented on Joshua's age either. He's a brilliant thinker, he can hold his own in any argument, and his age is beside the point.

But the following is patently false: "Frets over silly little things like tact and name-calling are clear ear-marks of a Christian who is more concerned about approval before men rather than approval before God. They're also ear-marks of someone who is very immature."

But the following is patently false: "Frets over silly little things like tact and name-calling are clear ear-marks of a Christian who is more concerned about approval before men rather than approval before God. They're also ear-marks of someone who is very immature."

Ipse dixit? What a convincing argument.

Turning over the tables in the temple was tactless. Calling yourself the Son of God when you know darn well it's going to raise hackles is tactless. Calling people foxes and hypocrites is tactless (and name calling).

Jesus and Paul were both direct, even tactless, at times. But I am not Jesus, and presumably his motives were a lot more pure than mine. As for Paul, the Bible describes his lack of tact, but it never commends it or prescribes us to follow that example. Paul was obviously a work in progress, and not everything that he did or said was exemplery.

Jesus said that if we call someone a fool we're in danger of hellfire. Paul said that those who are Spirit-directed are gentle, kind, etc. He said all the knowledge in the world won't make up for a lack of love. That's just for starters. So the overwhelming prescriptive teaching of the Bible is tact and love (not a feeling, but an action) are important.

I think it's good to be direct and forceful. No problems there. But calling someone a hag or bipolar, or breaking confidences out of revenge, is pretty hard to defend.

Having been to Josh's own apartment in Indianapolis, I'm confused why this post talks about dorm rooms in Bloomington.

I'd be interested to see the quotes where Josh called someone a hag or bipolar. I had no trouble finding a comment of Bene's which labeled him "manic," but I'm not finding Josh say anything such as hag.

It's nice to see you agree that he's a brilliant thinker.

I'm very, very glad I don't attend Mike's church. It doesn't sound very welcoming, at least not to youth.

Hi Jamie:

I shall change that immediately.
I did not mean to infer bi-polar and I stand corrected.
Please accept my apology for the confusion.

Since no one offered quotes of Josh saying Bene is bipolar or a hag, I think it's safe to assume that was a lie too.

It's really sad how much you jump on one for differing views. It's very close-minded.

Nobody ever claimed that Josh said that. But it's in the comment thread at his, made by someone else. There have also been a number of rather nasty anonymous emails floating around.

Read over what I wrote. I'm not taking issue with Josh per se, although if I were him I would have challenged or deleted comments that are personal attacks. My issue is with some of the other comments.

P.S. A lack of response could also mean that we have other, better things to be doing.

One more thing: I will jump on no-one for offering opposing views. More power to anyone who wants to do that. But I will jump on anyone gutless enough to resort to cheap, personal attacks, especially when done anonymously.

Jamie:

Two of the sleaziest comments in question were anonymous...
so it could well have been Joshua, could have been you. Are you able to understand what is being said here?