Forgive the Terrorists? (It's not our decision to make)

G-d, I need your guidance. I grieve for all the victims of September 11th. My heart is filled with pain, and with anger at the terrorists responsible for the horrible crimes committed on that day. But I know that you teach us to forgive those who sin. In the Bible you often tell us that you are a G-d who is slow to anger, merciful and forgiving. We are supposed to imitate you and adopt Your behavior as guidelines for our own personal conduct. Does that really mean that no matter how difficult it is, I have to tell myself to forgive all those who turned the twin towers into a mass graveyard? Am I guilty of failing my spiritual obligations if I'm not willing to respond to terrorism with love and forgiveness? G-d, how far does clemency go? In the name of religion, must I be prepared to pardon even those who committed murder?

Forgiveness is a divine trait. It defines the goodness of G-d. Without it human beings probably couldn't survive. Because G-d forgives, there's still hope for sinners. When we do wrong, G-d reassures us that he won't abandon us as a result of our transgressions. Divine forgiveness is the quality that most clearly proves G-d's love for us.

That's why the many passages in the Bible that affirm G-d's willingness to forgive our sins are so important. They comfort us and they fill us with confidence. We know none of us are perfect. If we would be judged solely on our actions we would surely all fall short. Thank G-d the heavenly court isn't that strict. We can rest assured, as the prophet Isaiah told us in the name of the Lord, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow."

It makes perfect sense, then, for us to understand that if we expect G-d to forgive us for our failings we have to be prepared to forgive others as well. What we need when we're being judged from above certainly deserves to be granted to those we are judging. So we obviously have to be guided by the profound words of Alexander Pope: "To err is human, to forgive, divine."

That all makes it seem like we have no choice in the matter. Forgiveness appears to be our only moral option. But the more we study the Bible, the more we recognize a peculiar paradox. The same G-d who preaches forgiveness very often doesn't forgive. Instead, he punishes sinners. He holds people responsible. He criticizes, he condemns, and afflicts those who committed crimes. Adam and Eve sinned, and they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Cain sinned and he was condemned to become a wanderer over the face of the earth. The generation of Noah sinned and a flood destroyed them. The builders of the Tower of Babel sinned and their speech was turned into babble. In one story after another, from the five Books of Moses through the works of the prophets, we read of retribution, of accountability, of divine punishment.

Isn't this an innate contradiction in the Bible? The same book in which G-d identifies himself as merciful and forgiving, repeatedly shows us a G-d of justice who withholds undeserved pardons. It almost sounds hypocritical to hear G-d glorify forgiveness as an ideal way to act and then most the time not to put it into practice in his dealings with human beings.

There must be something we're missing. There can't be such an obvious contradiction in the Bible. And sure enough, just a little reflection makes clear why there are times when G-d forgives people for their sins and why at other times he refuses.

THE PRICE FOR FORGIVENESS

G-d's great gift to us is a heavenly pardon. But His present is predicated on a condition. What He asks us to do before He grants us forgiveness is to acknowledge that we were wrong and that we renounce our sinful behavior.

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our G-d, and He will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7)

Forgiveness is willing to overlook the sins of the past for the sake of an altered future. It is ready to pardon the most terrible wrongs for the price of remorse, regret and the desire for a new beginning. But the one thing G-d's forgiveness is unwilling to do is to condone vicious crimes by simply accepting them. An unrepentant sinner mistakes G-d's mercy for permission to continue in his ways. To forgive such a person isn't kindness; its cruelty to all those who'll be hurt by the evil that wasn't stopped before it could do more harm.

Yes, it was the same G-d who drowned the wicked generation of Noah and who saved the evil people of Nineveh. Those who were destroyed by the flood were given plenty of warning. They watched Noah build his ark for many years. Noah told them what G-d planned to do if they didn't repent. But they didn't believe him - even when it started to rain and to pour like never before. So of course people who didn't see the need to ask for forgiveness weren't forgiven.

But when Jonah told the residents of the city of Nineveh that they were doomed because of their evil behavior, they took the message to heart and committed themselves to a new way of life. And the people who changed were immediately forgiven. G-d wasn't going to hold their past against them - because it was really a thing of the past.

To speak of forgiveness as if it were the automatic entitlement of every criminal is to pervert a noble sentiment into a carte blanche for mayhem and chaos. We might as well open the doors of every jail and release all the thieves, rapists and murderers. Our wonderful act of compassion wouldn't take too long to be followed by the cries of the victims of our folly!

As a Jew, I recognize this idea as a basic principle of our faith. In our tradition we are taught that, "He who forgives the wicked hurts the good." But you don't have to be Jewish to acknowledge the validity of this concept. The Christian Bible unambiguously affirms it as well: "And if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if seven times of the day he sins against you, and seven times of the day turns to you saying, I repent, you shall forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4) Forgiveness isn't an orphan. Its parent has to be repentance.

DON'T FORGIVE THEM UNLESS…

Forgiving people who aren't sorry for what they did makes a statement: Repentance isn't really necessary. No matter what you did, you don't have to change. Can anything be more immoral than encouraging evil by refraining from any condemnation of those who commit it?

The day after the Columbine High School massacre, a group of students announced that they forgave the killers. A short while after the Oklahoma bombing, some people put out a call to forgive Timothy McVeigh. And, on September 12th, on several American campuses, colleges groups pleaded for forgiveness for the terrorists responsible for the horrific events of the previous day.

These weren't just misguided gestures of compassion. They were serious sins with potentially tragic consequences. Evil unchallenged is evil condoned. To forgive and forget, as Arthur Schopenhauer so well put it, "means to throw valuable experience out the window." And without the benefit of experience's lessons we are almost certain to be doomed to repeat them.

The terrorists who piloted the planes into the twin towers never asked us to be forgiven. They expressed not the slightest remorse as they went to their deaths together with their victims. Those who sent them, those who financed them, and those who applauded their mission never for a moment regretted what happened. Forgiving them is no less than giving them license to murder 4000 more innocent people. That's why to forgive in a case like this is to become an accomplice to future crimes.

WHAT IF A NAZI ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS?

What If a Nazi Asked For Forgiveness? But what if a brutal murderer realizes the enormity of his crimes and honestly regrets his past deeds? What if the plea for forgiveness is accompanied by sincere remorse? Can the crimes of the past be forgotten? Is a troubled conscience sufficient to secure automatic forgiveness?

That's not just a theoretical question. Something exactly like that happened towards the end of the Holocaust. And the man who had to decide what to do in such a situation, a concentration camp victim who had suffered indescribable mistreatment and torture, wrote a remarkable book about his experience.

Simon Wiesenthal was a prisoner of the Nazis confined to slave labor in a German hospital. One day he was suddenly pulled away from his work and brought into a room where an SS soldier lay dying. The German officer, Karl, confessed to Wiesenthal that he had committed atrocious crimes. Although raised as a good Catholic and in his youth G-d-fearing, Karl had allowed himself to become a sadistic accomplice to Nazi ideology. Now that he knew his end was near and he would soon be facing his Maker, Karl was overcome by what he now realized was the enormity of his sins.

More than anything else, Karl knew that he needed atonement. He wanted to die with a clear conscience. So he asked that a Jew be brought to him. And from this Jew, Simon Wiesenthal, the killer asked for absolution.

Wiesenthal has been haunted by this scene his entire life. When it happened, he was in such shock that he didn't know how to respond. His emotions pulled him in different directions. Anger mixed with pity , hatred with compassion, and revulsion with mercy. His conclusion was to leave in utter silence. He didn't grant Karl the forgiveness the German desperately sought.

Years later, Wiesenthal shared the story with a number of prominent intellectuals, theologians and religious leaders. How would they have reacted?, he asked them. In the light of religious teachings and ethical ideals, what should have been the proper response? Was there a more suitable reply than silence?

Wiesenthal collected the answers and had them published as a book called The Sunflower. The ranges of responses offer a fascinating insight into different views on forgiveness. Some, like the British journalist Christopher Hollis, believe that the law of G-d is the law of love, no matter what the situation. We have an obligation to forgive our fellow human beings even when they have caused us the greatest harm. A remorseful murderer deserved compassion.

On the other hand, Cardinal Franz Konig believes that Wiesenthal did Karl a favor just by listening to him. Wiesenthal did pass up the chance to offer his forgiveness to Karl, although in those circumstances doing so would have been " superhuman."

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, a prominent American theologian and author, offered a different perspective. No one can forgive crimes not committed against him or her personally. What Karl sought could only come from his victims. It's preposterous to think that one solitary Jew can presume to speak for 6 million.

AND WHO ARE YOU TO FORGIVE?

Some years ago, Rabbi Heschel had occasion to elaborate on this idea. He had been invited to address a group of prominent business executives. Among them were some of the most important CEOs in the country. His lecture dealt with the Holocaust and its lessons for us. He stressed the importance of memory and the need to continue to bear witness to the crime of genocide.

When he finished, one of the very famous names in American corporate life angrily rebutted the essence of Heschel's talk. " I'm tired," he said," of hearing about the Holocaust. You claim that you're speaking in the name of morality. Why can't you demonstrate true morality by learning to forgive and forget?"

To a stunned audience, Heschel replied by asking them for permission to tell a story. Before beginning, he introduced his listeners to the man he would be speaking about. In the history of the Jewish people, he explained, there has hardly ever been someone considered as saintly as Rabbi Israel Kagan, commonly known as the Chafetz Chaim ("the one who desires true life"). A Polish rabbi and scholar of the late 19th and early 20th century, he was universally revered not just for his piety but more importantly for his extreme concern for the feelings of his fellow man. It is an incident in the life of this holy figure that Heschel said he wanted to share before he would respond to the question put to him.

Rabbi Kagan was traveling on a train, immersed in a religious book he was studying. Alongside him sat three Jews anxious to while away the time by playing cards. The game required a fourth hand so they asked the unrecognized stranger to join them. Rabbi Kagan politely refused, explaining that he preferred to continue his reading. The frustrated card players refused to take no for an answer. They began to beat the poor Rabbi until they left him bleeding.

Hours later, the train pulled into the station. Hundreds of people swarmed the platform waiting to greet the great sage. Posters bore signs of Welcome to the Chafetz Chaim. As the Rabbi, embarrassed by all the adulation, walked off the train with his bruises, the crowd lifted him up and carried him off on their shoulders. Watching with horror were the three Jews who had not long before accosted the simple Jew sitting in their cabin, now revealed as one of the spiritual giants of their generation. Profoundly ashamed and plagued by their guilt, they managed to make their way through the crowd and reached their unwilling card player partner.

With tears, they poured out their feelings of shame and remorse. How could they possibly have assaulted this great Rabbi? They begged for forgiveness. And incredibly enough, the Rabbi said no. The man who spent his life preaching love now refused to extend it to people who harmed him and regretted their actions. It seemed incomprehensible. So the three Jews attributed it to a momentary lapse. Perhaps, they thought, it was just too soon for the rabbi to forgive them. He probably needed some time to get over the hurt. They would wait a while and ask again at a more propitious moment.

Several weeks passed and it was now close to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even the simplest Jews knew that they had to gain forgiveness from their friends if they wanted to be pardoned by G-d. With trepidation, the wicked three wrangled an appointment and once again were able to speak to the Rabbi. They pleaded their case. Still the Rabbi said no. He would not forgive them.

The rabbi's son was present as this strange scene played itself out. Puzzled by his father's peculiar behavior, he couldn't contain himself. It was so unlike anything he had ever witnessed before. Why did his father suddenly act so cruelly? Why would he persist in tormenting people who only asked for a simple expression of forgiveness?

The son dared to ask. His father explained. "Do you really think I don't want to forgive these poor Jews before the High Holy days? If it were only in my power to do so, don't you know that I would have forgiven them when they stood before me at the railroad station? Of course I, Rabbi Kagan, forgive them for what they did to me. When they learned who I was, they were mortified and filled with shame for what they had done. But the man they beat up was the one they presumed to be a simple, unassuming poor person with no crowd of well- wishers waiting to greet him. He was the victim and only he is the one capable of granting them forgiveness. Let them go find that person. I am incapable of releasing them from their guilt."

Rabbi Heschel completed the story. He then turned to the executive who suggested that it was time for us to move on after the Holocaust and to forgive and forget. "I would be more than happy to do so if I only could. But I was not the one who was sealed in the gas chambers to die a horrible death. I didn't have my child pulled from my breast and shot it in front of my eyes. I was not among the tortured, the beaten, the whipped, and the murdered. It is they and they alone who can offer forgiveness. Go and find those 6 million and ask them if they are prepared to forgive and forget."

Should we forgive the murderers of the thousands of victims of terrorism on 9/11? Perhaps the most appropriate response is simply this: We are not the ones who have the right to make that decision.

Here we see the outworking of the propaganda of cultural communists at work in all levels of society for nearly three generations using the Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique:

Americans Should be More Angry About 9-11, So Why Aren't they?
Culture & Ideas 9/16/02 BY JOHN LEO

Rage is not the rage
Sociologist Amitai Etzioni sees one thing missing in all the polling data on American attitudes in the wake of September 11–anger. Last week Etzioni's Communitarian Network issued the report "American Society in the Age of Terrorism," an analysis of post-9/11 polling. Unsurprisingly, the report finds more interest in family, spirituality, and volunteerism and more trust in government, though "all these effects have begun to recede, and are predicted to decline further if no new attacks occur." But "there can be little doubt that, by and large, the American people were decidedly low key in their expressions of anger at those who attacked us"–a very unusual response to a mass slaughter, Etzioni says.
Why so little anger? "It looks as though Alan Wolfe was right," Etzioni said. His reference is to Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe. In his books One Nation, After All (1997)and Moral Freedom (2001), Wolfe reported that nonjudgmentalism is not just an ethic confined to the media and other elites–it has become normal middle-class morality. Wolfe found that Americans are now morally tentative and very reluctant to criticize the behavior and attitudes of others. This makes the nation far more tolerant, but it also constructs a laissez-faire morality–a presumption that almost all behavior is beyond criticism and that even destructive acts deserve understanding rather than judgment.
The good side of this new ethic is that the nation refused to scapegoat Muslim Americans for the 9/11 attacks. The bad side is that to avoid anger and judgment, a normal emotional response was diverted into an orgy of self-examination, much of it revolving around the notion that the United States somehow invited or deserved the attacks. The strange reluctance of the National Education Association to identify the attackers (hint: Radical Muslim extremists did it) is one expression of how the nonjudgmental ethic is applied to 9/11. Linguistic evasion is another: the "tragic events of 9/11" instead of "the terrorist attacks," as if the slaughter was a natural disaster. Of course, everyone knows what happened and who did it, but saying so somehow seems too harsh and judgmental.
Nonjudgmental nonsense. The idea that the United States is somehow not entitled to anger, judgment, or retaliation enters the mainstream in odd ways. Look at the pastoral letter on 9/11 put out by the United Methodist Council of Bishops. The judgment that 9/11 was a "shattering evil" was cut from the final draft. "Violence in all its forms and expression is contrary to God's purpose for the world," the bishops concluded. This apparently means that both rapists and those who drive off rapists with baseball bats are acting in an un-Christian manner. Ditto for terrorists and those who try to stop them, according to the bishops. Nonjudgmentalism ends up putting perpetrators and their confronters on the same moral plane.
There is also a downside in the nation's overwhelmingly positive treatment of Muslim Americans. Perhaps out of guilt over treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the United States and its media have framed attitudes toward our Muslim citizens almost wholly in terms of hypertolerance and bias, rarely in terms of what allegiance a minority owes the rest of the nation in time of peril. The press relentlessly churned out articles about the alleged backlash against Muslim Americans and has continued that effort long after it was obvious no such backlash existed. The Associated Press last week reported that violence against Muslim Americans seems to have slowed to a trickle. But it was never much of a trickle in the first place. The same is true of nonviolent acts of bias. The New Jersey Law Journal calmly analyzed the evidence in June and concluded that anti-Muslim acts are notably rare and statistically insignificant. It quoted an antidiscrimination lawyer saying that in terms of anti-Muslim bias, "basically we're not seeing anything."
Our elite press is ever alert to sniff out bias, but issues of allegiance and obligation get much less play. Some American mosques and Muslim schools are indeed troublesome places. The first plot to topple the World Trade Center was hatched at a Jersey City mosque. Does the nation have a right to expect that Muslim Americans will report any such activity they happen to observe? Or that they will refrain from supporting foundations that subsidize terrorism? One rare exception to the media's slant came when Marc Fisher of the Washington Post reported that America means little to some Muslim students. "Being an American means nothing to me," an eighth grader at the Muslim Community School in Potomac, Md., told him. "I'm not even proud of telling my cousins in Pakistan that I'm American." We need a serious discussion about loyalty and assimilation. What we are likely to get, though, is yet another massive cloud of hands-off nonjudgmentalism.

Also see 66 by Quix.

I believe the ending in the Bible doesn't have to be.......I believe that if we come together as one Church in His name and live by His Laws and hold our politicians to His Laws and base ALL of man's laws on Gods' Laws , the ending can be different

That isn't found in the bible, in fact just the opposite.

Is. 46: 9-11 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done. Saying, My council shall stand and I will do all my pleasure.......Yea I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will do it.

I believe there is at least one more passage which says that God has seen the end of the age from before the creation of the world, but I can't think of where it's located.

Those scriptures tell me that God has already seen the events of the future just as surely as if they had already occurred. That means that His prophetic word will be fullfilled exactly as written. God doesn't necessarily cause things to happen to fit his prophecies, it's just that because he exists in the spiritual world outside the dimension of time in which we live he has seen beforehand what will take place in the future. I know that's a real brain-buster to try to comprehend, but then there are many things about the spiritual world in which God lives that we aren't yet mentally equipped to understand.

Just have faith in God and don't worry about things you can't change. The fates of all the nations of the earth have been set in stone. This present world as we know it, including the USA, is under the curse of sin and is in the process of passing away. We Christians may yet suffer many trials and tribulations before the end of the age, but everything will turn out marvelous beyond our dearest hopes for all those who are in Christ Jesus.

I have put my Faith in God.

I look past the book that has been under the control of so many corrupt governments and follow my Faith.

I believe God loves us , and didn't put us here to suffer at the hands of His enemies.

We continue to put our governments above Him , and then pray for those governments when things are going bad.

If we would follow Him , corruption wouldn't exist. We wouldn't allow it to.

I don't know if there is enough time to turn the things around that we have allowed to happen. But even if there isn't I believe that's what we should be working towards.

We HAVE to get the government out of our Churches and schools. And we HAVE to hold our politicians to Gods' Laws and base all of man's laws on Gods' Laws.

Then naturally things will begin to turn around in our favor. Because Gods' enemies will crumble in His Light.

God has given us all we need to do this , but it will never happen in State churches.

And it will never happen running to a corrupt government for answers.

We HAVE to follow our Faith and hold our politicians to being the servants they are supposed to be , instead of accepting them as superiors and lords.

I don't believe when God said "Give unto Caesar , what is Caesar's" that He meant His people owed Caesar anything.

I base that on Gods' own people not being able to own anything of this world , so how can any man who calls himself god , own anything of this world , including Gods' people.

Governments aren't appointed by God anymore , Christ gave us Freewill to appoint our leaders and live our lives.

But for some reason we are not able to add two plus two , while we watch presidents become millionaires while they are in office , as they export our jobs and over tax us , the whole time telling us "How GOOD the economy is".

We deserve the ending of the Bible , but I believe we can change it , if we are willing to stand up with Christ and face His enemies , instead of being servile to them. I believe a Loving God will stand with His people , if they are not afraid to show Him the respect He deserves.

I have put my Faith in God.

Smart move, but if you have faith in God you should also believe His word is faithful and true. Judging by your own statements you don't appear to do that.

I look past the book that has been under the control of so many corrupt governments and follow my Faith.

No government can control God's word. Men and devils have tried for millennia to corrupt or destroy the old book, but He has kept his Holy Word intact. His word is forever settled in heaven and will never be corrupted. "Heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the Lord abideth forever". If you "look past the book" and invent your own "faith" apart from the bible it's not the Christianity that is set forth in His word.

I believe God loves us , and didn't put us here to suffer at the hands of His enemies.

God does love us more than we can comprehend, but He never promised we would not suffer under tyrannical governments. Look at the apostles, all were persecuted and died as martyrs under Rome and other pagan governments. Millions of Christian martyrs have died at the hands of tyrants and false religions. Americans are unique in the degree of religious freedom we have enjoyed. That could end at any time.

We continue to put our governments above Him , and then pray for those governments when things are going bad.

God commands us to obey the king (government) and pray for all those in authority whether or not they are Christians. but of course we aren't told to put government before God. His commandments must always take precedence over those of government.

If we would follow Him , corruption wouldn't exist. We wouldn't allow it to.

Agreed. But America elected the Clintons TWICE and it is now suffering the consequences. If America had followed God the Clinton's would never have gained the office of dogcatcher. Nevertheless, Clinton was the legally elected head of government and the bible instructs Christians to honor and obey lawfully chosen rulers. I may not like it, but there it is in Romans plain as day. But then I suppose you will cite that as another example of government control of the bible.

I don't know if there is enough time to turn the things around that we have allowed to happen. But even if there isn't I believe that's what we should be working towards.

I agree to a point. We can't "turn things around" in the sense that we could prevent fullfillment of bible prophecy, but we certainly should do all we can to hold government to a standard of honesty and morality even though we know we will ultimately fail to do so.

We HAVE to get the government out of our Churches and schools. And we HAVE to hold our politicians to Gods' Laws and base all of man's laws on Gods' Laws.

No argument there, but I don't see that happening, do you? BTW, I know government is in the schools, but in what way is it in our churches? I'm asking in sincerity. I'm an independent Baptist and there's no government in our church other than the system of church government prescribed by the bible.

Then naturally things will begin to turn around in our favor. Because Gods' enemies will crumble in His Light.

Things would turn around IF we turned back to God, but I believe the tide in America is running in the opposite direction. God's enemies will eventually be dealt with by Him, but not necessarily in this present age. Many incredibly evil kings and rulers have flourished over the centuries and God allowed them to live and die in peace and prosperity. He settles his accounts in his time, not ours.

God has given us all we need to do this , but it will never happen in State churches.

I don't know of any state churches in the USA. I think the USSC would object if there were any. Please elaborate. Or, if by 'state churches" you mean the big mainline denominations that belong to the World Council of Churches, I suppose they could be considered state churches in one sense. Many of them seem to be seeking to replace God with a socialistic global government.

And it will never happen running to a corrupt government for answers. We HAVE to follow our Faith and hold our politicians to being the servants they are supposed to be , instead of accepting them as superiors and lords.

Agreed. In our form of government the rulers are elected and accountable to the people. They aren't "lords", at least not in theory.

I don't believe when God said "Give unto Caesar , what is Caesar's" that He meant His people owed Caesar anything.

Paul's epistles tell us that we are to abide by all legally enacted laws which do not force us to disobey or dishonor God. Tax laws are just that, laws. I also think our taxes are outrageously out of line, but they aren't as onerous as the tribute which Rome demanded from it's subect nations and Jesus told Peter to pay it for both himself and Peter.

I base that on Gods' own people not being able to own anything of this world , so how can any man who calls himself god , own anything of this world , including Gods' people.

I'm not sure where you find that God's people can't own anything. Abraham was a very rich man and God called him His friend. Solomon was the richest man in the world at the time, but God dictated three books of the bible plus two Psalms through him. Cornelius was a wealthy Roman officer who believed in Jesus and was baptised by Peter.There are countless examples of wealthy Christians throughout history.

Jesus told the rich young ruler to give his riches to the poor, but that was His way of showing that the man was not completely serious about seeking salvation. His great sin was avarice, and Jesus knew he would go away sorrowful rather than give up his wealth. A warning to all of us that eternal life is of far more value than temporal wealth.

Governments aren't appointed by God anymore , Christ gave us Freewill to appoint our leaders and live our lives

Totally incorrect. God said that He sets up rulers and He brings down rulers. Paul tells us that government is ordained by God, and that rulers are God's ministers for good. Government was instituted by God for the benefit of man, not for his harm. Ungodly, wicked rulers have often made government a curse on their subjects, but even that situation is preferable to anarchy in God's viewpoint. God commands us through the apostle Paul to obey those who lawfully rule over us except for observing laws which would cause us to disobey Him.

Suggest you re-read Romans 13. Oh I forgot, you believe the bible is controlled by the government, so you wouldn't accept those passages as legitimate.

OK, I won't argue with most of that. I don't fully agree that the government is exporting jobs, but I won't argue the point on this thread.

I don't know where to start with that one. First, yes we do deserve God's wrath. BUT because God has imputed the rightousness of his Son to those of us whose sin is under His blood, we are destined not for wrath but eternal life. And, the "ending of the bible" isn't something that Christians should dread, since it "ends" with Satan cast into hell and the saints entering into God's eternal Heaven.

Secondly, as I said in a previous post, the prophecies of God are sure and certain. We can't change what God has already seen happen in His omniscient view of time. The end of the present age will usher in a Messianic kingdom age which will be under the rightous and just rule of King Jesus in the city of His father David. His "father" by virtue of His legal lineage through both His stepfather Joseph and His natural mother Mary, both of whom were in the royal line that descended from David. Until that event occurs the world will continue to experience tribulation and sorrow. I won't get into the argument of whether or not the Church will go through the Great Tribulation, but we are surely going to suffer many tribulations (plural) as long as we are in this present evil age.

I don't mean to assume something with so little basis for the assumption, but I get an impression that perhaps you subscribe to the "Christian Dominion" doctrine which claims that Christians must, and will, bring in the Millennial Kingdom by literally conquering the world for Christ. That's an appealing idea to some Christians, but it's problem is that it's not supported by scripture. I hope this post doesn't offend you. I don't mean it to offend anyone, I just have to stand for the truth as I believe it to be.

Sorry for the late response. Things got busy and then I wasn't able to access the internet for three days.

First there has been corruption in the Church since before Christ came on the scene. Which to me proves that men have used Gods' Word and control of Gods' Word to achieve their own agenda.

Christ pretty much wrecked the Pharisees control over Gods' people , which brought on the " Crucify Him " chants to Pontius Pilate pleading for His death.

We can go again to the early Catholic church and the pagan idols and celebration days that are intertwined in Christianity.

To me that is CHANGING Gods' Word , and that was before 400AD If I remember right. So now we have the control of Gods' Word for 1,100 years by the Catholic church. Controlled by Popes who loaned money to the likes of Vlad the Impaler so he could wage war on his enemies.

Does the Bible say that is okay ?

Does the Bible say , bring in the pagans and compromise my Word , so that more money can be collected ?

I know God is in the Bible , I know people who could recite the Bible backwards and ask them many questions. But I believe there are subtle deceptions and why translating Gods' Word into english , so more people could know Him , brought so much trouble to the church.

Christ threw the money changers tables over in front of Judah's Temples , and I'm saying that todays money changers are controlling our Temples again ( for the people behind our government ).

In Rome , Caesar controlled his holdings through incorporation. Incorporation goes back to 600BC in Greece and pretty much means " government control ". Christian's were slaughtered in Rome not because of who they worshipped , but because they refused to get a license ( "licit" in Caesar's day ) from Caesar or incorporate to worship Christ.

Since the 50's most of America's Churches have incorporated. I put a link up earlier that leads to this information , here it is again.

Incorporated churches

I asked a Pastor if his church was incorporated and he answered yes. I explained my position , and he told me the government hasn't told them what to say , yet.

But the government DOES tell churches what they CAN'T say , which is the same thing.

In order for a church to keep their "tax exempt " status ( granted by the government ) they are not allowed to speak out against government policies , or support or oppose politicians.

The way I look at it , Jesus would not hold His tounge about homosexuality or abortion. Also I don't believe He would remain silent if an evil man was running for a position that gave him control over God's people.

Our Churches are TAX FREE , which protects them from government intrusion. Which is what " Separation of Chruch and State " means. It doesn't mean that the government can kick God out of our public lives , because it " offends " someone. It means the government has NO CONTROL over our religion.

So to me , once again the church has compromised Gods' Word.

Believe me I'm not trying to create a new religion like scientology , I'm only looking for the Truth and I have found so much deception it's scary.

Our "government" has labeled Christian's as EXTREME.

Our "government" has given the FBI permission to spy on America's Churches.

I don't think I am too far off in my thinking. And believe me , it is very important to me to better my relationship with Christ. This causes me a lot of anxiety in the deceptions I have found , and the only good part is my relationship with Christ.

I believe I have been led to much of the information I talk about. Whether it was for my own enlightening or so I could share the information , I'm not sure. I do believe this information can bring peoiple to Christ , as it did for me.

I have made it easier to find this information by listing the book "Hope of the Wicked " by Ted Flynn. Which contains the most information and the most detail on this information , of all the books I have read.

And our "government" did recruit businesses to leave America and relocate and paid for the relocations with our tax money. Check out a book named " America What Went Wrong ? " , I've loaned my copy out and don't remember the authors name.

Everything I talk about is in the Bible , this book put todays names and dates in front of You so You can see it happening. I realize the Bible accomplishes the same thing , but I believe seeing that men are behind these things makes our position more positive , if we would just STAND UP WITH CHRIST and not accept the things He would not accept.

That's why I believe the ending can be changed. If we drag Gods' enemies into His Light I believe they will crumble.

On fertile ground I believe Christianity would spread like wild fire. But that can't happen while our government controls what Churches "can't say" and controls our schools.

It's such a big part of me , that I can't deny it. The last thing I would knowingly do , would be to defy God or mislead His people.

And I don't take the things You say negatively. I appreciate the discussion.

Peace

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.