What is compassion?
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is dying. He has prostate cancer and, if some reports to to believed, he has only a few days to live. Understandably, he would like to spend those remaining few days with his family in Libya. The Scottish justice minister may soon decide that Megrahi's wish should be granted, even though that decision would provoke a barrage of criticism from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
On today's Talk Back, I read text messages from self-avowed Christians who hoped that Mr al Megrahi would die a slow painful death before rotting in hell. Others, also describing themselves as Christians, asked us to remember those who lost a loved-on in the Lockerbie bombing. One text simply read: "You who are without sin cast the first stone."
Update: The Scottish Justice minister Kenny MacAskill has announced that Mr al-Megrahi has been released on compassionate grounds. Mr MacAskill said Mr al-Megahi showed his victim no mercy, but that is no reason to deny him and his family mercy. He said the Scottish people pride themselves on their humanity and his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber was a reflection of the faith and values of the Scottish people. In a speech that contained a number of religious references, the Scottish justice minister also said Mr al-Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power".
Further Update: Interviewed on Radio 4's PM programme, Kenny MacAskill was asked what he meant by "higher power". He said, for some that will mean God, for others Allah, and for still others Nature.
Let's be clear. The moral issue here is not whether Mr al Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, but whether a convicted killer who is in the final stage of a terminal illness should be released to his family, or to a prison in his homeland, on compassionate grounds. To release a convicted killer on such grounds is an act of mercy, it is not a recognition that the person is innocent.
Our judicial system has always made space for mercy. Those who argue, as some did on today's Talk Back, that Megrahi should stay in prison because "that's what he deserves" have perhaps missed the point about mercy. Prison is certainly what a convicted mass murderer deserves, but judicial mercy is about not giving a convict what he deserves: mercy is an act of gratuitous compassion. When people say, "He showed no mercy to his victims," they are right: but that, too, is the point. An act of judicial mercy is an opportunity for a community to show that we choose not to behave like killers -- we choose compassion. Traditional Christian theology has a word for this kind of mercy: it's called "grace". When you get what you deserve, that's called "justice". When you don't get what you deserve, that's either an "injustice", or it's an act of "grace".
So the moral -- and theological -- question is not whether Mr al Megrahi merits grace in this case (by definition, no one merits grace), but whether we, as a community, are prepared to offer him grace. The consequence of offering him grace is that he will soon die, probably surrounded by his family, knowing that the community he attacked so murderously has chosen to show him compassion and mercy in his final few days. And others watching in the Middle East will also see a community willing to act graciously too. Would that be such a bad outcome?
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Well, William, that's as good an explanation of grace as I've read and is something all Christians should understand. It's what we're supposed to believe and it's how we're supposed to act. The complication, of course, arises when we ask if it is possible to be both just and merciful, can we prevent injustice in showing grace? That answer too seems to be a peculiarly Christian one.
Complain about this comment
I see this point fairly easily; that by being prepared to offer this guy some grace in his last few days, it sends a good message. He won't likely be committing his crime again. But I do think these cases need to be the exception rather than the rule, for the same exact reason.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, William, you cant dismiss the huge question marks over Megrahi's conviction as not really the moral point. Whether a convicted murderer should be released on compassionate grounds or not, isnt the question here. Many have been released. This is actually about a particular convicted murderer, who many believe to be an innocent man, being released to die at home.
While we are remembering the victims' families, let us also remember that many of those families believe him to be innocent, that evidence was witheld at the trial, that the shopkeepers evidence was highly suspect (he saw Megrahi for the first time 10 years after Lockerbie), that the attrocity was threatened beforehand by Iran in retaliation for the US downing an Iranian passenger jet (blood will rain from the sky), that high ranking US officials had boarded the plane and were taken off it at Heathrow, etc...
Why did Blair make an extradition treaty with Libya without consulting the Scottish Parliament? (It was so obviously something which was done with Megrahi in mind.)
Should Obama and Clinton be allowed to bully the Scottish Parliament in the way they are?
If we are going to discuss merely whether we should show mercy to convicted murderers or not, Megrahi should not have been put forward as a case in point.
Complain about this comment
"The consequence of offering him grace is that he will soon die, probably surrounded by his family, knowing that the community he attacked so murderously has chosen to show him compassion and mercy in his final few days."
But would it be "the community" showing him compassion and mercy, or simply the government representing that community - often in spite of the views of many or most people in that community? This idea that the government can justifiably represent the views of a people is something I find quite objectionable. From what I have read it would seem that many British people are not in favour of Megrahi's release.
I think it is a complicated case, and I agree with romejellybean that this is not a good example due to doubts about Megrahi's guilt. Because this case is so emotive, and is generating strong transatlantic reactions, we feel drawn into taking sides. I have not been following this case in detail, and since I believe that acts of compassion have to be understood within their context, I do not feel qualified to jump to an easy conclusion. The fact that I am a Christian does not compel me to jump on either bandwagon, as I do not believe in the fundamentalist practice of reducing the Christian faith to nothing more than a spiritualised moral philosophy with predictable conclusions - backed up with the appropriate biblical proof texts - in any given situation (in other words, a dead religion without the wisdom of God).
Furthermore, and I regret sounding cynical, but if Megrahi is released would it really be an act of compassion, or an act of political expediency vis-a-vis our relations with Libya?
Complain about this comment
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The thron-ed monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthron-ed in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
Complain about this comment
John
If he's being released because he's not likely to commit his crime again, it's not mercy/grace.
RJB
If he's innocent then there has been a miscarriage of justice and his release would not be an example of mercy/grace.
LSV
If his release is political expediency then it is not mercy/grace.
Of course, in political terms, desisions like this are complicated, but I get the impression that William was contrasting certain Christians expressing a 'he deserves it' attitude with the Christian concept of 'grace'.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Crawley:
This is not compassion...I am in the background, where the Lockerbie Bomber shouldn't be released from prison.....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Regardless of what he has done, he is a human being. Compassionate release is not "forgiveness", because (like god, funny enough) a justice system is not in a position to forgive wrongs that one person has done to another. So a compassionate release isn't even "mercy" as such - the purposes of a justice system can really only be reduced (discuss!) to rehabilitation, prevention of re-offence (which to an extent is covered by the first point, but not wholly, obviously), and deterrence. You could perhaps add that there is a "message" that the justice system sends out by the types of sentences it imposes, and the actions it takes with regard to prisoners.
Clearly the first 3 are not at issue here, so the issue is one of the "message". Personally, I think the message of respect for life, appreciation that prisoners, whatever they have done, are human, have feelings, have families etc, is an important one, and I feel this man should indeed be allowed to see out his final days in Libya.
Complain about this comment
Is it not hypocritical to hear the Americans demanding that this man stay in prison for his crime (if he did it, some suggest it was not him) when the US Administration encouraged ever so loudly the people of Northern Ireland to accept the Good Friday agreement, even though many convicted murderers were released here what just after 2 years?
Also how many suspected members of the PIRA were kept in the States by US courts as they "couldn't get a fair trial in the UK" even when they were suspected of committing terrible crimes over here.
Sorry and although I don't wish to appear unkind, but what goes around comes around.
Complain about this comment
As a Christian I personally believe that he should be at least sent home to a prision in Lybia to let his family have easy access to him in his final days. He is dying and as a christian I want to show grace as God has shown us grace.
BUT
This is only the opinion of one person. The decision will no doubt be made with the mind set of what is the best for someones political career and not of how God wants His creation to act.
Cynical old me
PS... this is the first time I have contributed to this blog after I long time enjoying reading all the comments.
Complain about this comment
So, Helio, first question of many!
From where will mercy come?
Complain about this comment
Andrewbft
Welcome!
Just to get you used to the less intellectual punters on here, you do of course realise that your name is anagram of 'bent dwarf'?
You might get a rough time of it on here. There are some on here who have shown much hatred towards small people. Why, I dont know. Seemingly the Bible says something about them as being evil or unnatural.
I dont know if you are happy about being verticly challenged (V.C.), if you feel that its actually sinful to be V.C.?
If so, there are groups in our churches that will help you (stretching techniques, platform shoes etc...) You'll still be a dwarf, but no one will know.
As regards the gay thing, we couldnt find anything in the Bible about that, so you're okay there.
P.S. Kenny McAskill might be the first politician in a while who is going to do the right thing in releasing Megrahi, and it may cost him dearly. I think he is courageous.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Bean!
That was rather naughty. Please understand that I shall spend sometime today working on an anagram of your name. If successful I will publish it here, later!
:-)
Complain about this comment
Hi emperor wort / roomer twerp / tremor or pew / wet mop error
Rome jelly bean has at least 2147 anagrams. I'm sure you'll come up with something apt and funny.
Complain about this comment
I see romejellybean knows how to google anagrams.......
where would you be without google...
Complain about this comment
Strangely enough, Graham Veale is Megrahe Leav.
Complain about this comment
Peter! You should know better to ask me a silly question like that! We act in a certain way; we attach the label "mercy" to it. Job done. No need to get more funky than that.
What can you do with "Heliopolitan"?
Complain about this comment
Where would we be without mercy, in the hands of the lunatics.
Breaking news Christian gene found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50
Complain about this comment
Yes Helio, I know you're armed with Mr. Avery's sticky labels labelling set (and a printer), but you have neither told me what mercy is nor where it comes from. It's just that I'd like to be able to recognise a situation worthy of one of you lables when I saw it. Then we could both go sticky, wicky mwad.
RJB
Tremor or pew? I'm a Presbyterian, pew it is!
And my first attempt at your name, jelly Rome bean!
Complain about this comment
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is to be freed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197370.stm
Complain about this comment
RJB
I present to you,
joy. beer. all men.
Complain about this comment
McAskill's speech -
He has heavily criticised Uk government for making prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and not discussing it with Scottish government - whom it was directly going to effect.
He has made clear that it is on the grounds of compassion (not prisoner transfer agreement) that Megrahi is to be released. He has mentioned Christianity and Megrahi facing a higher power - designed to appeal to religious Americans.
And appeased Scottish police and judicial system by commending them for their great work. Reiterating time and again that Megrahi was guilty. Other 'broader' questions are not for the Scottish judiciary or Government.
Complain about this comment
Pewter
Lol, very close to the truth!!
Got a few for Helio.
inhale lip too / Lit Alien Pooh / A He Lion Pilot. (The last one sounds a bit saucy!)
Complain about this comment
Better not get overly saucy rjb your post might get deleted. (sorry bbc moderators but you did remove one of my posts because it made a joke that everyone masturbates)
Complain about this comment
Helio - some slightly confused thinking in your post # 8.
Neither mercy nor compassion have any necessary connection with forgiveness - I do not see why you linked them.
An individual might forgive someone totally for an offence but offer them no mercy from the consequences believing that the needs of society require the exacting of full retribution; equally a person might feel it appropriate spare an offender the full rigour of the law (maybe to benefit his dependants) while the burden of hurt they bear leaves them quite unable to forgive him.
Mercy, clemency, pleas of mitigation, however, are not peripheral to a justice system: they lie at its core and they enter into the thinking of every judge passing sentence. Brian would surely agree that Shakespeare knew his legal system (Bacon was after all a barrister) and the seasoning of justice with mercy is daily practice in the courts of every civilised society. The circumstances of an offender often elicit mercy from a judge - not for any of the purposes you list but simply because it is appropriate.
Complain about this comment
There is little that can be said beyond the obvious. In America nearly universal outrage over release of a mass murderer after only eight years in prison, a man whose crime was the result of participation in state terrorism attacking the civilized world in which the incident deliberately killed 270 non combatants including 189 Americans. In Britain self righteous justification on what it sees as its "compassionate humanity." In Libya a hero's welcome upon the assassin's return, proof that there is still much popular sentiment there supporting militant Islam's war against the rest of the world, a war in which no human life has any value.
It may come as a shock and surprise to many Americans that its misplaced trust in Europe in general and the UK in partular as an ally sharing common values and interests has been betrayed once again but not as a surprise to me. In Britain, a nation that has abased itself far beyond the pale, its government demonstrates again its unbounded depravity not merely by proving as always that it does not have the mettle to stand up to any aggression to its independence and defend its self aggrandizing pronouncements of its high moral principles but by not even recoginzing that this is the essence of its view of the world and the actions it takes or fails to take. That this is so has been true since the first world war devastated Europe. The weaseling out of Minister Darling by disavowing any and all responsibility and the Scottish Minister's rationalization of "humanitarian compassion" has the same hollow ring as Chamberlain's claim 71 years ago of having brought Britain "Peace in our time" by having laid Britan prostrate to Nazi military aggression and then deluding himself that he'd appeased the unappeasable mass murderers. Likewise, much of Britain would have laid itself open to takeover by the USSR during the cold war as demonstrated time and again by mass protests against any and actions its government took to cooperate with America's ultimate challenge to tryanny, "liberty or death" and now to any meaningful challenge to Islamic terrorism in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and everywhere else including its own backyard...Lockerbee Scotland for example.
If Britain doesn't think it hasn't spit in the eye of the American people once again, it had better think twice. It can only do this so many times before it will no longer be able to delude itself that it has a special relationship with the United States of America. There will likely be no real reprisals or consequences for what is just one more incident in a long string of its own crimes of betrayal...this time. That will not always be the result in the future. Eventually Americans will see that the UK is not its ally but is in fact just one more of its enemies, the most dangerous kind of all, the one who masquerades as a friend.
Complain about this comment
#26
Amen.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice does not speak for me.
Mr. MacAskill's approach to crime and punishment can be summed up in four words.
More carrot, less stick.
Victims of crime are habitually ignored. Now, it seems, victims of terrorism are to be similarly ignored. Appeasement trumps justice.
Complain about this comment
"Victims of terrorism are to be similarly ignored."
Too true Scotch git. The US and British Governments have refused to release documents which it is believed would cast serious doubts over Megrahi's conviction. The victims' families have tried everything to get these documents released, but have met a brick wall at every turn.
The expected posturing by both governments is now in overdrive, Scotland gets it in the neck, while British and US companies will now quietly line their pockets in Libya now that the door is open again.
The families have been ignored for years, the US government prefering to pay the Maltese shopkeeper millions to frame an innocent man, instead of bringing Iran's Ayatollah and Abu Nidal to court.
Why have so many victims' families refused to accept the guilty verdict? Why have so many families stated that they are happy to see Megrahi return home?
Because they know justice has not been done and Britain and the US are guilty of a cover up. To listen to these politicians weeping on behalf of the families is nauseating. Want to do something for the families? - Release the documents!!
Complain about this comment
"An individual might forgive someone totally for an offence but offer them no mercy from the consequences believing that the needs of society require the exacting of full retribution"
I think that goes to show that mercy and utilitarinaism are incompatible. And I'm absolutely sure that if we are talking about the needs of society then we are not talking about retribution.
GV
Complain about this comment
Et tu Brite'!
Complain about this comment
Graham
"I think that goes to show that mercy and utilitarianism are incompatible" - I can not see how it shows anything of the sort.
"I'm absolutely sure that if we are talking about the needs of society then we are not talking about retribution" - retribution means 'just punishment' - are you saying society should not seek to impose penalties proportionate to the offence?
Marcus - LOVE you...
Complain about this comment
"Mercy and utilitarianism are incompatible"
Thankfully I'm not a utilitarian. I'm an egoist, which - despite what you might think - is perfectly compatible with mercy. :-) I'm a merciful egoist.
Complain about this comment
And of course, convicted, yes convicted, bombers have been released under the terms of the Good Friday (or Belfast) agreement. As usual, when this happened in Northern Ireland, no one batted an eyelid. Personally, I can't see the difference.
Complain about this comment
P.S. i would imagine this is why the response on Talkback was so hostile from NI callers William.
Complain about this comment
Britain has demonstrated that it places no more value on American lives than al Qaeda does. It also does not live up to its commitments. As part of the arrangement where the US gave up the right to try and incarcerate this terrorist the UK gave a guarantee that if convicted he'd serve at least a 28 year sentence in prison. He didn't serve even a third of that. I've always felt the differences between Britain and the US were irreconcilable ever since the American revolution owing to the basic differences in the nature of their societies. Centuries of trying to paper over that cravass hasn't worked and never will. Not until there is a basic change in the very nature of Britain. I don't expect that will ever happen.
Complain about this comment
The UK has now become a conspirator after the fact in the cold blooded murder of 189 Americans. It is clearly an act of war. The UK is just lucky I'm not the President of the United States. I'd have issued a stern warning before the release and by now all relations would have been severed.
Complain about this comment
MAII
I think we are ALL fortunate that you are not President. But if you ever are, would you please order the release of the documents regarding the break in at PanAm at Heathrow on the morning of the bombing.
Otherwise the families of the other 81 victims are going to continue to suspect that you (and the British Government) are hiding something.
Your country is actually deliriously happy that Megrahi has gone because now the likelihood of the truth coming out, has gone with him.
Complain about this comment
rjb, the US is not on trial here, the UK and the Arab world are and both are clearly guilty. The reaction in the Arab culture demonstrates that in part it still widely supports terrorism and there are states like Libya which have only given up terrorism because the economic penalities outweigh achieving the political objetives it still seeks. The UK revealed that it remains and likely always will be unwilling to stand up to aggression and defend civilization. Its culture, people, and government have as their first instinct to surrender to it. It also demonstrated that it will abuse and insult the People of the United States at every opportunity in any and every way possible to demonstrate its contempt for them. One day it will pay a dire penalty for its attitude. There may always be a Britain but one day it may be ruled by Islamic terrorists instead of those who rationalize surrender to them as compassion.
Complain about this comment
MAII
The Scottish government released Megrahi, not the UK government. (One of the points which has been made repeatedly over here is that for those people who didnt realise there WAS a Scottish Government, now they know there is. Obviously, when making that point, they didnt know about you!!)
The fact that this country - after being attacked by Islamic fundamentalists (Glasgow) could still make a decision based on compassion rather than on hatred, says much about this nation and whether it is "civilised" or not.
If the Arab world removed its money from the US economy, the US would be on its backside.
Maybe you should attempt to move out of the xenophobic wee box you live in and attempt to see the world of politics through rich versus poor instead of country versus country. Even if it taught you nothing about the world, you might begin to perceive your own government in a different light.
And as for the UK 'abusing and insulting' the people of the United States at every opportunity, would that include us allowing your military to use our airports and airspace to refuel bombers and to help your rendition of people who have been refused due legal process? Would that include the huge wave of support from this country for the US after 9/11?
Thankfully, most people over here would overlook your rantings and see the real America, a place for which many here have great affection.
Lastly, why did the American and the UK led prosecution of Megrahi refuse to allow the report of the break in at PanAm on the day of the Lockerbie bombing, into court as evidence? Why did they hide it from the defence team? Why do they still refuse the families access to it?
Complain about this comment
rjb you really are a jelly bean and a royal........in the.....
You can't weasel out of it any more than Darling could. The UK is the UK. When there was racial strife in say Alabama or Mississippi in the 1960s people around the world didn't say look at what is happening in Alabama and Mississippi, they said look at what is going on in America. You can't divorce one part of yourself when it is convenient. Scotland is as much a part of the UK at least for the time being as England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are no matter what the majority of its people wish. They still prefer their tax subsidies from England more than they'd prefer to dissociate themselves completely but it's probably close.
"If the Arab world removed its money from the US economy, the US would be on its backside."
So would the wealthy Shiekhs who keep it here. America would have to cut back its expenses, something that's long overdue. I say it should start by bringing home all of its troops from Europe and getting out of NATO. Then it could withdraw from the Pacific and let China and Japan have at each other if they want to. If the South Koreans want to defend themselves against North Korea, let them spend their money on their own nuclear weapons. I wonder how much they'd have left to build Kias with if they did.
"And as for the UK 'abusing and insulting' the people of the United States at every opportunity, would that include us allowing your military to use our airports and airspace to refuel bombers and to help your rendition of people who have been refused due legal process?"
Seems to me that according to the detainee who was released to Britain recently, it was the UK government who had far more interest in his interogation than the US. For all we know, the information he divulged prevented another 7-7. Perhaps your morality would prefer that such information should not be extracted by force and that another 7-7 should be allowed to happen and another and another because you think the war on terror should be fought with the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Mine doesn't. I don't think the terrorists take time out for tea every day at 4PM and neither does the CIA. That in itself is reason enough to ban cricket from being played in the US.
I don't know about the break in at Pan Am. Perhaps they wanted first hand documents of who had access to the plane before anyone on the inside who might have been complicit could destroy or remove the evidence.
Britain has made it clear. If you are a terrorist, you are best off getting caught and tried in the UK. If you are convicted, you will get off lightly. They UK is ambivalent at best towards terrorists and only becomes really concerned when it is the victim.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
"I dont know about the break in at Pan Am. Perhaps they wanted first hand documents of who had access to the plane before anyone on the inside who might have been complicit could destroy or remove any evidence."
The break in took place BEFORE the bomb exploded!! The importance of the break in being investigated and brought out into the open is that there is a strong possibility that who ever broke in - planted the bomb!!
The prosecution knew of the break in, at Megrahi's trial in Holland - but kept it quiet.
Your last post exposes just how uninformed - but willing to criticise and condemn - you are.
Complain about this comment
"Your last post exposes just how uninformed - but willing to criticise and condemn - you are."
And your post jelly bean exposes that you don't trust the trial. Perhaps you'd prefer that we do away with trials and juries and just let you abjudicate all legal disputes, civil and criminal.
It seems to me that the US has had unfinished business with Britain since the War of 1812. No amount of time or papering over it can cover it up or make it go away. If anything the two societies have continued to diverge and are further apart than ever. Pretending doesn't make it not so.
Complain about this comment
MAII
"And your post jelly bean exposes that you dont trust the trial."
Hooray!! You goy there, Marcus!!
Complain about this comment
The jellybean who would be King.
King Jellybean the first of England. Reality....the alternative having watched him all these years is even worse.
Complain about this comment
Still gettin confused about that Scotland England thing, Marcus.
Complain about this comment
Not really jellybean. I stopped buying English gin a long time ago. Now I will no longer buy Scotch Whiskey either. I'm sure I'll learn to love Kentucky Bourbon just as much.
Complain about this comment
Aaaaaah!!!
That explains it. Its the drink!
Complain about this comment
But what explains you rjb? Jelly beans....laced with LSD?
Complain about this comment
Marcus - you disappoint me - always thought you were a guy who'd know your drink! WhiskEy is IRISH, Scotch is whisky. The ingredient mix and distillation processes are quite different and the Irish version is much smoother and IMO entirely preferable to Kentucky Bourbon. You might not find our Irish attitude to the release of terrorists any more palatable, however.
Complain about this comment
What "explains" me, Marcus, is a desire for the truth. In this case, to look beyond the propaganda and self interest of governments, to allow the families access to what actually happened to their loved ones.
You, on the other hand, have displayed an inability to consider practically any subject on this blog site reasonably and rationally. Instead you have taken each subject on here and used them to rant about your hatred of Europeans.
If you continue, I will consider boycotting America's biggest gift to the world. No more burgers for me!
Complain about this comment
Hey Marcus,
Why dont you read back over all your posts on this thread, all your condemnations, all your arrogance about how superior America is. But do it after youve given us your thoughts on Lt William Calley.
Did you forget about him in all your bluster about British Justice? Did you forget that he murdered over 500 innocent men, women and children at My Lai? Did you forget that he was convicted and sentenced in an American court to life imprisonment in 1971?
Did you forget that your President Nixon commuted his LIFE SENTENCE to a paltry three years house arrest? I wonder what the families of the My Lai massacre thought about that? (That's if there were any left alive!)
My Lai, El Salvador, Iran passenger flight 655, Guantanamo......... and dozens more...
Didnt you pick up the news about any of these things from your wee tranny when you were grape picking in France?
We need no lectures about justice, compassion and morality from you, buddy.
Complain about this comment
Latest - Robert Mueller, head of the FBI has just written to Kenny McAskill complaining bitterly about the release of Megrahi. He has called it a "mockery of justice."
Robert Mueller? Wouldnt that be the same Bobby Mueller, up to his neck in the Iran/Contra debacle?
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg71640.html
Imagine this guy having the nerve to write to anyone complaining about a lack of justice?
Complain about this comment
For whatever reason, the link isnt working. Just google Mueller and you'll find out enough about this guy's credentials.
Complain about this comment
rjb, it is you who lie taking facts out of context as is typical of Europeans trying to make a point but having to isolate one aspect of a larger more complicated picture to disguise the truth. BBC is famous for it. So was Radio Moscow and the Russian government which as reported today had denied for decades the Molotov-von Ribentrof pact and then said cynically when its existance could no longer be refuted that it was necessary to buy time because the West didn't stand up to the Nazis. (the proof that was a lie was the complete surprise on the Soviet part when Nazi Germany invaded it.) The actions you cited were part of a world war for survival of civilization in which no action was too extreme including global thermonuclear war. In the case of Calley, the massacre was the result of the common experience of American troops of entire villages serving the Viet Cong where women and children were used as assassins. Under our law it was considered a crime but there were mitigating circumstances. Where is your "humanitarian compassion" now as you condemn it? Those men were scared and angry. Their actions were criminal but understandable under the circumstances by anyone except those who refuse to look at them in context. Europeans are clearly hypocrites as you prove again this very minute. In Iran Contra and in El Salvador, those actions were taken to thwart establishment of a Soviet beachhead and ultimate takeover of South and Central America through its enslaved surrogate, Communist Cuba. When put in context, those actions were entirely justified and need no defense except in the context of the separation of powers between branches of American government. It is strictly an American internal affair.
In the war against the Soviet efforts to control the world as in the war on terror, it is clear that Europe is on the wrong side as it always is. That is why Amerians should never trust it, never see it as an ally, or view it as anything less than America's enemy. And that is why this act of betrayal came as no surprise to me. It's not the first incident (remember the French release of Carlos the Jackal?) and it won't be the last.
Thwarting Soviet domination of the world and the breaking of the USSR was the single largest, most intense, and most sustained military effort in American history and the greatest risk the US ever took. At stake was the very survival of the human race as a species. European dismissal of it and its ultimate success is just one more disgusting exhibition of their contempt for America. What Europeans don't know is that great and growing contempt for Europe and Europeans in return has and contues to become part of the American view of the world.
Complain about this comment
i.e If America does it, fine and dandy. If anyone else does it, its a disgrace.
More questions for you to ignore, Marcus.
Were you aware that Major Charles Mckee of the US Intelligence Agency and Matthew Gannon of the CIA (both based in Beirut) were aboard the Pan Am flight which exploded above Lockerbie?
Were you aware that they were on their way to the CIA Headquarters to report COREA (a branch of the CIA working in the Middle East) for transporting heroin (with Monzar Al Kassar of Iran/Contra fame) into New York?
Just a couple of those 'wider' issues which Kenny McKaskill refers to.
Some bed time reading -
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/search?q=lockerbie
Complain about this comment
Lastly, for the moment, a comment on the so called outrage of the American public about this decision.
There are two websites calling for American citizens to boycott Scotland and to sign a petition saying so.
One has 95 signatures, the other 171.
On closer inspection I noticed that many of the comments were not from irate Americans, but were from citizens across the globe demanding that America start to practice what it is presently preaching to Scotland regarding numerous attrocities it has sponsored over the years, people angered by the utter hypocrisy of the US government.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/boycott-scotland-for-releasing-megrahi-lockerbie-bomberbomer#signatures
Complain about this comment
rjb, you can try to divert attention away from the central fact that the terrorist was tried, convicted, and sentenced according to Scottish law and was serving a life sentence under both the provisions of that law and by prior agreement with the US government that if he were convicted, he would not be released for at least 28 years. There is no escape from those central facts, the trial is not the subject of this issue, betrayal of supposed allies and cowardice in the face of terrorism is. So is cynicism as the prospect of this being part of a commercial "deal" by the UK government looms as a possibility.
The prospect of this happening was widely reported in the media for at least a week. So far all of the condemnation has rung hollow. Actions speak far louder than words. The question now isn't what is being said but what will be done about it. I will be writing a letter to President Obama requesting that he break off diplomatic relations with the UK and that all commercial transactions directly between the UK and the US be banned for 189 days. Perhaps all UK visitors to the US should be told to leave and not come back for 189 days as well.
BAD DOG!
Complain about this comment
Nae biscuit? :-(
Complain about this comment
Paul Foot & John Ashton's 1995 investigation into Lockerbie
The Guardian (London)
July 29, 1995
INSIDE STORY: BODY OF EVIDENCE;
More than six years on from the Lockerbie disaster, no one appears any wiser about how and why the bombing happened. The authorities always claimed there was no warning of an attack on a Pan-Am flight. New information proves that this is untrue
BYLINE: Paul Foot & John Ashton
SECTION: THE GUARDIAN WEEKEND PAGE; Pg. T22
LENGTH: 11960 words
WHO planted the bomb which blew Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Scotland, killing all 259 people on board? Six-and-a-half years after the Lockerbie disaster, none of the bereaved families or friends of the dead knows the answer. A bewildering array of different suspects has been paraded before them. Even the identity of the airport where the bomb was planted is unclear.
From their governments on both sides of the Atlantic the families have had to put up with paralysis, duplicity and, finally, silence. The current suspects, they are told, are two Libyan airline officials who put the bomb on a flight from Malta. The officials vehemently deny the charge. They refuse to go to court in Britain or the US. Until they stand trial in either of those countries, say the governments and the United Nations, no questions about the disaster will be answered. The whole issue is gridlocked. All further inquiry is officially discouraged.
'The official version,' says Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died at Lockerbie, 'is no longer credible.' This article follows the Lockerbie story from the point of view of the bemused British relatives and friends of the victims. Drawing on hitherto unpublished documents, it casts doubt on the central thesis of the official version - that the Lockerbie bomb first went on a plane at Malta. It provides new information, until now classified, that western intelligence knew perfectly well that a Pan Am airliner was in danger from terrorists. It exposes a co-ordinated campaign by the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to smear and intimidate investigators who question the official version - and their witnesses and sources. And it calls for more investigation and more disclosure on both sides of the Atlantic.
THE FATAL NIGHT
The Strange Case Of Dr Fieldhouse Weird and inexplicable happenings haunted the Lockerbie disaster on the very night the plane went down - December 21, 1988. Dr David Fieldhouse, an experienced police surgeon from Bradford, Yorkshire, heard about it on News At Ten. He went straight to the telephone and phoned the police station at Lockerbie. If he could be of any use, he said, he could be at Lockerbie in less than an hour-and-a-half.
The Lockerbie police eagerly accepted his offer, and a few minutes later he was on the motorway to Scotland. He got there before midnight, reported to the police station, and was eventually sent out with a police officer to find bodies and certify them dead. All through the long, cold night the doctor and his companion slogged through the fields round Tundergarth church. Not stopping for sleep or food, he worked all through the following day as well. When he reported to the police station that evening, he had certified 59 bodies dead and labelled them accordingly. In the following weeks he gave up large chunks of his spare time travelling to Lockerbie and helping the police properly to identify the bodies and where they had been found.
For this selfless effort Dr Fieldhouse received, and expected to receive, no recognition. What was his reward? Nearly two years later, without any warning, he was unjustifiably tarnished by a police officer in official sworn evidence to the fatal accident inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster.
The officer was Sergeant David Johnston of the Strathclyde police. His evidence was 'led' by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Scottish Lord Advocate. Fraser is a career politician in the ruling Conservative Party, who had served briefly in the House of Commons as a Tory MP for Aberdeen. Sgt Johnston started his evidence about Dr Fieldhouse as follows: 'On the evening of the disaster,' he said, 'and in the early hours of the following day, Dr Fieldhouse went out and examined a number of victims on his own, pronouncing life extinct, and attached on them his own form of identification. This was not known to us until some considerable time later.' In fact, Dr Fieldhouse was accompanied throughout by police officers, three of whom he has named. He kept in close touch with the police throughout. The sergeant was completely wrong, but Lord Fraser did not correct him. On the contrary, the Lord Advocate continued with a series of questions which rubbed salt in the doctor's wounds. After asking about the discovery of the body of US businessman Tom Ammerman, Fraser went on: Q. Would this be another example of Dr or Mr Fieldhouse carrying out a search on his own? A. It would, my Lord.
Q. And marking the body of a person who is dead without notifying the police? A. That is correct.
It was not correct at all. Mr Ammerman's body had been found by Dr Fieldhouse and an accompanying police officer. It was marked in the presence of and with the agreement of the police officer.
When Dr Fieldhouse appeared at the inquiry some weeks later - on January 22, 1991 - he quietly disposed of all the allegations which had been tossed about so freely in public. He was puzzled to hear that there were 58 bodies identified in the area he'd worked in - he had identified and tagged 59. He was amazed that all except two of his labels had all been thrown away and replaced with others.
Sheriff Mowat, who was in charge of the inquiry, concluded: 'I would record my thanks to Dr Fieldhouse and my apologies for the undeserved criticism of his activities.' Nearly two years later, in December 1993, Dr Fieldhouse gave an interview for a film about Lockerbie. A few days after the interview, Fieldhouse was summoned to a meeting with two senior West Yorkshire police officers at Wakefield and sacked as police surgeon. He was given three month's notice - but no credible explanation.
FARMER WILSON'S SUITCASE
The treatment of Dr Fieldhouse is not the only story from the tragic windswept night round Lockerbie which still puzzles relatives of the dead. What is the truth, they wonder, about Farmer Jim Wilson, of Tundergarth Mains Farm near Lockerbie, whose fields were littered with the debris of bodies and baggage after the crash? He told one of the relatives who visited him soon after the disaster that he had been puzzled by the police response to a suitcase he had found in one his fields.
The case, he said, was full of cellophane packets of a white powder, which he thought were drugs. He told the police about it, but they did not react. He had to ring them a second time before they came to take it away. Farmer Wilson, who now understandably refuses to answer questions on the subject, gave evidence at the fatal accident inquiry. To his surprise, he was not asked about the suitcase or the drugs he assumed were in it. The authorities on both sides of the Atlantic continued to insist that no drugs, save a small quantity of cannabis, were found on Pan Am 103.
Some of the relatives carried out further inquiries. They discovered that the name Farmer Wilson had seen on the suitcase did not correspond with any of the names on the Pan Am 103 passenger list.
THE INVASION OF INVESTIGATORS
A senior official at Carlisle airport was astonished at the numbers of officials who arrived by plane from London that night and the following day. At least two coach-loads of people arrived before midnight on a Boeing 727. Around 20 of them were Pan Am employees, but there were many other Americans with no obvious affiliation. Another 727 arrived in the early afternoon of December 22, this time bringing people from the US. In it were yet more men in plain clothes. Among their baggage was a single coffin. When they realised that they were being filmed by a cameraman from the local Border TV, they became agitated and demanded that he stop.
Since permission had been granted by the local police, the airport official allowed the cameraman to continue and the pictures were broadcast that night. No explanation has been given about the coffin.
THE STRANGE OFFER TO DAVID JOHNSTON
David Johnston, a young reporter from Radio Forth in Edinburgh, with excellent contacts with the Scottish police, was one of the first journalists on the scene of the disaster. In a news bulletin on February 2, 1989, he reported a claim that the bomb had been planted on a crack team of US intelligence agents who were travelling on flight 103 on their way back from Beirut.
Within an hour of the programme being broadcast Johnston was visited in his office by senior Edinburgh police who demanded to know the source of the story. When he refused to disclose it, he was threatened with prosecution and, simultaneously, made a bizarre offer: to reveal his source to the Prime Minister in Downing Street. He turned that down as well.
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE RED TARPAULIN
On the night of the disaster, and for weeks afterwards, teams of rescue volunteers searched the area. One volunteer was Ron Smith of Castle Douglas in Galloway. Earlier this year he revealed that fellow rescue workers had come across a large object under a red tarpaulin. As they approached it, they were warned off by gunmen in the doorway of a hovering helicopter. One of these volunteers has spoken to us. He confirms that the incident took place just north of the road from Lockerbie to Langholm Road, at Map reference 294 818. Farmer Innes Graham was also warned by Americans to stay away from a small wooded area on top of the hill to the west of his family's farm near Waterbeck, a few miles east of Lockerbie. These strange experiences on that first night worried many of the bereaved relatives. Their worries soon turned into anger.
HOW MUCH DID THE AUTHORITIES KNOW BEFOREHAND?
Was Botha Warned? Almost at once, there was a strong suspicion that the authorities knew the airliner was in danger, and passe d the information on to selected passengers. The most dramatic example of this which was published in the German paper Die Zeit, on the first anniversary of the disaster. The paper suggested that the South African Foreign Secretary, Pik Botha, and his retinue intended to fly on 103 but had been warned off. Botha eventually flew on the earlier flight, Pan Am 101, which, unlike flight 103, had special security checks at Heathrow.
Botha and the South African foreign office have denied that he was warned off 103, and no one in South Africa or Britain has been able finally to confirm or refute the Die Zeit story. But there were two other crucial pieces of evidence - one of them never before published - that Pan Am 103 was known to be in danger before it took off.
THE HELSINKI WARNING
On December 5 1988, 16 days before the disaster, a man rang the American Embassy in Helsinki, Finland, with a message that within the next two weeks a Finnish woman would carry a bomb aboard a Pan Am aircraft flying from Frankfurt to the US. The caller spoke with a Middle Eastern accent and said that the people behind the bomb attempt had links to the notorious terrorist Abu Nidal. The Embassy sent a classified cable to the state department, which was copied to the American consulate in Frankfurt and other embassies. The US President's Commission's report on aviation security and terrorism, which reported in May 1990, reckoned that 'thousands of US government employees saw the Helsinki threat'.
Among the lucky ones were the Americans who worked in the US Embassy in Moscow. On December 13, a week and a day before Pan Am 103 went down, an 'administrative notice to all employees' was posted on the board of the Embassy, warning of the threat.
At least one civilian in Moscow changed his flight as a result of the posted warning, and another employee changed the booking she had made for a US journalist. Not a single Russian embassy worker took flight Pan Am 103 from Frankfurt on December 21, a standard and popular route home for Christmas.
The US President's Commission on Lockerbie reported that by December 10 the Finnish Police had concluded that the warning was 'not a credible one'. Similarly, the British Department of Transport told Pan Am in December that the British intelligence community had concluded that the threat was 'not real'.
Yet the notice went up on the board in Moscow three days after the conclusion of the Finnish police that the notice was not credible. Moreover, the US Federal Aviation Authority did not give an 'all clear' to the aviation authorities. Neither did Pan Am dismiss the warning. Their officials started special screening of Finnish women passengers.
The news of the Helsinki warning broke soon after the disaster and engulfed many relatives in rage and despair. The British Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, reluctantly disclosed that there had been only 16 bomb warnings about aircraft relevant to Britain in 1988, none of them as specific as the one in Helsinki.
Channon and his successors insisted that the Helsinki warning was 'a hoax'. Martin and Rita Cadman were dubious. Their beloved son Bill, 32, a brilliant sound designer, was on the fatal plane. Three -and-half years after the disaster, in July 1992, they read in the Independent that a man called Stephen Docherty had been sent to prison for four years for making a hoax call to police about a bomb at Victoria station. Martin Cadman wrote at once to the Finnish embassy in London asking who had been prosecuted for the hoax call about the Pan Am airliner and what punishment they received. The answer came back on November 17, 1992. 'The identity of the caller cannot be disclosed, as sufficient evidence has not been assembled to convict the chief suspect, a foreigner who obtained Finnish citizenship.' Martin and Rita Cadman were vindicated. If the hoaxer could not be identified, who could say for sure that the call was a hoax? They fired off a letter to the Earl of Caithness, junior Minister for Transport, asking for a further inquiry into the Helsinki warning. Caithness replied that he had 'nothing to add, and had not got the authority to release the name of the hoax caller'.
When the Cadmans pointed out that no hoaxer had yet been identified, they received a couple of testy letters from the director and coordinator of transport security at the Department of Transport, Mr Harry Ditmas. 'This warning was a hoax,' echoed by Mr Ditmas, without proof or explanation. The Cadmans' irritation at the duplicity of the authorities increased when the 'Helsinki hoaxer' had been named two years before they were told he could not be identified. He was a Palestinian resident in Finland called Samra Mahayoun.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT WARNING
Today we can reveal another warning, issued by an intelligence source to the US State Department's Office of Diplomatic Security. This warning was issued three days before the phone call in Helsinki. It has recently been released - but not yet published - under the Freedom of Information Act. The name of the informant is blacked out, and the message reads: 'Team of Palestinians not assoc with Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) intends to atk US tgts in Europe. Time frame is present. Tgts specified are Pan Am airlines and US mil bases.' This is the clearest proof that the US government had direct intelligence information threatening Pan Am. The comment attached to it read as follows: 'We cannot refute or confirm this'.
OPERATION AUTUMN LEAVES
Astonishingly, five weeks before this warning was received, a 'team of Palestinians not associated with the PLO' had been arrested in Germany in possession of a bomb in a Toshiba cassette recorder strikingly similar to the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
In the months before the bombing the German police had mounted an anti -terrorist operation under the code-name Autumn Leaves. The operation had led to the arrest of a gang associated with a splinter group of the Palestinian movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC). The leader of this splinter was Ahmed Jibril, who enjoyed the confidence and protection of the government of Syria and its dictator Hafez al -Assad. Jibril had masterminded several terrorist attacks in recent years, and had, so the intelligence agents reported, taken on an assignment to revenge the shooting down the previous summer of an Iranian airbus by a US warship.
All 290 people on the airbus had been killed. Outrage in Iran was intense and there were widespread demands for revenge. Tehran radio declared that the incident would be avenged 'in blood-spattered skies'. Moreover, the intelligence reports revealed, the leader of Jibril's terrorist gang, Hafez Dalkamoni, had been arrested outside a flat in Neuss, Germany, not two hours drive from Frankfurt, from whose airport Pan Am 103's feeder flight had originated. A bomb with a barometric pressure switch, packed inside a Toshiba radio cassette recorder, was found in his car.
Investigators were in no doubt that the bomb was specifically designed to blow up aircraft. Pieces of a similar model of recorder had been found in the wreckage at Lockerbie. The conclusion seemed inescapable. Pan Am 103 had been blown up by a Palestinian gang, protected by Syria and paid for by Iran. The German police knew the name of the bomb-maker they had arrested - Marwan Khreesat. Mysteriously, Khreesat was released soon after he had been arrested with Dalkamoni. The official reason was that there was not enough evidence against him. In April 1989, further police raids in Neuss produced two more bombs designed by Khreesat specifically to blow up aircraft. By then no one was in any doubt that Khreesat had made the bomb which found its way on to Pan Am 103A before it left Frankfurt for Heathrow.
LUNCH AT THE GARRICK
One man utterly confident of this conclusion was Paul Channon, British Secretary of State for Transport. On March 16 1989, less than three months after Lockerbie, Channon lunched in London's exclusive Garrick Club with five of Britain's top journalists.
Channon beamed at the journalists over the excellent food and wine. The 'brilliant detective work of the smallest police force in the country' - Dumfries and Galloway - had, he revealed, uncovered the guilty bombers. Arrests, Channon told his wide-eyed hosts, were imminent. Such conversations, especially at the Garrick Club, are 'on lobby terms': that is, not for attribution.
But the size of the scoop they had been offered was too much for at least one of the journalists. Next morning's papers carried the sensational news that a cabinet minister had revealed that the Lockerbie killers had been identified and would soon be arrested.
OPERATION 'LOW-KEY'
Almost at the exact moment as Channon was exciting the journalists over that Garrick lunch, George Bush, the US President, telephoned the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Lockerbie was the subject of their conversation. No doubt Bush too had heard of the success of the Scottish police. His advice to Mrs Thatcher however was to 'low-key' any excitement over Lockerbie.
The news of this telephone conversation was reported on January 11 1989 in the Washington Post by Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta. The conversation was denied by both the White House and 10 Downing Street, but Anderson and Van Atta stuck to their story. Whatever was said that March morning, the subject of Lockerbie suddenly slipped from the ecstatic high sung by Channon to a very low key indeed.
The bereaved families, who had assumed after all the publicity for the Garrick lunch that the suspects for the bombing would soon be brought to trial, noticed to their horror that the whole affair seemed to slip suddenly from the public gaze. They stepped up their demand for a proper inquiry. In September 1989, six months after the Garrick lunch, the newly-formed UK Families Flight 103 met Paul Channon's successor as Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson. Parkinson promised the families a full judicial inquiry. To his horror, the Cabinet, and especially Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Parkinson's close friend and ally, slapped him down. He came whimpering back to the relatives to tell them he had failed.
'Low key' were the words allegedly used by President Bush in that denied telephone conversation with Thatcher in March. In September, the relatives came to know what 'low key' meant - the refusal of a proper investigation and its replacement by an impotent fatal accident inquiry with no subpoena powers which refused to investigate how the bomb got on the plane for fear of interfering with the police inquiries.
Years later, in 1994, Parkinson took part in a television programme about another disaster - the sinking of the pleasure craft Marchioness on the Thames. He confirmed that Thatcher had blocked the Lockerbie inquiry. 'I was discussing with the Lockerbie relatives,' Parkinson explained, 'whether we couldn't have some form of public inquiry which would have meant, because the security services were involved, inevitably a certain amount of suspicion - and I wondered whether I could get a High Court judge to look into the security aspects privately and report to me. If I could get the relatives to agree with that, if I got that done, that would satisfy them. Because when you get into the Lockerbie business - how did we find out certain information, how did we know this, how did we know that? - you would have had to recall not only our own intelligence sources but information we were receiving from overseas. Therefore, that had to be a closed area. . .' This came as close as it could to identifying the real block to a proper inquiry: 'our own intelligence sources'. It was not clear to the relatives then, or now, why the intelligence services on either side of the Atlantic should oppose an inquiry. A month after the Parkinson fiasco, one remarkable answer emerged.
THE LEBANESE CONNECTION
On November 2, 1989, the news leaked of a report on the Lockerbie bombing by Interfor, a New York corporate investigative company hired by Pan Am and its insurers. The report suggested that the Dalkamoni gang had got the bomb on the airliner at Frankfurt by exploiting a security loophole. In their desperate bid to free American hostages in Beirut, American intelligence agents had, reported Interfor, struck a deal with Syrian narco -terrorists.
In exchange for information about the hostages, the agents agreed to facilitate a route for drugs from the Lebanon into the United States. The luggage with the drugs was protected by American intelligence. Normal security restrictions on baggage at the relevant airports was removed and the drugs allowed to sail through. The terrorist gang, with the help of allies at Frankfurt airport, had exploited this security loophole by exchanging a bag with a bomb for one with drugs. The report named a young passenger on the doomed plane, a Lebanese American called Khaled Jafaar as the 'mule' whose bag of drugs was switched. Jafaar's name had already been mentioned in dramatic circumstances. On New Year's Eve 1988, 10 days after the Lockerbie disaster, the Daily Express devoted its front page to exposing Jafaar as, 'THE BOMB CARRIER'. The Express named its sources as 'the FBI and Scotland Yard'.
Even more fantastically, the Interfor report surmised that Major Charles McKee, the head of the US Intelligence team on the plane, was shocked by the deal struck with the narco-terrorists, and was returning on Pan Am 103 to blow the whistle on his colleagues. The inference was obvious, and the report made it plain. Pan Am 103 was sacrificed by the intelligence community in part at least to get rid of the whistleblower.
The Interfor report was greeted with widespread scepticism. Commentators pointed out that Pan Am was being sued by the families for negligence, and stood to duck all responsibility for the disaster if the blame could be shifted to a bizarre intelligence plot. Scepticism about the Interfor report was compounded by new speculation about Lockerbie which switched attention from Beirut and Frankfurt to the tiny Mediterranean island of Malta.
THE MALTESE CONNECTION
As the first anniversary of the crash grew closer, a long series of articles in the Sunday Times, which relied heavily on leaks from the Scottish police, reported that the 'net was closing' on the Lockerbie suspects. These articles - by David Leppard - stated as irrefutable fact that the bombing had been carried out by the PFLP-GC under orders from Ahmed Jibril. The gang was led by Dalkamoni, the bomb was made by Marwan Khreesat.
Leppard's articles added a new twist. The bomb, they reported, had first been put on a plane not in London, where Pan Am 103 had taken off, nor in Frankfurt, where its 'feeder', Pan Am 103A, had started, but in Malta. The Maltese connection had been detected, the articles argued, because some clothes made in Malta had been found in the suitcase in which, police believed, the bomb had been planted.
The finger of suspicion was pointed directly at another alleged member of the Dalkamoni gang: Abu Talb, a 35-year-old Palestinian who was in prison in Sweden awaiting trial for terrorist offences there. Talb, reported the Sunday Times on December 17, 1989, had visited Malta and had been identified by a Maltese boutique owner as the man who bought the clothes in the bomb suitcase, including a Babygro. 'The trail to Talb was so strong,' wrote reporter David Leppard, that Scottish police had gone to Sweden to interview him. He was, the paper reported, due any moment to be extradited to stand trial for the Lockerbie bombing. The bomb, these articles insisted, had been put on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt for transfer there to Pan Am 103A which linked with Pan Am 103 at Heathrow. Thus the theory had the bomb surviving two airport switches - at Frankfurt and at Heathrow - before exploding over Lockerbie.
For this remarkable theory the Sunday Times (and their informants, the Scottish police) relied on two documents which had not been made available to them until several months after the bombing. These were a computerised list of all the transactions in Frankfurt airport's automated baggage system which related to Pan Am 103, and a hand-written worksheet from one of the several stations where baggage came into the system.
A bag which ended up on Pan Am 103 could be traced to a station where one of the baggage handlers had, in a hurried scrawl, identified it as coming from an Air Malta flight. Yet there were no passengers on the Air Malta flight transferring to Pan Am 103A. It followed, the newspaper argued, that an unaccompanied bag from Malta carried the bomb which blew up Pan Am 103! Together with the Babygro from the boutique, these documents proved the Maltese connection - and the Maltese connection proved the guilt of Dalkamoni and Talb.
Almost all the information which led to these exciting scenarios came through the intelligence agencies. Journalists on their own in such inquiries have very little hope of discovering any information. They go cap in hand to intelligence sources and sift what they are given. In 1989, and most of 1990, the intelligence-based charges against the Jibril gang fitted snugly with American and British foreign policy in the Middle East. Both countries had broken off relations with Syria because of that country's known and persistent support for international terrorism. The long war between Iraq and Iran had ended in the summer of 1988, with the governments of both countries ranged firmly on the side of Iraq. The old hostility to Iran - which dated back to the 1979 revolution there and the seizure of US hostages - lingered on. Though the whole Lockerbie issue had been declared 'low key', both governments were quite 'comfortable' with what seemed at the time the obvious central truth about Lockerbie: that the Jibril gang and the regimes in Syria and Iran were responsible.
This official version was staged again in November 1990 in a long documentary programme by Granada Television to mark the second anniversary of the bombing. Special attention was given to the Maltese connection. A sinister looking Arab was seen to check in his bag at Malta airport and then to slide surreptitiously away to watch the plane take off with the bag in it.
The beauty of 'intelligence journalism' is that it can hardly ever be tested. Granada Television, however, was unlucky. Immediately after the programme, Air Malta sued Granada for libel. A long, powerful and hitherto unpublished document from their lawyers, top city solicitors Norton Rose, demonstrated that there were 39 passengers and 55 pieces of baggage on the Air Malta flight; that all the bags had been checked in by the passengers which flew; that there were no bags on the flight interlined for Pan Am 103 or 103A. So the scenario outlined in the film was, the document insists, quite impossible.
The Norton Rose document proceeds in specific and irrefutable detail to challenge the entire theory that a bomb was put on the flight at Malta. The lawyers carefully investigated the documents - the print-out and the work-sheets from Frankfurt Airport - which had persuaded the Sunday Times and the Scottish police that the bomb bag had come from Malta. They concluded, first, that these documents were not designed to identify the flight from which baggage had come; second, that their accuracy depended on the dubious memory of harassed baggage handlers, and third, that even if they were accurate, they did not preclude the possibility that the suspect bomb-bag had been planted in the complex of Frankfurt airport.
This comprehensive demolition job on the Maltese connection was never heard in open court. Shortly before the case was due to come on early in 1993, Granada, which prides itself on openly defending libel actions, threw in the towel, and paid pounds 15,005 into court. Air Malta accepted the money, and, in a statement allowed by the judge, insisted that they had cleared their name. The statement was studiously ignored by the entire British media.
By that time, the whole political situation in the Middle East had been turned upside down. In August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, threatened to control 8 per cent of US oil supplies and to topple the sheikdoms of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia on which Western stability in the Middle East depended. 'A new world order' was called for, with different alliances. If there was to be a western war with Iraq, Iran had to be seduced into neutrality. More importantly, the Assad dictatorship in Syria had to be courted. If Iran was neutralised and Syria lined up against her old enemy Saddam, Iraq could be defeated without too much upset in the Arab world.
In November 1990, Britain restored diplomatic relations with Syria. Ahmed Jibril, whom everyone assumed was responsible for Lockerbie, was still living there. The same dictator, Assad, was still in charge, presiding over the same terrorism, the same torture in his prisons and the same denial of human rights to dissenters. But now he was an ally of the West. In January and February 1991 Syrian troops joined the western allies in an assault on occupied Kuwait. Saddam's forces were instantly repulsed. Cheap oil flowed freely again to the US, whose government was eternally grateful to its new allies. Opponents of the dictator Assad were still being locked up and tortured, but President Bush (like President Clinton after him) and Prime Minister John Major covered him with bouquets.
THE LIBYAN CONNECTION
As the political allegiances in the region changed, so, at first imperceptibly but with gathering speed, did the official investigations into the Lockerbie disaster. The centre of operations was effectively shifted from the quaint police headquarters in the Scottish Borders to the more sumptuous surroundings of Langley, the base of the CIA. The man in day-to-day charge of the Lockerbie investigation there was Vincent Cannistraro. Cannistraro had worked with Oliver North in President Reagan's National Security Council. He had been a leading figure in the movement to support the Contras in Nicaragua and UNITA in Angola. He had specialised in the US vendetta against Libya. He had helped mastermind a secret programme to destabilise the Libyan regime which culminated in the bombing of Libya in 1986 - an act of international piracy which, for the first time in the history of Muammar Gadaffi's turbulent and dictatorial rule, united the entire Libyan people behind him.
Cannistraro retired from the CIA in September 1990 but by then had helped lay the foundations for a completely new approach to the Lockerbie investigation. This time the chief culprit country was not Iran or Syria - but Libya.
On November 14, 1991, in a blaze of publicity, the American and British governments announced that two Libyan airline officials - Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah - were charged with planting the bomb which brought down Pan Am 103. The official story had completely changed. Gone was any reference to Jibril, Dalkamoni, Talb, Khreesat, Syria, Iran or Palestine. President Bush went out of his way to exculpate Syria which, he announced in a characteristically elegant phrase, had taken 'a bum rap' on Lockerbie.
Simultaneously, like an obedient sheep dog, British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd barked in the British House of Commons that Libyans alone were suspected. Other countries, he said, were not implicated. By amazing coincidence, the only culprits could now be found in the only Arab country besides Iraq to which the US and Britain were openly hostile. Pam Dix, secretary of the UK Families Flight 103, whose brother Peter died at Lockerbie, still remembers her sense of shock on hearing of the indictment against the Libyans. 'In all the three years since the disaster,' she said, 'none of us ever had an inkling that Libyans were responsible. One question I asked myself at once was: why did the American authorities not wait until their suspects left Libya for a country from which they could be extradited? Why did they rush out the announcement when they knew their suspects would not be released for trial?' To assist confused relatives and anyone else who had followed the story, the US State Department issued a special notice. The 'dominant hypothesis of the early stages of the Pan Am 103 investigation', it conceded, had 'focused' on Iran and Jibril. 'Over time however fresh evidence undermined the initial theory linking the PFLP-GC to the bomb.' Four reasons were given: 1. The radio with the bomb found in Dalkamoni's car 'differed markedly' from the radio bomb in the plane.
2. The Maltese clothes in the suitcase indicated the bomb went on at Malta.
3. The bomb in the plane had been set off by a 'sophisticated electronic timer' while the PFLP-GC bomb discovered in Germany had 'relatively crude timers'. Furthermore, such sophisticated timers had been delivered from Switzerland to Libya.
4. There was no evidence of an altimeter switch in the Pan Am bomb.
None of this was persuasive. Marwan Khreesat made many bombs in many different radios. The 'marked difference' between the radio in Dalkamoni's car and the one in the plane was that the first had one speaker, the other had two. Both were Toshibas. The clothes from the boutique had been used to confirm official suspicion of the PFLP-GC/Jibril gang. The rather subtle distinction between the timers and the switches hardly seemed enough evidence to justify such a dramatic change in the course of the inquiry.
THE CASE OF THE UBIQUITOUS CIRCUIT BOARD
The central plank of the indictment was the alleged correlation between the timers - alleged to have been sold to Libyans - and the tiny fragment of circuit board found near Lockerbie. The timers, the indictment revealed, had been made by a firm in Switzerland. Their circuit boards matched a tiny fragment retrieved from the Lockerbie searches.
This coincidence between the circuit board and the timers has been plagued with questions from the moment it was first mooted. For instance, who found the circuit board and when? It depends what you read. In 1992, American journalist Mark Perry published a book called Eclipse - The Last Days Of The CIA. This declares that the fragment was found by an unnamed Scottish worker in a field outside Lockerbie 'on a misty morning in early April'.
British journalist Diarmuid Jeffreys, on the other hand, in his book The Bureau - Inside Today's FBI, says that the fragment was found 'sometime in 1990' in a 'piece of charred shirt' by the FBI's forensic expert Thomas Thurman. Another recent book on the FBI, by Ronald Kessler, quotes the assistant director of the FBI forensic laboratory saying that the British found the fragment a whole year before Thurman got it. And who identified the fragment as part of the timer? Jeffreys and Kessler give the credit to Thomas Thurman, Perry to a 'veteran CIA analyst' and David Leppard of the Sunday Times to a British military forensic scientist (and hero of the investigation which wrongly jailed the Maguire Seven) Dr Thomas Hayes. The four authors each have different dates for the establishing of the link. They offer a choice between June, August, October and November 1990. It is not hard to imagine the enthusiasm with which a top barrister would expose the history of this crucial 'evidence' linking the bombing to Libya.
And just how firm was the Libyan connection to the timers? To start with, the US State department claimed that all timers from the Swiss firm had been delivered to Libya. This theory was weakened in December 1993 when the BBC radio programme File On Four proved that the Swiss firm had provided the same model of timers to the East German secret police, the Stasi.
The bulk of the indictment asserted without proof that Libyan intelligence had planned the bomb attack, and carried it out through two of its agents. These assertions relied on the say-so of an intelligence team led by a man who once worked closely with Oliver North.
THE HIDDEN AGENDA
None of the active British relatives is convinced by the indictment. In the four years since the indictment was announced, the case against the Libyans has got weaker. The British families continue to be puzzled about the sudden and unexpected change in the Lockerbie suspects. It seems obvious to them that the Dalkamoni gang was responsible for the bombing. So why was the gang not pursued, and why was such a crude official blanket cast over the whole Lockerbie affair? Increasingly, the families hark back to the ghastly theories expounded in the Interfor report. Is there, they wonder, a hidden agenda to Lockerbie, a story within a story, which is the real reason for the 'low-key' approach of officialdom on both sides of the Atlantic? These suspicions were further aroused by the publication in September 1993 - in Britain alone - of Trail Of The Octopus by Donald Goddard, the story of former Defence Intelligence Agency agent Lester Coleman. Like the Interfor report, Coleman concludes there is a connection between the drugs run from Lebanon through Cyprus, where he was based, and Frankfurt airport which contributed to the Lockerbie disaster. Coleman's detractors accuse him of fleeing his country to avoid charges of falsely procuring a passport. New information published in the Scotsman in March this year, however, suggests that the passport charges were trumped up. The FBI claimed that Coleman had asked for a copy of a birth certificate of a dead person, Thomas Leavy, with which to forge a false passport. The relevant authority at New London, Connecticut, however, insists that no person of that name was born at the time claimed by the FBI.
The entire case was invented. But why would a charge of passport fraud be invented unless to intimidate Coleman, and why would the authorities want to do that? Four days before his book was published, Coleman was indicted on another charge: perjury. The first count alleges that he falsely claimed to speak Arabic - which he speaks fluently.
Lester Coleman is not the only sceptic about the official version of the Lockerbie story who has suffered at the hands of the authorities. Juval Aviv, the president of Interfor, who carried out the inquiry for Pan Am and arrived at such extraordinary conclusions, has recently been charged with mail fraud. John Brennan, the President of the insurers for the now defunct Pan Am, has been charged with fraud.
Like Lester Coleman, Aviv insists that charges against him have been trumped up. All three investigations were started by the same assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of New York Court - yet neither Brennan nor Aviv have their businesses located in that district, and none of their alleged offences was committed there. All these instances of alleged state harassment came within a few weeks of a 90-minute Channel 4 programme on Lockerbie entitled The Maltese Double Cross. Produced by the American film-maker Allan Francovich, it was broadcast on May 11. It featured an interview with a relative of a passenger on the fatal flight called Khalid Jafaar. The relative stated that the boy had been duped by terrorists into taking the bomb on the plane in a bag he believed was carrying drugs. Francovich's film was dogged by continuous official obstruction and resistance.
When it finally got on the air, the Scottish Crown Office and the US Embassy took the unusual step of issuing a strongly-worded press release vigorously attacking the programme and the people who appeared in it. For years the same Crown Office had insisted that it was not the job of government to comment on media speculation about Lockerbie.
THE 'SUB JUDICE' STALEMATE
In the aftermath of The Maltese Double Cross, the stalemate returns. As soon as the indictments were revealed, the British and American governments insisted that the two Libyan suspects should be brought to trial in Scotland or the US. The Libyan government refused to release them. Feeble economic sanctions, not including an oil embargo, were imposed on Libya by the UN in a supposed bid to force the suspects out. Predictably, they have not worked. The Libyan government has, however, agreed to release the men to stand trial in a neutral country, such as the Hague in Holland or Switzerland.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in Pan Am 103 and who has campaigned ever since to find out what happened, asks: 'What is wrong with a trial in a neutral country? Why shouldn't both sides be treated fairly in Holland or Switzerland? There is talk all the time of the need for international courts - to try Bosnian war criminals for example. We want these men to stand trial. I've written again and again to British and American governments to ask why the Libyans can't be tried in a neutral country, but haven't had a satisfactory reply. In fact the US government hasn't replied at all.' There are many precedents in English law for shifting the place of a trial to avoid local prejudice against the accused. Why can't the same argument prevail at international level? One crucial effect of the stalemate caused by the Libyan indictments has been the deflection of all independent investigation into the Lockerbie disaster. 'We have the suspects,' is the official answer to all inquiries. 'The case is sub judice. No comment.' Many British relatives suspect that this official silence suits both governments. Their suspicions have been confirmed by two recent incidents.
THE SNUBBING OF ALLAN STEWART
No one served the conservative government more faithfully than Allan Stewart MP. He became a junior Minister in the Scottish Office in 1981, and he was still there in 1995. He resigned his post after an incident on a contested motorway site, in which he allegedly brandished an axe-handle against the protestors. Out of office, he decided to respond to Muslim constituents who were worried about government sanctions against Libya. He went to Libya and secured the agreement of the Gadaffi government to release the two suspects for trial before a Scottish judge and jury and according to Scottish legal procedures in a neutral country. At last was hope of a compromise, a break in the deadlock. The Libyan government's concessions were substantial. What possible objection could there now be against holding the trial in a neutral country? Back in the House of Commons, Stewart proposed an amendment to the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill then going through the Scottish Grand Committee. His amendment permitted cases to be heard by a Scottish judge and jury outside Scotland. It was voted down by the Labour and Tory members of the Committee - only one backbencher, Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, who for years has challenged the official version of the Lockerbie story, supported him.
THE US AUTHORITIES THROW IN THE TOWEL
Many families now suspect that the British and American authorities would be delighted if the Libyan suspects are never released, and there is never a trial. On June 8 a front page article in the Guardian quoted anonymous US officials saying that President Clinton had effectively given up on efforts to bring the two Libyans to trial.
Perhaps the most infuriating effect of the sub judice stalemate is the official silence. In the United States, attempts to get information about Lockerbie under the Freedom of Information Act have been constantly thwarted on grounds of national security. Only two important documents have been released, both after a delay of four years. In the prevailing silence, the relatives feel they are pawns being pushed around on the chess board of international power politics. The questions go on forever. Why did the police so recklessly tarnish Dr Fieldhouse? Why did Farmer Wilson's suitcase vanish? Why was there such a prompt official denunciation of the Helsinki warning as a hoax? Why was nothing done to respond to the clear warning issued to the American government about the terrorist danger to Pan Am? Why was the Jibril story, so convincing at the time, brusquely junked? What is there left of the Maltese connection? Why have the British and US governments refused a proper inquiry, and why will the Libyans not be brought to trial on neutral territory? Why, if its hands are clean on the matter, is the US government holding back information about the bombing of a civilian airliner? Ask all these questions together and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that someone in authority knows the answers, but won't disclose them. On February 16 1990, a group of British relatives, including Martin Cadman, went to the American Embassy in London for a meeting with the seven members of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism.
'After we'd had our say,'says Cadman, 'the meeting broke up, and we moved towards the door. As we got there, I found myself talking to two members of the Commission - I think they were Senators. One of them said: 'Your government and our government knows what happened at Lockerbie. But they are not going to tell you'.' It is hard to imagine a more serious charge, nor one which more requires the most urgent and relentless probing.
John Ashton was the chief researcher on Channel 4 documentary The Maltese Double Cross.
Labels: c-word, libya, lockerbie, paul foot
Complain about this comment
Trickypop
Thank you for taking the time to post that.
Complain about this comment
All of it is totally irrelevant. The investigation and trial are not at issue here. That was a matter for an appeal, not clemency. What's at issue is letting convicted mass murdering terrorists go free. That and whether the UK's government can be trusted to keep its promises even to governments of countries it likes to believe in its own deluded way Britain has a special relation with. Clearly it can't.
Scotch-git;
That's what I want President Obama to say;....Scotch....GIT! and take the rest of your fellow Brits with you...for 189 days.
Complain about this comment
As I said, trickypop, thanks for that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Post 56 complained about (yet again) and reinstated (yet again.)
Complain about this comment
#61, #63
Marcus,
It was nothing offensive, I assure you; merely a link to a Jerry Reed song.
I thought it funny.
The mods thought it a breach of copyright.
Go figure.......
Complain about this comment
Marcus, your post 54 ranks amongst the most sickening pieces of claptrap I've ever read. You justify the My Lai massacre with "the soldiers were scared and angry." They raped, mutilated and murdered a village full of people and then you ask where is my compassion for these beasts?
You then call Iran/Contra a "strictly internal affair." Is Iran in America? Were the Contras operating in America? (They certainly did their training there!!)
The most hopeful thing about the present row about Megrahi is that blog sites and newspaper letters' pages are filled with ordinary people who are angry at the utter hypocrisy of your country. The more you lot bleat about Megrahi, the more the world focuses its attention on your appalling track record. That has to be a good thing for the planet.
Complain about this comment
rjb;
Clearly you have never been in a war. I don't think you have any understanding of history. Clearly you have no understanding of the nature of the war between the USSR and what passes for the civilized world we live in and what was at stake. Clearly you have no understanding of the war between Islamic terrorism and what passes for the civilized world either. It is pointless for me to aruge with you about what you do not know or understand. Then know this. There has never been a war fought by anyone in which atrocities on both sides haven't been committed. But how many nations punish their own soldiers for what their own governmnt and the world call crimes of war? Name one? Perhaps Israel. I didn't say the massacre was excusible, I said it was understandable under the circumstances and that there were mitigating factors that argued for a less then severe sentence. The Viet Cong were anything but boyscouts.
Speaking about war crimes, has the commander of the British war ship that allowed the Iranian navy, if you can even call it a Navy board his ship and take fifteen British soldiers prisoner/hostage without a shot being fired to prevent it ever faced a court marshal? It seems to me that was a crime against the British nation especially since at least some of those servicemen and women were conscripts and not there out of choice.
I expect Congress to pass one of those resolutions condemning the Scottish government for its actions but without any effective actions of its own to demonstrate that there are real consequences to nations that exceed defined boundries beyond which they cannot go in their relations with the US no matter how close they think those relations are, it will be just that many more meaningless words.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
I know I'm stupid and need to learn a lot more. But please go easy on me. Here are some of the people who went to school with me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUO6AnH61BE
Complain about this comment
Scotch-git
Hmmmmm. You want President Obama to talk about people who drink scotch whisky then ? Whatever for ????? I assume you really meant to say Scotts Git, which would be the correct expression. An all to common mistake.
Complain about this comment
Hi William, My husband and I were greatly uplifted to read your article on mercy. we feel that Christians of ALL denominations should be pointing out that Christ did away with an eye for an eye and that we should turn the other cheek. We totally agree with you, practicing Christians if they are true to the teachings of Christ should be prepared t o show mercy as you say, better than the terrorist. This isn't being 'soft' it is being true to our faith and I am only surprised our church leaders ( of all denominations) haven't come forward to support Mr MacAskill in his decision.
Complain about this comment
#70 - donegaldame -
Concerning Christians and "mercy", what are your thoughts on Romans 13:4? This talks about the necessity of a nation operating a justice system: "For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practises evil."
Should we, as Christians, not bother with this? What about "mercy" towards the innocent victims of crime? If you show mercy to the evildoer, you are, by implication, showing a lack of mercy to the victims of that evildoer.
As a Christian I object to the idea of "unconditional forgiveness", when the Bible only talks about forgiveness being conditional on repentance. Some Christians seem to think that we should just be moral and spiritual doormats, open to all kinds of abuse and to never protest at evil and deceit. This is just self-deception and self-abuse. Jesus went to the cross - that is true. He also made a whip and violently drove the moneychangers out of the temple (and I won't even mention the acts of God in the OT!)
Complain about this comment
LSV
My main problem with the Megrahi case is that I firmly believe him to be innocent. (I also believe Kenny McKaskill and Alex Salmond believe the same.) Although politics will not allow them to say it.
Personally, if I thought Megrahi was the mass murderer, I am not sure that I would so quickly support his release, and thats taking into account Donegaldames post and the concept of mercy.
I dont think - outside God - there exists such a thing as unconditional mercy. It couldnt work.
Complain about this comment
LSV
I realise that you didn't ask me, but such are the risks we run on the www dot!
Yes a nation ought to do justice. This however does not exclude the possibility of mercy.
No we as Christians ought not to act with a lack of concern for justice or evil.
Mercy is not shown towards the innocent, the innocent are innocent and do not need it. And when the innocent suffer it is an injustice. But your question raises again what I raised in post 1, "The complication, of course, arises when we ask if it is possible to be both just and merciful, can we prevent injustice in showing grace?"
Conditional forgiveness isn't mercy, it a merited reward in recognition of doing the right thing.
Read William's last two paragraphs again.
Scandalous, isn't it!
Whether or not the particular decision in this case was or was not mercy, is another matter.
Complain about this comment
rjb #68
Now you know why the majority of them elected Barack Obama to be our President.
Complain about this comment
Yes MAII, I'm also beginning to change my mind on Megrahi. I think he was actually guilty... in a Guantanamo Bay kinda way.
Complain about this comment
#73 - petermorrow -
"Conditional forgiveness isn't mercy, it a merited reward in recognition of doing the right thing."
I can understand what you are saying, but it depends how we define "conditional". This word is often used to denote any action on the part of man, even the choice to accept a free gift. But there is a qualitative difference between a "work", for which one deserves to be paid, and the active willingness to receive a gift. It is absurd that when someone holds out his hand to receive a gift, the gift is then paid to him as a wage to reward him for stretching out his hand! But this is the implication of categorising the action of "receiving" as a "work" which deserves a reward.
But what if someone rejects the gift? Should it be forced on that person? Not according to the Bible. So therefore the reality of grace is conditional on someone being willing to receive it, and it is clear that a willingness to receive the grace and mercy of God involves "repentance". Thus "repentance" is a kind of "condition", but not in a meritorious sense.
There is an interesting, albeit disturbing, book called "Ungodly Fear" by Stephen Parsons. It is really a collection of true stories of abuse within the Christian church. One of these stories is titled: "Responding to the Problem of Sexual Violence" and concerns a woman called Rita (presumably not her real name) who was tricked by the pastor of a church into going on a long drive with him into the countryside where he raped her. While they were in the middle of nowhere he forced her to make an oath on the Bible that she would tell no one about what had happened, and, of course, since she was dependent on him to get her home, she felt she had no choice but to do this. This "oath" prevented her from going to the police about the incident and telling anyone for a few days (she was clearly in a traumatised state and wasn't thinking clearly enough to work out that this coerced oath had nothing to do with God). Eventually she shared her problem with other "Christians" in her fellowship and the almost universal reaction was "You just have to forgive this pastor and move on". Most "Christians" (and I again use inverted commas quite deliberately) she encountered started blaming her for the fact she was raped and were frankly living in denial. This pressure to just "unconditionally forgive" the disgusting and godless creature who did this to her nearly drove her to suicide.
My view is that this concept of forgiveness has nothing to do with God at all. It is not true forgiveness but an act of condoning evil, and therefore is evil.
This is why I do not accept the concept of "unconditional forgiveness". It is not a biblical concept, and if it were, then why is the Bible full of God's judgment?
Complain about this comment
Ref 71
Although your question is not directed at me, I felt that I should respond. I hope you don't mind. Having read the verse in Romans, it is not clear that Paul is referring to governmental authorities but is, more than likely, referring to the ruling authorities within the Church. It appears that early Christians needed to be more committed to living the Gospel than would be required by church leaders today. That’s not to say that the requirements have changed but rather men have diluted the standards. We no longer are required to live the teachings of Jesus such as found in the Sermon on the Mount or the teachings of James. Faith is enough for most.
Verse 6 is not referring to Kings, rulers or governments. They are not God’s ministers. I believe that Paul is telling the Roman Saints that they must be subject to their ecclesiastical leaders. Those who taught the Gospel were legal administrators who taught the doctrines of Christ and performed ordinances such as baptism, conferring the Holy Ghost, Lord’s Supper and so on.
As those with faith in Jesus it is important that we understand the scriptures with an unsullied perception. So, we should be concerned what the scriptures are telling us. But we need to be sure what they are really saying. My understanding is that as a victim of crime I should forgive those that have wronged me. Jesus, when he was on the cross, set me and us all an example when he said, referring to his torturers, mockers and murderers, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”. He reminded us that the second commandment is like onto the first. For, we cannot really love God if we don’t love our neighbours. And who are our neighbours? Well, Jesus told us the parable of the Good Samaritan. We all know it. To ensure we got the message He counselled us in the Sermon on the Mount saying, “But this I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:...” Matt. 5:44,45.
As victims, although we offer forgiveness, we cannot forgive a single sin. Only God can do that based on the wrong-doer repenting.
But if we are expected to love the wrong-doer and forgive them unconditionally, it is for at least four reasons. Firstly, the sinner is God’s child as well and He loves them as much as He loves you. Secondly, it grieves God that His child is lost or in the process of being lost to Him and He does not want you being equally unjust to that person. Thirdly, God wants you to become more and more like Him who has perfect love. Lastly, He doesn’t want you building up resentment toward that person and destroying your own spirituality. As I see it, when I forgive someone who wrongs me, it does not let them escape the consequence of that wrongdoing but it let me escape it. When we show mercy we are being Godlike.
The Bible does not just talk about forgiveness being conditional on repentance. You need to read it again.
With regards, ‘VIOLENTLY driving out the money changers’, there are a few things you should know. In Matthew, Mark and Luke it talks about Jesus going up to the temple with the masses who were hailing Him as a prophet. It mentions that the tables of the money changers and the seats of the dove sellers were overturned. It doesn’t say that He was VIOLENT. This has been a myth perpetrated a bit like that of the ‘three wise men’. Jesus never, ever lost his temper. Even the first time He cleansed the temple he made a whip of SMALL cords. Did He use this on those that were defiling the temple? Off course, not. He used the cords to drive out the animals, the way a farmer would. He must have sat placidly for a while plaiting the cords; hardly the behaviour of a violent person. Pouring out the money of the money-changers and overturning their tables in no way implies that He was in a frenzy. This was something that could be done in a composed manner. Read how he told the dove sellers, “take these things hence”. In no way did He harm man or beast.
Jesus, in Matthew, describes the mark of a person who will be numbered among His sheep when He returns. In 25:36 He says, “...I was sick and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came onto me” and when He is asked when this was done, He will reply, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (v40)
It’s important to have an eternal perspective when considering what you misunderstand about the God of the Old Testament.
In conclusion, I know the way Jesus would want us to treat a man with a terminal illness who is in jail – much in the same way you would like to be treated in a similar situation.
Complain about this comment
#77 - puretruthseeker -
I don't quite know how you justify your interpretation of Romans 13 - especially considering that verse 6 talks about paying taxes - a clear reference to the civil authorities.
In the example I gave in message 76 concerning the Christian who was raped by a church leader - do you think that someone in her position should not go to the police and seek to have the wrongdoer prosecuted?
Is that your idea of "forgiveness"? And suppose she just "forgave and forgot", do you think that the love of God has been manifested in this situation when this same man, who has got away with his crime, goes and rapes another innocent person? A very strange view of love, in my view!
Do you think that Jesus Christ has any relationship at all with the God of the Old Testament, who most definitely was "violent" in judgement? Need I quote the many passages which reveal this?
And do you think that the Apostle Paul was being "forgiving" when he said in Galatians that anyone who preaches any other gospel than the one he preached should be "accursed"?
Do you think that the book of Revelation reveals a God of unconditional forgiveness? Revelation 14:10 and 21:8, for example?
It is true that God loves all people and desires all people to be saved. But that love is not some kind of New Age "oneness" concept with no moral content at all. "Love" actually means something. It has a moral content, and therefore it judges those who reject its moral content. Therefore there is a "condition" attached to the operation of the love of God.
I just cannot see how it is possible to read the Bible and not accept this.
Complain about this comment
#77 -
"Jesus never, ever lost his temper. ... He must have sat placidly... "
One other thing further to my last comment...
You talk about myths. Here's another one: the myth of "gentle Jesus meek and mild".
Perhaps you would like to read Matthew chapter 23. OK, it may be true that Jesus "never lost his temper" in the sense that he was out of control, but Jesus most certainly did express great anger. He insulted the Scribes and the Pharisees with the following words:
SERPENTS
BROOD OF VIPERS
SONS OF HELL
HYPOCRITES
BLIND GUIDES
WHITEWASHED TOMBS WITH DEAD MEN'S BONES INSIDE
Sorry to use upper case letters, but I have to "shout" to get across to you the feel of what Jesus said. Jesus was NOT and is NOT the placid, meek, push-over, "anything goes and I'll just smile and forgive you", insipid, morally irresponsible, "couldn't give a hoot about the victims" type person that so many Christians are deluded into thinking he is!
Oh dear, I seem to have lost my temper...
Complain about this comment
Can compassion be angry, or can anger be compassionate?
What if anger is an indicator of what we really care about? What if anger is a major energy behind serious engagement with all that thwarts the will of God for people? What if the decision not to be angry is the trait of someone who doesn't know or care about God's deep and amazing grace?
What if anger is the expression of love against all that is unloving?
Complain about this comment
I will tell you how I justify my interpretation of Romans 13 – the clue is in the introduction, “Let every soul be subject to the HIGHER POWERS...” (emphasis added). Now as far as I’m concerned there is no higher power than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. None. There is also a problem with translations as I’m sure you appreciate. In my version of the Bible, it says tribute rather than taxes. Unfortunately, we do not have the exact words of Paul and the exact meaning; therefore, we must seek to understand the scriptures firstly by praying fervently for the Holy Ghost to open our understanding. Secondly, we must remain unbiased. Thirdly, we must allow ourselves to be taught. This works for me. Therefore, I believe it may be referring to tithes.
Regarding the rape, I think the woman should go to the police and have the incident investigated and if there is a case the law can prosecute. But I feel that, difficult though it may be, she should pray for that individual and in doing so, rid her heart of any hatred toward that person. In this way she will be able to forget quicker the horror that was inflicted on her and her life will be less affected thereafter. The alternative is to ruin her life with hatred and thoughts of revenge etc.
This is why we are counselled to forgive. God, as our maker, has provided us with instructions that will help us achieve happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. Let’s not rationalise those instructions. Let us have faith in them. If we exercise faith in them we will come to know they are true. Not so strange a view of love unless you are unaware of the words of Jesus.
Do I think that Jesus has any relationship with the God of the Old Testament? Why, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Jesus is Jehovah; His Father is Elohim whom He works under the direction of. You don’t need to quote me any scriptures as I’m well acquainted with them. However, you do need to understand that when a ‘people’ have gone as far away from God that there is no turning back, that people are ‘ripe’ to have their lives terminated as they have established their ‘reward’ and their removal from the earth is for the greater good. God does not hurt for selfish reasons but for the sake of righteousness.
When you read such verses as Paul saying such things do not read them with some ‘born-again’ preachers voice booming the words but as being delivered to a baby that is being gently rocked to sleep. Then you will understand how these words were meant to sound to us. Nevertheless, Paul did say that anybody who preaches another gospel should be accursed because they draw away those less strong and less committed; and they cause confusion which twarts the gospel of Jesus. Remember, the worth of souls is great in the sight of the Lord. Those who preach another gospel will be accursed. Whereas, those who have been fooled, by them, will receive mercy. Paul does not hate those people he refers to, neither does he not forgive them, “for they know not what they do”.
God never changes. As we must live by, “every word of God”, we must try to square all of Gods word to be able to come to know Him. When you think of wrath you may have this image of someone angry, fuming, shouting, swearing and so on. When I view God’s wrath, I do not see this image. Rather, I see the sad part of God with tears in his eyes having to do something that He knows is just; but which hurts Him because He loves those that have been disobedient and had not heeded Him who knew better.
Part of Revelations 14 talks about the difference between those that have strived to obey and those who were totally disobedient. The disobedient will have to pay their own price, whereas those who repented of their sin and who, through their faith and the grace of God benefitted through the atonement of Jesus will enjoy their rest. In 14:11 it says, figuratively, the smoke of their torment will rise up for ever and ever but it doesn’t say their punishment will be forever. In 21:8 it talks about a second death which those who have been disobedient will “suffer”. What could this second death be referring to? Well, it is after the books have been opened and all have been, “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works”. To me the first death is separation of the body from the spirit.
Jesus overcame death, through His death and resurrection, and so all mankind will benefit as a free gift of God and not be dismembered throughout all eternity. The second death that it refers to here is the separation of us from God. Only those who have accepted the Saviours atonement will benefit. Those who ignored the Saviours atonement will suffer the second death – cut off from the presence of God. However, at this stage all punishments will have been served and all mankind will live forever in a state that merits their adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who have been faithful will live in the presence of God and enjoy the existence that He does. Those who have not been faithful will not live in His presence but will be content, nevertheless, with their environment.
Reading over your words again, I need to point out that you cannot say Jesus was sinless and then accuse Him of being violent.
Also, you seem to forget about the Sermon on the Mount.
You forget about the attitude of Jesus when facing His tormentors while on the cross.
You forget about the Good Samaritan parable.
You forget about loving your enemies.
You forget about putting yourself in the position of Megrahi.
I could be forgiven for thinking that you are not a Christian at all.
Finally, You need to understand what love means. God told us to love our enemies because He does. Love is an eternal principal which has always been and will always be. God loves each of us and if He ever stopped He would cease to be God. He loves Hitler. He loves Fred West. He loves me. He loves you. He loves Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. I cannot see how it is possible to read the Bible and not accept this.
Complain about this comment
the god bothers are taking over the world, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
be back when they are gone.
Complain about this comment
Ref 79 logica_sine_vanitate
My post Ref 81 is in response to your post Ref 78
With regards the attitude of Jesus in the temple. If you were as angry as you claim Jesus was, would you be able to make a whip in a temper? How long would it take? Instead of a whip you may end up with a fan.
I will never stop viewing Jesus as meek. Re-read these words in your everyday voice.
SERPENTS
BROOD OF VIPERS
SONS OF HELL
HYPOCRITES
BLIND GUIDES
WHITEWASHED TOMBS WITH DEAD MEN'S BONES INSIDE
Don’t they come out like, “serpents, brood of vipers,...”
If you are a naturally angry person, try whispering them and you may get an idea how they were delivered. You see, it is your bias that thinks Jesus is being less than meek.
You don’t have to “shout” to get across to me what Jesus said, I know. What I also know is that your Jesus is different from the one I know and love. He is not a push-over, He is not anything-goes, He is not insipid, He is not morally irresponsible and He is not, couldn’t-give-a-hoot about victims, I agree. But He is placid and He is meek and He is just, merciful and forgiving. And, He never, ever lost His temper. He asked us to be like Him.
I hope you have recovered.
Complain about this comment
Ref 80 Auntjason
Anger is a valid emotion that even the most righteous possesses. The problem with anger is in the way it is expressed. Anger does not excuse us from being curteous, calm, controlled, etc. When our anger gives way to unrighteousness it becomes a sin. It upsets a law of Heaven. It flies in the face of God. Thus, we need to repent.
Complain about this comment
As I see it, the demands of justice have already been met in this case. For instance, he has been apprehended, tried and found guilty (that's if he really was, but assuming he was). He was sentenced to remain in jail for a long time. His victims (in this case the relatives) must have felt to some degree that justice had been served. It would be hoped that over time that those victims had come to terms with what happened. A new consideration has arose that now needs consideration. Thats is, he has very little earhtly time to live.
As this man is about to die, as we are told, should we continue to detain him and, if necessary, keep him alive even by artificial means until his sentence is complete? Would this satisfy the demands of justice? Should we deprive him of medication and treatment, thus advancing his demise until he dies detained in a brick box of our choosing? Would this satisfy the demands of justice?
When Jesus went into the Garden to take upon Him the sins of the world, did HE not take upon Himself the full sentence for every sin committed to that time and every sin thereafter?
We are told He was in an agony, as i have described earlier, and was for quite some time given that His disciples fell asleep a number of times. So, was the demands of justice satisfied in His case? Well, they had to be or else Jesus has not paid the price for the sins of the world and hence, He could not be the Saviour. However, they were met and He is the Saviour.
To listen to some "christian" comments on this blog and other media, I think that if such people had their way, Jesus would still be in the Garden.
Complain about this comment
PNJ
recently read the book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. Quite an interesting read, and it provides a very good argument that rape in humans is an evolved feature. It makes me wonder why there is so much opposition to this idea (even in academic circles).
The two authors disagree on whether rape is more likely to be an adaptation or a by-product of some other adaptation(s), and the evidence they present is quite inconclusive in this matter. But it the evidence is quite strong that it is an evolved behavior.
Here's a basic outline of the argument:
1. We are an evolved species, therefore everything about us is a result of evolution.
2. Of the four evolutionary mechanisms, only an adaptation or a by-product of an adaptation can account for behaviors that are both relatively common in a species and high in cost. Rape is high in cost, ergo it is either an adaptation or a by-product.
3. Women have specific psychological adaptations in response to rape (specifically the psychological pain involved), indicating that rape has occurred relatively consistently for thousands of generations.
4. Our nearest relatives, the other great apes, have been observed to rape.
Is genetic determinism compassionate?
Complain about this comment
evoape why dont you just say whatever it is you want to say.
Complain about this comment
Puretruthseeker,
Post 85:
PTS Said:
"When Jesus went into the Garden to take upon Him the sins of the world, did HE not take upon Himself the full sentence for every sin committed to that time and every sin thereafter?"
Is it not true he loves the elect and endures the reprobate? *see ROM 9*
So you think Christ died for the sins of Megrahi and Hitler?
Why would he atone for their sins, if he *knew* they would be lost?
"I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9b).
Complain about this comment
PNJ
Is genetic determinism compassionate?
Complain about this comment
What do you mean?
Complain about this comment
evoape you should ask auntjason puretruthseeker or logica_sine_vanitate they will know.
Complain about this comment
Have you read Dawkins on the selfish gene?
Gentic determinism is related to this.
Compassionate evoultionary determinism can it be said to have compassion.
Complain about this comment
PNJ
It's more relavant to a women.
Complain about this comment
auntjason
Is genetic determinism compassionate?
Complain about this comment
Evoape said:
Is genetic determinism compassionate?
In regards to rape you mean?
That is an oxymoron, how can evolution be compassionate.
There is nothing compassionate about natural selection in regards to rape, in fact compassion can not really exsist.
Gentic determinism is a monstrous thought, and evoultion is the theatre
in which it operates.
It's not a very nice thing to say evoape, that a women is raped because our primates done it for survival.
So what your saying is those less evolved ie rapists act this way because their gentics are lagging behind the more superior in society.
Is genetic determinism compassionate?
The question does not even make sense compassion does not exsist in genetic determinism.
So my answer is NO
Complain about this comment
puretruthseeker
Post 81, paragraph 2, you say, "she should pray for that individual and in doing so, rid her heart of any hatred toward that person.
And she's going to do that, how?
And now I'm about to click the 'Post Comment' button, and then regret it.
Complain about this comment
#81 - puretruthseeker -
"Finally, You need to understand what love means. God told us to love our enemies because He does. Love is an eternal principal which has always been and will always be. God loves each of us and if He ever stopped He would cease to be God. He loves Hitler. He loves Fred West. He loves me. He loves you. He loves Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. I cannot see how it is possible to read the Bible and not accept this."
Puretruthseeker - please quote one comment that I have made which in any way suggests that I do not believe that God is love and that He loves His enemies - or that I do not understand what love means.
You say that God loves Hitler. Yes, I agree. That is why Hitler will be tormented for all eternity because the reality of the love of God is something which (I assume from the record of history) he hates. Love is a cruel flame to those who reject it. "It is a fearful thing to fall INTO the hands of the living God" (note that the Scripture says "into" not "out of" - so the whole idea of hell being a place without God is nonsense). The God of everlasting love is torment to those who reject that love. No amount of God loving the unrepentant person will diminish their torment, since that person has failed to fulfil the condition God laid down for his or her salvation, which is repentance. This is an irrefutably biblical doctrine.
All I have said is that love has a moral content - any problems with that? There are consequences to rejecting that moral content which result in the judgment of God - do you agree with that or not?? Therefore the love of God itself has within itself judgement (if that were not the case it would not have a moral content). If all we are supposed to do is unconditionally forgive people without there being any kind of reciprocal remorse or repentance, then "love" simply condones evil, and is therefore meaningless.
You seem to suggest that I am bitter against people I am refusing to forgive. But this kind of "forgiveness" to resolve personal stress is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a concept of forgiveness which undermines justice - the kind of forgiveness that Rita in the story I mentioned was being encouraged by fellow Christians to exercise towards the man who raped her. In reality they couldn't cope with what she had gone through and were just hiding behind the doctrine of forgiveness as a way of fobbing her off - this is a view she actually discerns in relating her story. I agree with her completely.
This glib and crass attitude of expecting her to get over her bitterness and hurt (almost immediately after the abuse) by just "forgiving" is the kind of evasion that so many Christians seem to engage in. Some Christians seem to have a simple answer for every problem, as a way of avoiding real issues. Sorry, mate, but I live in the real world - as did the Lord Jesus Christ, and you cannot just hide behind a simple principle of forgiveness to ride roughshod over other people's hurts, pains and distress. These things have to be worked through with great understanding and sensitivity. Anything else is just a nonchalant way of avoiding having to really "love" other people. Some people do have great hurts and bitterness as a result of abuse, and the answer is to spend time dealing with these issues rather than just holding someone at arm's length and preaching at them (in whatever tone of voice - preferably not mealy-mouthed) about some superficial concept of forgiveness. Of course there is a true understanding of forgiveness rooted in the love of God which deals properly with evil. Never does true godly forgiveness treat evil - and the personal hurts that evil causes - in a glib manner.
Now are you really saying that I do not understand "love" or "the (costly) love of God"? Are you really suggesting that, in order to be a true Christian, I must believe in a concept of love which effectively condones evil - or at least treats it lightly and without the appropriate justice and anger ("be angry and do not sin", as the Scripture says)?
You can question my Christianity to your heart's content if you like. I have learnt from contributing on this blog that I am utterly powerless to change what goes on "between the ears" of other people. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. I am more concerned about what God thinks than your opinion about me (with all due respect!).
#80 - auntjason -
"What if anger is the expression of love against all that is unloving?"
Spot on!
Complain about this comment
LSV- You have a very different understanding of love - and grace - than I do. You fail to extend the grace of God to men who did evil things like Hitler because you say he deserves to be tormented in eternity. Yet that is precisely why Jesus died in Christian theology, is it not?, to atone for the sins of Hitler and thus justify him in the eyes of God. Grace, as William says above, is an act of compassion which treats someone much more compassionately than they deserve. Jesus took the wrath and justice of God so Hitler didn't have to, right? So why, exactly, is Hitler still going to burn for eternity? Was Jesus' sacrifice not enough to atone for him?
Complain about this comment
#98 - John_Wright -
I didn't say anything about Hitler "deserving" torment. I am not talking about law, I am talking about reality. What if Hitler enters eternity hating the love of God? What if the very reality of the presence of God is "hell" for someone whose heart is full of evil? This is Hitler's choice. How can God force someone to love or be loved?
What if there are people who, because of their pride, damn themselves? Doesn't the concept of "love" imply freedom and therefore the possibility that it can be rejected? We seem to assume that anyone, no matter how evil or insane, will gladly accept "love". I question that presupposition. Some people are so full of self-love that they could never accept the love of God, irrespective of how much God loves them.
Complain about this comment
Ref 88 auntjason
Jesus and God the Father love each and every one of us. It appears, like all those who believe in predestination you misconstrue the scriptrures. When it says, “For God so loved the world ...” He did not say, “For God so loved the Elect...” Those whom Are predestined are those such as Moses, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, Elisha, John the Baptist Abraham, Jacob, Israel and many people whom He knew from before this world was. It doesn’t mean that He hates the rest of us. I concede that in v13 it is written, “...Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. And it is true that the Greek word has a similar meaning to the one we use for hate. However, if you take the trouble you will find that Paul is quoting a phrase from Malachi 1:3. Here the word translated from Hebrew has a variety of shades. They include, “rejection”, “strong displeasure”, or more commonly, “loving less than”.
I don’t really want to get into a debate about predestination but I will refer to a few of many scriptures that speak of the Saviours’ sacrifice as universal.
I John 2:2 states, “He was a propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”
1 Tim. 2:3-4 states, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Peter 3:9 states, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repent.
Yes I believe that Jesus suffered for the sins of Hitler, Megrahi and every person who has ever lived. It wasn’t a matter of atoning for the sins of some He had to atone for the sins of us all.
In John 17, Jesus is praying, what has become known as the “great intercessory prayer”. It was a specific prayer for the Apostles and the Saints. We cannot conclude from it that He doesn’t love all and that His sacrifice doesn’t covers all.
Complain about this comment
#100 - puretruthseeker -
You might be surprised to know that I actually agree with every word of this post of yours.
However, as I have said elsewhere, I do believe that the love God has for everyone can be rejected, and this rejection does not imply that God has somehow "failed". The "success" of God is in creating creatures with free-will.
Complain about this comment
ref 96 petermorrow
I thought it was obvious. However, here is an example what she could do.
Initially, she would come to a realisation that she need to rid herself of the lingering pain of such an evil act perpetrated on her. She also needs to come to the realisation of the tragic state of her attacker. She needs to realise that despite his outward appearence of accepted "holiness" he is degenerate and lost. She needs to ask God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ to help her to have compassion on this person so as she does not harbour any resentment toward him. Eventually, she needs to tell God that she forgives him and ask that the memory will be removed from her.
I'm not saying that this would happen 5 minutes after the act but sometime during the "grieving period".
I'm reluctant to elaborate any futher seeing I detect you regret asking me, given my detailed responses.
Complain about this comment
LSV,
Most of what you have said about the need to do justice, and love having a moral aspect, and the kind of forgiveness which undermines justice I can agree with. And, I would certainly agree that failing to seek justice for someone like 'Rita' and expecting her to 'just forgive' is to heap guilt on top of abuse, spiritual and emotional abuse on top of physical abuse. Forgiveness does not ignore the courts. It's why I'm interested to know how puretruthseeker thinks a victim like this is going to "pray for that individual and in doing so, rid her heart of any hatred toward that person."
However, mercy goes further than justice, note that I said further, meaning that justice must first be done in order that mercy might be extended and so, when John raises the issue of Jesus and atonement, I must agree with him too. I understand mercy to be that, which for no reason other than generosity on the part of the giver, sets the guilty free, it is, as I said, scandalous, but it is not unjust.
What that means in terms of specific people, or who will and who will not love God, I'm just not prepared to say anymore. The best I can do is get my religious/social/moral performance looking good (all Pharisees are good at that :-) ) and I certainly can't read a person's heart, or change such.
What I think I can say is that mercy is dangerous, we should not speak of it lightly, when properly understood and without consideration of Jesus it's going to look unfair, but it provokes love in return and it provokes and encourages a seeking after that which is righteous. Whether or not I am one of these people is another matter entirely but I've certainly learned to refrain from extolling the virtue of my 'faith' or my repentance.
And, in the middle of all this talk of justice, I think we ought to remember that Christian theology is also more than a judicial theology; it is also communal, social, relational and without these aspects the rehabilitation of the guilty and the healing of the victim will be less likely to take place.
The scandal of Christianity seems to be that without alienating the victim, it retains hope for the guilty, and promises that both will be renewed.
Complain about this comment
Puretruthseeker
First up the 'regret' bit wasn't aimed at you personally, it was, rather, a, 'I'm not sure if I want do go down this road', thought.
Now, you say it is obvious, and go on to say, "she would come to a realisation", "She also needs to come to the realisation ", "She needs to realise", "She needs to ask God... to help her", and "Eventually, she needs to tell God that she forgives him".
And it seems to me that this victim is going to have to realise and do quite a lot. I recognise your comment that this might take time, but my question remains, though I shall reword it slightly, How is she going to do all this realising?
I'm more than happy for you to elaborate, apologies for the misunderstanding.
Complain about this comment
Post 100
response to pure truth seeker.
Did God choose you, or did you choose God?
So is Moses and Jacob and the superstars of the Bible elected and *the rest of us* offered a choice?????????
John 3:16 actually says for whosoever *believes* and as dead men cannot believe then it is indeed the elect..
The all and world verses do not really prove your point.
World in regards to sin simply means he defeated all sin.
All in most cases means that instead of theocratic Israel being the only ones who could be saved we now have all the nations included.
As far as Rom 9 goes do you think it's loving to love esau less??????????
Also on the romans 9 point you know as well as I do about vessels made for destruction.
If Chrsit loves all, and died for all, he has taken their sin and guilt appeasing the father so it's settled, only one problem, all are not going to be saved.
Surley you believe God knows the future and who is going to be saved.
Your more in tune with catholicism in that you believe God offers salvation to all, and *we* choose him.
This is why you hold to this notion that God loves the reprobate, he does not.
Why did he wipe out and indeed command Israel to wipe out men women and children in the OT?
Complain about this comment
ref 97 logica_sine_vanitate
Let me quote you, when you state or imply a certain characteristic about God or Jesus that would negate their claim to have perfect love for us all.
Ref 71 He also made a whip and violently drove the moneychangers out of the temple (and I won't even mention the acts of God in the OT!) – (so He acted violently too?)
Ref 78 ...the God of the Old Testament, who most definitely was "violent" in judgement? Need I quote the many passages which reveal this? (this makes God appear like a rogue – Luther would have been proud of you)
Ref78 Do you think that the book of Revelation reveals a God of unconditional forgiveness? (If it does then He is not a God of love)
Ref 78 ...there is a "condition" attached to the operation of the love of God. (really?)
Ref79 He insulted the Scribes and the Pharisees with the following words:...(a sin?)
Ref97 Love is a cruel flame to those who reject it. (are we talking of vindictiveness here?)
When Jesus was on the cross and prayed for His tormentors, was the forgiveness that He was pleading for to His Father based on conditions? No, it wasn’t. Do you understand this?
After teaching His disciples how to pray, He warned, “But if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive your trespasses”. Do you understand this?
It seems to me that your construction of God is a bit like yourself only bigger and more powerful.
The God whom I know has the most perfect love for all His children.
It appears to me that the God I love is different to the one you do.
Is it any wonder that I do not think that you believe that God is love and that He loves His enemies - or that I do not understand what love means?
When I get more time, I will get back to you in response to the rest of your post.
Complain about this comment
I will reply to all posts when time permits. Sorry
Complain about this comment
puretruthseeker
I am reluctant to take issue with you because, almost alone on the blog, you appeared to me to call attention, albeit indirectly, to the essentially Satanic character of the ministry of WWMT.
The failure of those evangelic Christians whose opinions I respect to address the nature of that Church and to deny that it has any part in Jesus does greater damage to His gospel than the all the prating and bickering of its members and former members. I do not see how the bile emating from WW can do Christianity any real harm as it evidences its true origin all too clearly.
However, your portrayal of Jesus is nothing short of a travesty: Jesus was a radical, a threat to both the civic and religious establishments; His love is consuming, passionate, intense, and His indignation at injustice, indifference and hypocrisy SHOUTS!
Moreover your comment # 102 is one of the most ill-informed and dangerous postings I have ever read. You can have no idea what it might feel like to be the victim of a rape or you could not write such glib and facile nonsense. How dare you say what she needs to do! The path to recovery from trauma has no "needs to". It's a very individual journey, for some it will involve forgiveness, for some it will not. Your formulaic fix-it recipe could actually damage a victim and betrays a quite staggering lack of empathy.
You questioned LSV's Christianity (I question many people's) - I suggest you sit down and think if you have any conception of what the love you talk about really means.
Complain about this comment
John - your concept of Hitler burning for all eternity is rather out of date. You may not have heard Rowan William's latest musings on Hell but he envisages something much worse than burning.
He said "My concept of Hell is being stuck with myself forever with no way out". I was amazed at this rare identity of his vision and mine for my concept of Hell is also being stuck with Rowan Williams for ever with no way out.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought, but does anyone know when Portwyne is back from his trip?, or perhaps he has already returned.
Complain about this comment
PTS
your post #102 is a shocker. I have argued on other threads that religious people (of a certain ilk) should be kept well away from vulnerable people.
OT's character who was gay, but didnt want to be. A man whose 'condition' (predicament) would be made far worse by interfering religious fundamentalists quoting them chapter and verse corruptly.
The orphaned kids in Rumania who not only have to come to terms with having no parents, but now have to contend with being thumped on the head with someone's poisoned version of the Bible every day of their lives.
Now we have a woman who, not only has to contend with the rape, the medical intrusions, the police interrogation, the lawyers in court calling her a tart and telling everyone that she wanted it, now she is going to be made to feel guilty because she is being told that the right thing to do is to forgive - for her own good!!
I have been sickened by some of the so called Christians on here, especially in the last two months!! 90% of them would be doing themselves (and God) a favour if they chucked their Bibles in a dustbin or used it as a door stop, stopped attending the churches where their heads are filled with this clap-trap and started again.
Maybe like the Israelites in exile where there was no Temple any more, no spoon feeding, no religion on a plate. Where they had to start 'seeking' God again and from where, stemmed the Psalms.
If you want to help the gay man, the orphan or the raped woman, give them what THEY need, and for no other reason than they need. Or better still, just stay away from them.
Complain about this comment
Peter
Not sure about Portwyne but I got the impression that he wont be back for some time yet.
I however, will be going away. You know something of my situation. It has been extremely difficult to find any kind of employment here, my reputation went before me.
However, just got interviewed for a chaplaincy post in London... and got the job. If there is a cloud ten, I'm on it!! There is a God.
And, it is a job simply meeting the human needs of the forgotten poor. No sermons, no proselytising, just lovin' 'em. Right up my street.
Complain about this comment
RJB - I am so glad to hear your news! I pray you yourself will fully enjoy the blessing you will undoubtedly bring to others.
I think Peter, however, has indeed had what we might call a Rabboni moment. Illness brought me back almost a month ago I am afraid. (I think, however, I will survive).
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
I can understand your point about me commenting on the rape but for your information, I was sexually abused as a child. I have only learned to forgive more recently because of what I have come to know about Jesus Christ. Sadly, I didn't have this option when I was a child because it wasn't taught to me. I hope you understand now.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
It certainly feels like a blessing. I thought my life as a going concern was over. This came at me from nowhere. Being in the gutter these past years was awful, but what a humbling experience. (The people in the dole office gave me a round of applause and a box of sweets last week when they found out. Can you imagine that? It was a truly sacred and holy moment.)
The pulpit will be a very different place in which to stand for the rest of my life.
I so agree with your description of the radical Jesus. Who would crucify a Jesus who went around Palestine helping senior citizens cross the road and patting children on the head? It doesnt make sense.
He was a threat and was certainly seen by many as a political agitator, trouble maker and threat to the powers that be.
As Jose Miranda observed, the prescribed punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. Crucifixion was reserved for political transgressors.
When I began to consider Jesus' life in this way, his words became something very different indeed and changed me as a person.
One of the most outstanding and consistant themes in the gospel is Jesus' unrelenting criticism of self-righteous, uncaring, scheming hypocrisy. Another, his tender love for the poor (regardless of the so called 'sin' he saw in them.)
Yet so much of Christianity today still targets the perceived sinner. Even when this is pointed out to them, they still justify themselves, often using the scriptures to do so.
I am always wary of those who proclaim, "Yes, I am a sinner." I know that my sin is going to be highlighted next.
Complain about this comment
PTS
Out of the pain of your past the most you can say is, "This is how I coped. This is how I found an ability to forgive."
As soon as you stray into, "The raped woman needs to..." "The raped woman should...." you are moving into dangerous territory.
As someone once said, "Have you ever been 'should upon' from a great height?
Complain about this comment
Forgiveness I believe heals the soul of the afflicted, but the offender is *NOT* forgiven until he repents and bears the fruit of repentance.
That however does not mean we should allow bitterness and hatred to consume our hearts.
Not forgiving someone, is a whole lot different than hating them.
Even Jesus refused to forgive in certain circumstances.
Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will *not* be forgiven.
Hebrews 10:26-29: "For we—sinning wilfully without compulsion after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?"
Forgiveness and repentance *cannot* be seperated.
Yes we *love* our enemies, but it's not loving to allow them to continue hurting people without remorse.
-J
Complain about this comment
Post 114 PTS
Sorry to hear about the henious sins that you endured.
I know a little about that myself, but the thing is this, whilst we may rid ourselves of the bitterness and hatred of the abusers, forgiveness can only really be granted by Christ, as it is he who will judge each individual.
We are all victims & perpetrators at the same time, so those of us who understand our own sin, tend to be easy on anothers sin.
There is a danger though, in that we tend to make light of sin when God does not.
Repentance as I have said cannot be seperated from forgivness neither for that matter can justice.
Unless sinners find that the just died for the unjust Christ will never forgive them, and neither should we.
There is a real difference between forgiving a brother in Christ and forgiving an unbeliever, because a true brother in Christ should not be able to anything else but repent and make things right with those he sinned against,because the spirit within him will drive him to do it.
Anyway my prayer for you PTS is that what happened to you will make you stronger and I will be praying for you and I mean that.
-J
Complain about this comment
Don't mind him sir he's mu, mu mad and daft
Complain about this comment
puretruthseeker - my profound apologies for the upset I have caused you - I am entirely at fault. I should have seen something of your story from your conceptualisation of Jesus.
You have met Jesus and you speak accurately and movingly of the Jesus you know: the gentle shepherd, the tender friend, the one who binds the broken heart and makes the wounded spirit whole. When we encounter our Lord in pain or distress He meets us in our need and the face we see is the face which answers that need.
As our wounds heal in Him we can see that Jesus is more than the answer to our individual needs: in Him is the answer to the needs of the whole world. He is not one or two dimensional, he is multi-dimensional. To come to understand that the gentle and loving Jesus could be moved to momentous wrath and indignation, when such was merited, does not diminish Him nor does it negate His tenderness. I would say rather it contextualises His love, it makes it more dear and more precious.
When you look at Jesus you see one face and RJB sees another and yet both are the face of Christ. You would appear to need His love but if, say, RJB needed His anger would you deny it to him?
I was harsh in my post and again I apologise but it is important that I reiterate my primary concern. I considered your post extremely dangerous, I still do: indeed I think the danger is even greater than that I originally recognised because your experience might tend to give your opinions weight.
It is all too common for a person emerging from any adversity to see the solution which worked for them, indeed the detail of that solution as a panacea - a universal remedy applicable to every other even vaguely similar situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. All our experiences are unique, all our responses are individual: there few things more harmful to someone than being told what they need to do or, worse, how they need to feel.
Your overcoming of the evil that was done to you is potentially a source of great benefit to others but paradoxically it could also do great damage and hinder the healing of another. I implore you, until you have travelled much further down the road you now tread, be careful of what you say, be careful of when you say it, and most of all be careful of how you say it.
That is a much needed lesson our exchange has reinforced very strongly for myself - thank you.
Complain about this comment
#117 - auntjason -
"Forgiveness I believe heals the soul of the afflicted..."
I would say yes and no. It is clear to me from my own experiences, and has been highlighted by this discussion, that there is such a thing as counterfeit forgiveness, which is highly destructive. Let me explain...
Firstly, I am not wishing to be insensitive to anyone's traumatic experiences, and I speak as someone who has also experienced sexual abuse as a child at the boarding school I attended. I have had other pretty grim experiences in life, so this is not a subject of purely academic interest to me.
There is an intense pressure on Christians to just "forgive" in a kind of automatic way, without really thinking through what forgiveness really entails. True forgiveness is a response to the remorse of the wrongdoer. In Luke 17:3 Jesus said: "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and IF he repents, forgive him." The implication, of course, is that you may rebuke him and it is possible that he then may not repent. You are then under no obligation to forgive him, since it is clear from what Jesus explicitly said that forgiveness is a response to repentance.
Now the common retort to this is that we still have to forgive an unrepentant offender as it will help us overcome our own feelings of bitterness and hatred. My experience has taught me the precise opposite of this.
Some years ago I was in a small Christian fellowship which was, to say the least, highly manipulative and there were many hurts I suffered. Despite the intense psychological wrench (due to the feelings of guilt at walking away from such a place) I managed to get out of that fellowship and move away from the city where I was living. For a number of years afterwards I found it difficult to put the experience behind me precisely because I felt under a massive "guilt-trip" to crawl back and express to this manipulative (and utterly unrepentant) pastor how much I forgave him. Any problem I encountered would lead me to think that I was being punished by God for being so "unforgiving". It was only after a long period of this that I came to the point of understanding (much in accordance with the sense of many of the Psalms) that I didn't HAVE TO forgive someone who was unrepentant. It was actually this realisation which liberated me from any bitterness and anger!!! The monkey was off my back.
I am not suggesting that we should hate or take revenge. I was not interested in taking revenge or anything like that. But it is surely wrong for a victim to feel under relentless psychological pressure to "forgive" the one who has wronged them, when that person refuses to truly and utterly repent.
Complain about this comment
LSV- Sorry to have been a little late with this response, but...
"This is Hitler's choice. How can God force someone to love or be loved?"
It's Hitler's choice to go to hell. It's our choice if we reject God's love and go to hell for doing so. Right?
I'd suggest you think a little harder about this. You make it sound as though God makes the truth of himself easily and readily available, extending an obvious hand to everyone and that people, in the knowledge of God and who he is, choose to reject it. That is evangelical poppycock. The reality is that most people are rejecting not the truth of God but the very hypothesis that there is a God (or a God like the one Christians describe). I believe in a God myself, certainly, but not one who hides himself so much as to make his very existence ambiguous and then sees to it that those who fail to deny their powers of reasoning to claim certainty in the uncertain are tortured for all eternity; no, I don't buy into that proposition. It is a proposition which delivers neither love nor justice.
Complain about this comment
post 121 LSV:
When I said forgivness heals the soul I was taking into account the perpetrator would have repented.
Although forgiveness is in the power of victim and it is the victim has control.
It's strange how when we are abused we feel we should appologise.
I think it's the undue respect we have for Pastors and let them away with abusesimply because they are in power.
I totally agree and have been through similar experiences to you in controlling churches.
I hope you are doing well now my friend and pressing on for Christ.
-J
Complain about this comment
#122 - John_Wright -
I happen to agree with what you're saying, because I don't accept the idea that salvation is dependent on coming up to some kind of doctrinal standard. I am not talking about that at all, and, in fact, I believe that much evangelicalism is simply a Christian form of gnosticism - all about what you believe rather than what you are.
I certainly do not accept that anyone suffers punishment at the hand of God because of ignorance (as Jesus said: "Forgive them Father for they do not know what they are doing"). But what about the reality of what people actually "are" in their hearts? This has nothing at all to do with people being condemned on the basis of original sin, and that they haven't come up to some kind of evangelical doctrinal standard.
If, for example, Hitler was an atheist, would God condemn him for that reason? I think not. Or if he subscribed to a non-Christian religion? No. But how can a person who is, in reality, evil (for whatever reason) feel comfortable in the presence of a God, who represents everything that that person hates? Isn't evil a reality? And doesn't that reality have consuquences? Why do people commit mass murder? Is it because they are ignorant, or because of some more fundamental rejection of at least some light that God has put into their life?
Whatever our views about hell, and whether it is figurative or eternal or whatever, I think this discussion relates to whether we actually believe that "evil" is a reality, or just the result of poor education and upbringing. Is a mass murderer simply a misguided and therefore "innocent" victim of his environment. I personally think not.
There are fundamental moral choices which do have permanent consequences.
Complain about this comment
I have been used, among other things, to some quite combative exchanges on this blog, which may go some way to explaining my 'throwing down the gauntlet' to you, Pruetruthseeker. In that I already had my own answer to my own question, I have been somewhat disingenuous, so apologies, and, being unable to do much else on a web forum, might I extend my sympathies to you in light of your experiences.
To LSV aswell, I am sorry to hear of your trauma too.
Might I suggest though that those among our company who have experienced deep emotional and physical pain proceed with caution in terms of such disclosure on the world wide web. Others here may be able to sympathize, even empathize, but there are limits to the response which can be offered, and it may be wise to be frugal with such personal details; you though will know your own limits best.
To Pruetruthseeker then, it may be helpful if I relate the answer to my own question and in doing so withdraw my hasty challenge.
I asked, how might someone realise all you suggested and find a measure of healing.
Well, first up, I do not think there is any single answer, much less a theological or spiritual formula, which I fear we Christians offer too often. However my earlier comment, "Christian theology is also more than a judicial theology; it is also communal, social, relational and without these aspects the rehabilitation of the guilty and the healing of the victim will be less likely to take place." in post 103, outlines the context in which I think restoration may come.
I am deeply persuaded that the careful construction of a community of love, forgiveness and support is essential to the 'salvation' of each of us. Indeed it is essentially what I understand the church to be. If only, I think at times, if only we could suspend our church structures and programmes and 'must dos' and speak with one another. Take time with one another. If only we could listen to one another, maybe the hurt, the broken, the fearful, the 'whatever' could find a place to rest. I am deeply convinced that to 'work out' and 'kick about', and 'wrestle with' our hopes and fears and hurts and guilt and what we call the word of God is the way God intended the church to work. And so I suppose, my answer is that there are no easy answers, no 'magic wands', few miracles; but what there is, is the possibility of a company of God's people, championing hope, extending grace, extravagantly, recklessly even, empowering the poor, strengthening the weak, embracing the outcast, seeking the lost, loving one another, forgiving one another, serving together, worshipping together, mesmerised by the idea of what we might call the Kingdom of God.
RJB
Glad to hear your news. I trust you will find fufillment. You will be in my prayers.
Parrhasios
I trust you are recovering well.
Were the clues you left deliberate?
Is your name a spelling test?
Complain about this comment
Peter
1. Thank you, I am still recovering and beginning to feel better.
2. Utterly deliberate. I wondered how long it would take and who would suss... (I was right in my surmise about the latter).
3. I believe some people spell it with a 'u' so, appropriately for me, in any test there would be more than one correct answer. On an aside I was flabbergasted when I tried that anagram finder gizmo to discover that (quite without conscious intention) Parrhasios is an anagram of "Is so xxx" where xxx is my first infantile attempt to pronounce my own name, an effort which became the family nickname still used by my nearest and dearest to this day.
Complain about this comment
LSV-
It appears we share more in common than I thought! Well, certainly these are all good questions. I think evil does exist, and I think it's hard to accept that we can't tell the difference between small evil (taking a dollar from mother's purse) and large evil (Hitler). The problem comes when you pose the kinds of questions I asked in #98:
"Yet that is precisely why Jesus died in Christian theology, is it not?, to atone for the sins of Hitler and thus justify him in the eyes of God. Grace, as William says above, is an act of compassion which treats someone much more compassionately than they deserve. Jesus took the wrath and justice of God so Hitler didn't have to, right? So why, exactly, is Hitler still going to burn for eternity? Was Jesus' sacrifice not enough to atone for him?"
I don't think it sits very comfortably with people the idea that Hitler may be saved from the justice that he so richly deserves. But that is the very message of Christianity, and what made it so utterly revolutionary.
On the other question:
"...this discussion relates to whether we actually believe that "evil" is a reality, or just the result of poor education and upbringing. Is a mass murderer simply a misguided and therefore "innocent" victim of his environment."
Often it may be a mix. Hitler apparently lacked the kind of conscience that most of us possess, for whatever reason. People can do things knowing full well the damage they will do. It is also true that the 'standards' of evil in a person's experience will influence how they act. In short, it's a complex story. I personally think too complex for such a simple theology of justice.
Complain about this comment
I have been giving some thought to what has been written here, especially how there have been those who have jumped too quickly to conclusions and admitted or sounded angry regarding my comments. Any thing I have said in this blog since i have began posting has either come from my reading of the scriptures, a limited number of commentaries that concur with my conclusions from what I have read, google searches to check some facts and my own personal experience. I feel that I have spoken honestly and candidly. I have come to the conclusion that I am going to withdraw from making an input as I believe my comments seem to cause offence where no offense was intended. Before I do, however, I feel that I must respond to 10 recent posts. As I am rather busy right now, I will do so when time permits. Goodnight.
Complain about this comment
Guys,
When we talk about Hitler having no conscience etc.., and forgiveness being a process, is it not true that evil is a process too. Isnt a lack of conscience a progressive thing, a downward spiral, as it were? Very rarely is mass murder, for example, a spontanious act. There is a process involving things like the dehumanising of the other to make the act more reasonable or more justifiable.
(Just saw a quote from Mike Godwin, by the way, which states, "The longer an online discussion goes on, the more the likelihood of a comparison involving Adolf Hitler approaches." (Made me smile.)
PureTruthSeeker
Firstly and above anything else I want to say to you is, I am sorry for barking at you earlier.
I am from a Catholic background and have grown to detest those within my church who love the law, dogma, church 'teaching' etc.. and who place these things above human compassion. I see them as fundamentalists who promote an image of God which is harsh, judgemental and untrue.
I see many of those from an Evangelical persuasion doing exactly the same thing, only this time, using the Bible to do it. Out of context quote after quote after quote, portraying a harsh and exacting God which oppresses the human spirit with threats of Hell fire and damnation, persecuting 'their' notion of the sinner. (Often while maintaining how THEY have received God's love.)
I reject both Gods and the thought of such people getting anywhere near the vulnerable, angers me.
I had lumped you in with the second crowd. I have reread your posts and I was wrong. You clearly have a very deep understanding of Gods love and forgiveness and want to share that with others. I hope you continue to do so.
Now on the specific matter of forgiveness, not as a concept, but as a reality.
For the last four or five years, I have retained a deep seated anger at another human being who played a large part in my present circumstances i.e. being on the dole, having no Christian community around me, feeling isolated, depressed, aimless etc.. Self worth - zero. He gloated at my circumstances. Many times I have felt like paying this guy a visit which would probably have resulted in a period of hospitalization - for him.
One month ago, something in me changed. I had read alot of the bile which was emanating from the WW threads, and I posted a scripture quote -about those who are making an offering at the altar but who realise that their brother has something against them. About going and making things right with them first, then coming back and making the offering.
For the next 24 hours, I couldnt get that quote out of my mind. I realised that I was being a total hypocrite, that I was the one who needed to practice what I was preaching. I decided that I had to go and make things right with MY brother. (What the people of WW do is their concern, not mine.)
From that moment, my life has changed dramatically. Every door which slammed shut on me, has reopened. Things I accepted as impossibilities have not only become possible, they have and are taking place in my life as I write. A job where I'm to be paid for helping the poor, a really nice place to stay, a future which is financially secure, etc... and the toxic hatred which had me in its grip, at last beginning to subside. (Still got a way to go with the fundies, but I'll get there.)
PTS, I cannot say that I really made a decision to forgive. I was kinda drawn to forgive almost subconsciously. I agree totally with you, it works, but I think the raped woman needs to come to that conclusion herself through the love, understanding and compassion of those around her.
I hope you decide to continue to contribute on here. I will do my best to try and be more measured in my responses to your posts.
Complain about this comment
Ref 129 romejellybean
I’m with you on the, “...lack of conscience a progressive thing, a downward spiral, as it were...” I think that the more we break God’s laws/universal laws/ be disobedient, etc, we increasingly lose our ability to make right choices thereafter. Think of addiction for example. Or, how mass murderers state the first kill is the hardest and each one thereafter becomes easier. I believe when we persist in wrong-doing we damage our conscience – or the “Light of Christ” which we all possess.
I suppose we view Hitler as the epitome of evil. But if his sins were not covered in Christ’s atonement, does that mean that Dr. Harold Shipman’s sins are not covered. If his aren’t covered, is Jeffrey Dahmer’s not covered. If his aren’t covered, is Josef Fritzel’s. What about the sins of ‘attempted murderers’? What about the rapists? What about mine? What about yours? Where do we draw the line? We don’t. There is no line to be drawn. Jesus suffered for the sins of all the world people. To believe anything less demeans the exquisite pain the Saviour suffered to “undo” the eternal consequences of the accumulated sins of the world.
I accept your apology for barking. I didn’t take offence; I just felt that I didn’t want to offend. I know that is difficult as some may misinterpret my humour as offensive.
I’m from a Protestant background but do not accept that it possesses enough truth for salvation. Neither does the Catholic Church. I believe they possess many fine truths and there are great people who are adherents to each “brand” of Christianity. Until I find the whole truth, I won’t align with any.
I am not dogmatic. However, if I think I have discovered enough evidence to suggest that a particular principle is true and which can be proved through a wide reading of the Bible, I will believe it and say so until I can find more information to enlighten my understanding. As you will have discovered, having read my posts, anything I say I support it with more than one Bible reference.
I do not see the malevolent God that others portrait. I see a just, kind, generous, considerate, long-suffering, merciful, wise, and loving Father who has all these qualities in perfection. Yes, He can be angry but I bet when He is, He would still be able to rock the most difficult of babies to sleep and it wouldn’t show.
I don’t for a moment think that the God I know will permit any of His children to suffer a second longer than is necessary. The scriptures are disjointed and appear unclear with regards the eternal outcome of those who will suffer between death and the final resurrection and judgement. I believe that Satan and his millions of followers will be consigned to an everlasting anguish but I doubt whether it’s going to be the “hell” many think. It just could be that they have no progression and will have forever to regret the choice they made at some point in the past. There are also those who ‘sinned against the Holy Ghost’. I’m not quite sure what that really means and I doubt whether anyone does. The information is not clear and the best I have read is just guess-work. Anyway, if I had anything to do with it, I wouldn’t be able to see my children suffer for ever, for ignorantly making mistakes for a finite period, and be punished indefinitely. It just doesn’t make sense that God would either.
I’m not of the second kind. You did have me figured wrongly.
I can well understand your experience. As well as what I have revealed, I was also framed by ‘agent provocateurs’ and served time in prison. Additionally, I have suffered from infidelity in my marriage. Compared to most, I had grounds to be hard and unforgiving. I was too and I became affected so badly that I sought oblivion in Class A drugs which further debilitated my life. My addiction almost killed me but I eventually was able to turn myself around. The scriptures helped as they renewed my belief and hope. However, like yourself, I harboured resentment. It was not until the scriptures started to “talk” to me just in the way you describe – not being able to get the quote out of your mind – that I was able to become free from the pain I had constructed for myself. No one taught me, as I already had an aversion to religion, but the Holy Ghost opened my mind as I prayed for help and guidance. Scriptures about forgiveness and loving my enemies kept jumping out of the page at me and I realised that I would have to let go of the hurt and seek for help not only to forgive but to love.
I described a process for forgiveness with regards the rape because this is similar to the process I took on my own behalf. It was all about self –realisation. I had to work it out. If we have any understanding about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, we must obey Him; He is our leader; He wants us to do what He did. This is what faith means to me. This is how I have come to know Jesus – I have done what He would have done. I now know how He feels. I now know Him in this sphere.
With regards the woman who was raped, I agree and I said the same as you if you read carefully my post again. I didn’t say that she should be forced to forgive or anything like that. I said, “... she needs to realise..., she needs to come to the realisation..., etc” much like I had to do and much like you have done. However, I wish I had known someone who may have been able to guide and shepherd me earlier; it might have prevented much misery.
It’s amazing how obedience works. If we forgive others, our sins are forgiven too. Heavenly Father wants to pour out blessings to us all as a reward for our obedience. We stop Him.
Like yourself, I hold no malice to those who despitefully used me. I’m not so sure they enjoy the same peace as I do, but, I hold no responsibility for their misery.
I still believe I should withdraw after I make my response to the other 10 posts. However, I always allow myself the luxury of changing my mind.
Got to go to work now. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Pruetruthseeker
I have little time right now, but for reasons I hope to outline later I hope you stick around. For now, I'll simply say that, however difficult, when communication moves beyond mere debate, something worthwhile usually happens, and on this thread, I think something worthwhile has happened.
RJB
At this stage I really have no idea what to say other than your last comments are among the most cogent I have read on this blog.
Complain about this comment
One last observation remains: forgiveness of an unrepentant person doesn’t look the same as forgiveness of a repentant person.
In fact I am not sure that in the Bible the term forgiveness is ever applied to an unrepentant person. Jesus said in Luke 17:3-4 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” So there’s a sense in which full forgiveness is only possible in response to repentance.
But even when a person does not repent (cf. Matt. 18:17) we are commanded to love our enemy and pray for those who persecute us and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27).
The difference is that when a person who wronged us does not repent with contrition and confession and conversion (turning from sin to righteousness), he cuts off the full work of forgiveness. We can still lay down our ill will; we can hand over our anger to God; we can seek to do him good; but we cannot carry through reconciliation or intimacy.
By John Piper
Complain about this comment
puretruthseeker,
As I said earlier, often, on this blog, exchanges can be combative. This isn't always a negative thing as it sharpens one's thinking and tests one's argument. However, every once in a while, we escape this and flirt with something more meaningful.
Communication at the best of times is difficult, and I'm of the view there isn't enough of it, but in persevering, in overcoming misunderstanding, in seeking clarity, I believe we can benefit one another.
I've read many, many words on here, and written lots too, and there have been many times when I have wanted to walk away, when I have had to apologise, when I have thought I was too caustic; but I have found that even if each of us is unable to find agreement, and whether our disagreements are big or small we are able, if we so choose, to 'test the fit of another's shoes'.
Each of us will always run the risk of causing offence where none was intended, indeed we might even run the risk of causing offence when that is exactly what was intended, but I think it's worth the risk. I am no less of a Christian now than the first day I read or contributed to this website, I do hope though that as a result of participating I am a more thoughtful Christian; I hope you stick around.
And perhaps it's worth saying that what began as a debate about compassion has probably led to some of us learning what it means to actually be more compassionate. Not a bad outcome by any standards.
Complain about this comment
Ref 97 lsv
I don’t really understand what you mean by moral content. However, if Jesus asks His Father to forgive His tormentors without them asking for it, and tells us that we are to forgive our enemies, then I assume that it is for good that I forgive – my good. I believe that to be right we must forgive, and we must do whether or not our ‘enemy’ repents or asks for our forgiveness. I think that we are unwilling to leave it in the hands of the Lord, fearing perhaps the Lord might be too merciful or less severe than is proper in the case. In this we could all take a lesson from the great David.
When David was being pursued to death by the jealous King Saul, and David came upon an opportunity to kill him, the young, pure-minded David refrained from ridding himself of his enemy. He cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe to prove to the King that he had been in David’s hand and at his mercy. Read in I Sam. 24:11-13 what David said and Saul’s reply in v17.
There is, in Jasper National Park in Canada, the last words uttered by Edith Cavell which have been preserved in bronze. She was a woman who had hidden, nursed and fed wounded soldiers in the 1st world war. As she stood before the firing lines she said, “I realise that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness toward anyone” Jesus was divine in wanting to forgive those who wronged Him. We can be divine too, Like David and Edith as we seek to be, “... perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matt. 5:48. Love doesn’t condone evil, it disarms it. Someday you will see Hitler kneel at the feet of the Saviour and confess that Jesus is Lord. I’m sure of it.
Regarding Rita, I have answered elsewhere.
“Glib and crass”? Not quite so. I have lived so long in the real world that at time I get weary. You misjudged me.
Your understanding of love is different than mine. I believe that for those who have lost their conscience in this life will awake in the next life with a bright recollection of all their guilt. Without doubt, this will cause them great agony. However, I do not believe that the God I know will allow them to suffer indefinitely. That would not be fair, just or loving. Unfortunately, the scriptures provide us with an incomplete understanding of eternity. But I wouldn’t permit my children to suffer for ever and my love is extremely pale compared to God’s. When we talk about evil, we sound as if we don’t sin. I sinned today; didn’t you?
Ref 98 John_Wright
I agree with you.
Ref 99 lsv
You imply that the people who have “self love” are incapable of ever accepting God’s love. The truth is that some of those “bad people” might accept God’s love. Some apparently “good people” may not.
Ref 101 lsv
I’m with you on the free-will. Off course God will not have failed if His love is rejected but how sad He will be I’m sure.
I have 4 children; if one of them rejected my love, I would not withdraw it. I would not cease to love them. Is God not greater than I?
Ref 105 auntjason
Did God choose you, or did you choose God?
In response to this question, God called me and I responded.
Regarding the Elect, you must remember that God’s Church existed 4000 years before Jesus came to the earth. The Old Testament speaks of Priesthood, chosen people, prophets, etc. However, the Bible doesn’t provide me with enough information about election so I won’t speculate.
You say dead men can’t believe. Why not? It’s only their bodies that are dead. Their mind, conscience, consciousness, personality, memory and other characteristics remain with their spirit – the spirit never dies. When the meat, bones and blood stop working we remain the same as we are right now, only disembodied.
I am not trying to prove a point. I’m trying to give my opinion and show how I have come to it. You can say you don’t agree and why or ignore me.
About loving Esau less. It could also have meant that He was less pleased with him. I have 4 children. I can’t say I love them all exactly the same all the time. Some please me more than others at times. But I still love them all.
If I am more in tune with the good in Catholicism I am happy with that. I don’t believe the Catholic church is God’s Church but it has many truths. Same goes for the Protestant churches as well.
God loves all His children. You talk about reprobates as if you are sinless.
Re: God commanding Israel to wipe out men, women and children. I reckon God did this for His own wise and just purpose. He may have reckoned that they were “beyond the pale” and to remain would have had an ill-effect on Israel. If they had been uprooted to a neighbouring land, they may have been a constant threat later. To allow the children to remain may have only postponed trouble until they grew and looked for revenge. God will deal with those individuals in a just and loving way when all is said and done.
Ref 108 Parrhasios
So Jesus was an ancient Che Guevara; an olden day Karl Marx. Why do we have to dress-up Jesus with a beret? Why do we have to make Him trendy? Much in the same way the religious intellectuals have to rationalise the Bible account of creation when talking to their scientific friends with their theories (which have not been proved) (the material on the earth may be reckoned to be billions of years old. It doesn’t mean that the material always existed within the orbit it inhabits now. It could be material from other worlds. Anyway, matter always existed and always will for ever and ever.) Are we ashamed of Jesus? Are we ashamed of the creation account? Anything that Jesus threatened, he did it with love unlike those who seen Him as an enemy. You need to take off the John Lennon glasses.
You say my comments at Ref 102 are the most ill-informed and dangerous postings you have ever read. Now you are helping me to feel like Jesus did and you put me in mind of the Pharisees. I’ll go a little further in what she should do. When her minister is put in jail, she should visit him – regularly. How ill-informed and dangerous is that? I’m feeling like a radical now. Lol Sorry, about the sarcasm.
Ref 120 and 127, as well as the more recent posts, I will be responded to when time permits. Thanks for your patience.
Complain about this comment
Just watched the BBC's Big Questions where they dealt with compassion and forgiveness.
One couple spoke very movingly about the murder of their son and how they have arrived at forgiveness for the murderers. (The couple now work with a prison visiting programme.)
The mother described her initial hatred of the murderers as, "Like me drinking a cup of poison and hoping it would poison the murderers."
Complain about this comment
ref Parrhasios
You did not upset me. How were you to know what I had suffered and how I came to terms with it.
I hope when you talk about the many facets of Jesus - tender on one hand and condemning the Sanhedrin on the other - you don't see someone like John Wayne. This He isn't. Read His words like thy were delivered quietly, as I believe they were, and then I think you will get a more accurate impression about His propriety, manner, demenour and attitude. Jesus may be multi-dimensional but none of His characteristics are unjust, unfair or offensive in any shape or form. You mention in Ref108 how, "His indignation at injustice, indifference and hypocrisy SHOUTS!", but it only does so in the way the 'still, small voice' can be heard like thunder.
We all need His love and if rjb needs His anger, as you say, I would be somewhat concerned for rjb.
I accept your apology.
It was some time after I had turned to the gospel that I was able to deal with the hate, pain, nightmares, low self-worth and so on brought on by my experience. So, I was aware somewhat of His love before I obeyed His command to forgive. It was only after I applied His words - exercised some faith - that I became experienced the miracle of forgiveness. My pain left me, peace entered my soul and I stopped hating those who hurt me and began to love those stupid, lost, mixed-up brothers and sisters instead. At this point my faith became knowledge. At one point I wanted to believe, then I really gave it a try, it worked and I knew that if I obey the words of Jesus I will come to understand why He gave those commands in the first place. What a revelation.
I'm glad you were able to learn from our exchange and I accept your gratitude with thanks.
Regarding what I say and how I say it, if I am asked the same question again by a third party I will probably answer it in the same way. However, if I was an associate of the woman who was raped, my counsel to her would be very different. Thanks for the advice, anyway. As you feel that you may have upset me, I hope you heed your own counsel.
Ref 125 petermorrow
Thanks for withdrawing the challenge as I have plenty to be getting on with here.
Ref 127 John_Wright
I agree with you comments. All of us are sinners because we have been affected by our environment, suffered stress pre-natally or been "dropped on our heads". Children reared in conditions in which they are subjected to various forms of abuse rarely grow up as balanced individuals who think before they act or are able to make choices easily. Children reared in an uncaring or brutal environment usually produce uncaring or brutal individuals. Its all very well to say X brought upon himself his own judgement but what blame must lie with his forefathers? If we project this arguement back we arrive at Adam.
Through Adam sin entered the world. Each of us thereafter have been affected to greater or lesser degrees. The wonderful thing, however, is that Jesus paid the full penalty for all the wrongful acts committed - including Hitler's if he want to avail of it. It may be difficult for him to repent but it will not be impossible because of Jesus Christ's all-encompassing atonement.
Complain about this comment
Ref 131/133 petermorrow
I appreciate you think something worthwhile has happened on this thread. I am happy to have been a small part of that. However, my concern is that my views may have made some here uncomfortable. I was considering withdrawing for the same reason that I have stopped talking to friends, family and collegues about religion. My views are rarely tolerated by those who call themselves 'born-again'. I have been told more than once that I'm going to hell. You see, I don't consider myself 'saved' as I don't feel qualified to make that judgement - neither do I consider those who would damn me - I believe only One holds that qualification. I hope to be saved oneday but i know that I must 'endure' until then and in the interim try to follow the example that Jesus gave me.
I have this vision that at the judgement a bus-run of so-called 'christians' will pull-up and the pastor will disembark ushering his 'flock to the front of the queue, stating loudly as He guides them past those patiently waiting that he has VIP reservations for the lot of them. Then I envisage the following scenario recorded in Matt. 7: 21-23.
Now I flag this up, not because I hold spite or animosity for those who have taken the judgement away from God, but, because the bible informs us that there is more than what they have settled for from their leaders and I think they should at least consider further their eternal welfare.
Anyway, if anyone here want me to go, I won't be hanging around.
Complain about this comment
Ref 132 auntjason
Forgiveness, applied to unrepentant persons happened at the most crucial part of the history of the human family - when Jesus was on the cross. Surely you remember? He asks us to be like him. He set the example as our leader. Either we follow Him or we are not His sheep.
Forgiveness on our part is for our good, more especially when the other person doesn't repent. Thoughts of revenge, bearing grudges, hatred, etc. imprisons us. The truth sets us free.
This is not some hippy trippy lovespeak. Neither is it some new-age philosophy. It is the beautiful gospel of Jesus Christ.
Complain about this comment
PTS Said:
"You say dead men can’t believe. Why not? It’s only their bodies that are dead."
This statement is nowhere to be found in the word of God.
You ask "why not"?, because the word of God says we *can't*, there is none that seeketh after God Rom 3:10-18, and again Rom 9, it is not the man that wills but God.
Ephb 2 1-2
You were dead in your tresspasses and sin - you will find that the body is not the only thing that is *dead to God*.
Re:
"Their mind, conscience, consciousness, personality, memory and other characteristics remain with their spirit – the spirit never dies. When the meat, bones and blood stop working we remain the same as we are right now, only disembodied."
*Same as we are now* - If this is true I could only imagine heaven to be a very sinful place.
Re:
"You talk about reprobates as if you are sinless"
I talk about reprobates exactly how the bible talks about them.
Sinless????????? - that's a rather strange statement for simply having an opinion.
We are rather off the subject, and I do understand election-reprobation is extremly difficult - but election is what makes salvation a complete work of grace we did not earn nor deserve.
Complain about this comment
post 138:
PTS
Re: PTS
Forgiveness, applied to unrepentant persons happened at the most crucial part of the history of the human family - when Jesus was on the cross surely you remember?
I remember - *Christ saying *forgive them for they know not what they do* - praying to his father.
So it is wrong to say "Forgiveness, applied to unrepentant persons" actually Christ prayed forgive them - not you are forgiven.
In other words he prayed for their salvation, which requires *repentance*
It would be absurd to think a man can be converted without repentance.
By the way if you read Acts, you will see the very persons he prayed for whilst on the cross *repented and got saved* - showing Christ knew them to be his sheep.
Re: PTS Said:
"Forgiveness on our part is for our good, more especially when the other person doesn't repent. Thoughts of revenge, bearing grudges, hatred, etc. imprisons us. The truth sets us free."
The choice to forgive lies with the victim, but the perpetrator IS not forgiven until he/she repents.
Letting go of bitternes, and hatred is somethhing the victim should be encouraged to do - as is the *willingness* to forgive.
Forgivness is a contract between two people, and for it to be fully effective both parties need to fulfill the requirments of the contract.
We cannot make a person accept our forgiveness.
-J
Complain about this comment
Auntjason -
I just want to put on record that what you are writing about forgiveness is the truth.
Puretruthseeker -
Here are some comments in response to what you have written.
Everything in the Christian life has been counterfeited, and forgiveness is no exception. Just as there is true forgiveness, which takes evil seriously, so there is fraudulent and counterfeit forgiveness, which is always trying - in a myriad of subtle ways - to play down the gravity of evil (which the Bible calls "sin").
People can say and write they like. That is called "freedom of speech", but I would love to know what version of the Bible it is which teaches a concept of "unconditional forgiveness", which does not require the precondition of repentance. I have no idea what people who believe this do with the Book of Revelation, which is full of God's passionate opposition to evil. This anger is not some innocuous, soft and comforting attitude, but is a real enmity against all the works of the devil.
Revelation contains a warning within it to not take away from "the words of the book of this prophecy" and not to add to it (see Revelation 22:18-19). As a committed Christian I am not prepared to commit this error, and therefore, whether I like it or not, I am required to come to terms with the content of this book of Scripture.
I also have to come to terms with the clear and unambiguous teaching of Jesus, who mentioned (e.g. in Matthew 25:41-46) about the eternal fate of the wicked, which is an extremely violent reality. There is nothing gentle about hell.
Now we have a choice: either we reject the Bible, or, if we accept it as truth, then we must also accept this teaching as truth.
Elsewhere on this blog I have written very clearly about my belief in the eternal love of God for each and every person. I do not believe that there are two sides to God's character - love on one side and non-love on the other. The whole of God's character is love. But "love" has a moral content. Therefore "love" unequivocally and uncompromisingly condemns all those attitudes and actions which are contrary to it. And if there are people who reject the love of God, then they are in deep trouble. This is not because God hates them, but because they hate God.
If the only way to bring some people to their senses is to discipline them in a way that appears violent - let's use the word "robust" - then God is not going to shy away from this. The idea of a God who is quietly spoken, hardly ever angry, meek and mild and generally unwilling to robustly oppose evil is not the God of the Bible (try reading Hosea 13:4-8, and look at the language used to describe the judgement of God on his idolatrous people: "... I will meet them like a bear deprived of her cubs; I will tear open their rib cage, and there I will devour them like a lion. The wild beast shall tear them." Violent language describing the fury God shows towards the wicked - and this is only one example out of very many in Scripture). Now some people may argue that this is not true. I would say to such people - don't take up your case with me. Take up your case with God and ask Him why these things are written in His Word.
So I make no apology whatsoever for upholding the character of God as revealed in the Bible. I am willing to apologise for any wrong things I have written, and I have already apologised on other threads on this blog four times for errors I have made. Therefore I am someone who is willing to say sorry. But I am not at all sorry for telling the truth, whatever others may think.
And if you - or anyone else - wishes to accuse me of being a phoney Christian for saying these things, then all I can say is I am in good company, as Jesus Himself was accused of being demon possessed for teaching uncomfortable truths.
Furthermore, I do not advocate seeking revenge on wrongdoers, but I do believe that it is extremely dangerous to seek out reconciliation with unrepentant and manipulative people, who will just carry on where they left off, once you enter into a relationship with them again. Reconciliation is dependent on forgiveness, which, as I have argued, is also dependent on genuine repentance. To expect a victim to just "forgive" without having a proper understanding of what true forgiveness is (and having been warned against counterfeit forgiveness) is one of the most dangerous things anyone can do. Therefore I feel I must speak out strongly against some of the views you have expressed on this thread.
I have not at all suggested or insinuated that you should go away, and do not imagine that that is what I am saying. You have every right to express your point of view. But you must also understand that I have every right to express what I think.
Complain about this comment
LSV
I think we are in total agreement about this very important doctrine.
How subtle is Satan in this matter - evil loves to create a false view of forgivness, in order to repeatedly abuse us.
There is plenty of people I pray for in regards to their salvation - but at the same time I ask God to bring judgement on them if they will not repent - in regards to the henious sins they committed on me and my family.
I will rejoice if my enemies repent - I will also glory if God brings judgement on my enemies, for he will do what is just and good - even if that means death to unrepentant
This pseudo love/forgiveness is why the uk is in such immorality.
There is no longer any fear of God in the land - this comes from hard hearted unrepented sin, and the message from the church is we love you just the way you are.
What ever happened to men and women coming Christ in fear of the living God, with Godly repentance.
If you have noy seen this have a look it will bless you.
If the link don't work go to you tube and search for revival hymn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec5dJHtMTSg
-J
Complain about this comment
Ref 139 auntjason
You say, “This statement is nowhere to be found in the word of God”.
Really? 1Peter 3:19 Jesus, just after His death and before His resurrection, taught the spirits who had once lived.
“You ask "why not"?, because the word of God says we *can't*, there is none that seeketh after God Rom 3:10-18, and again Rom 9, it is not the man that wills but God.”
I’m not sure what you mean here. However, what Rom.3 is saying is that man is not justified by the law of Moses – he is justified through righteousness which is by faith in Christ, made possible through His atoning sacrifice. The scriptures are reasonably clear, why do you complicate them?
I’m not going to get into a debate about predestination and election, sorry.
"Ephb 2 1-2
You were dead in your tresspasses and sin - you will find that the body is not the only thing that is *dead to God*."
I don’t know what you mean by this, sorry.
"Their mind, conscience, consciousness, personality, memory and other characteristics remain with their spirit – the spirit never dies. When the meat, bones and blood stop working we remain the same as we are right now, only disembodied.
*Same as we are now* - If this is true I could only imagine heaven to be a very sinful place."
A spirit, once left the body, doesn’t go to heaven. It goes to paradise, where Jesus told the thief on the cross he would be that day. When Jesus first appeared He said, “Touch me not, I have not yet ascended to the Father”. So, He went were your spirit or mine would go if we dropped dead now. Revelations tells us that Jesus is going to return and all the valiant saints will reign with Him for a thousand years. Rev 20:5 says, “But the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished. v12 tells us, “And I saw the dead, small and great stand before God; ...and the dead were judged out of these things which were written in the books, according to their works.” If you are going to heaven it will be then. Heaven will comprise of those who had faith, repented, forgave, increasingly became like Jesus, endured to the end amongst many other things.
"strange I talk about reprobates exactly how the bible talks about them.
Sinless????????? - that's a rather statement for simply having an opinion."
You talk about sinners as if you hate them. Are you not a sinner?
"do understand election-reprobation is extremly difficult - but election is what makes salvation a complete work of grace we did not earn nor deserve."
Would you say you were elected to go to heaven?
So, if it wasn’t for election then salvation wouldn’t be a complete work of grace. Is that what you are saying?
Complain about this comment
Ref140 auntjason
Did Christ forgive them – yes or no? If He forgave them do you think that He expects us to forgive those who offend us, those who would see themselves as or enemies and those who would despitefully use us? Yes or no?
Where in Acts do we find THE VERY PERSONS he prayed for and who got ‘saved’?
Did I say, anywhere, that the wrong doer escapes the consequences of his wrongdoing whether I forgive or not? You are reading into things, stuff I didn’t mention.
Forgiveness isn’t a contract between two people. I forgave my abusers. No contract. Peace on my part. They will have to answer for theirs.
You said, “We cannot make a person accept our forgiveness”. Did I say this?
Complain about this comment
PTS:
Said
"Did Christ forgive them"?
No - I thought I already made that point - *prayimg* that someone is forgiven does not mean they are forgiven.
Re:PTS
"Where in Acts do we find THE VERY PERSONS he prayed for and who got ‘saved’?"
Act 2
Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom YOU *crucified*, both Lord and Christ.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, *REPENT* and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
RE:PTS
"Did I say, anywhere, that the wrong doer escapes the consequences of his wrongdoing whether I forgive or not? You are reading into things, stuff I didn’t mention."
I never said you did, I simply made a statement.
Re:PTS
Forgiveness isn’t a contract between two people. I forgave my abusers. No contract. Peace on my part. They will have to answer for theirs.
Indeed they will have to answer - but forgivness requires two people - or more - otherwise there is nobody to forgive.
When was forgivness relavent for you in regards to your salvation?
Is forgiveness not just as potent for the offender, as it is for the victim?
Your theology is that Christ loves all his children - do you think it would be right if Christ said he forgives and leaves at that - No Christ persues those who wronged him - and commands them to repent or suffer judgement.
In other words forgivness requires a result of acceptance or rejection on the guilty party.
I think it's great you have peace - and it must have been a real work of grace to enable you to forgive - but your forgivness will have an eternal consequence for your abusers - which will either be repentance or judgement - and if judgement it may mean in this life as well as the next.
-J
Complain about this comment
Ref 141 lsv
Forgiveness isn’t a thing. It can’t take evil seriously. Through the atonement of Christ, He wants to cancel out sin/evil, firstly, by forgiving those who repent of their sin and, secondly, to stop the repentant person refraining from sin/evil/disobedience. He wants those who have faith in Him to rid themselves of the effects of sin by stopping it and by loving their enemy – that includes forgiving the enemy. What the enemy does about the sin is between him and God. You complicate the scriptures. What is counterfeit forgiveness – saying you forgive someone when you really don’t?
My bible teaches me to refrain from sin by obeying the words of the Saviour. It teaches me that if I give into temptation, if I offend when I’m flustered, if I omit to do something good, if I rebel for a while and so on; I can repent and be forgiven because Jesus paid the price for my mistakes. Only then will I enjoy real peace. It teaches me to love God and my neighbour – which means everybody – even those who dislike/hate me. It teaches me that God is the judge not me. It teaches me that I should strive to be like God. I never said anywhere that I can forgive their sins on the grand scale of things – when all is said and done – when the books are open and they are judged according to their works. But I can feel divine – in the same way that God does when He forgives sins. This is how I come to know God.
By my forgiveness I do not condone evil – quite the opposite – I condone love.
The devil is totally powerless against God. God knew when He placed us on this earth that we would have to be tested against Satan. Why would He be getting Himself in a rage now because all of His children sin? Surely God knew that before He put us here.
From Matt. 25: 31 we are told that Jesus is talking about the start of the Millennium reign. So, we can see from these verses that those who have passed the test will be resurrected and those who failed will continue to suffer. Everlasting in the context it was given is relative. I believe the damnation of 1000 years will seem like everlasting or never-ending. I know that eventually hell (the state of man’s anguish) will come to an end and those who have had to suffer their own punishment will have paid their own price. To continue on any longer would be unmerciful and that is one thing God is not.
How do you know “they hate God”. How can you hate someone you don’t know. God is wiser than you and a lot more merciful. If God loves “them”; and He is all-knowing and is merciful do you not think He understands more than you seem to? What about the aborigine, the jungle dweller, the china man, etc? When do they come to hear about this great god you claim to worship? Would it be right to shovel them all into “hell” and let them “burn” for ever and ever without end? No matter how you look at it, this would not be just. God is just.
God gave us free will. He never forces us to do anything. Does God force or make you do anything? If He did would you not be an unprofitable servant? God teaches us and we regulate ourselves; that’s the purpose of the scriptures. In Hosea did God tear open anyone’s ribcage? No doubt God is displeased with us at times and looking at the state of the world right now, may be coming more displeased, but have you heard of him ripping anyone’s ribcage recently? Hosea is allowed poetic licence.
You talk about upholding the character of God. So do you think that God is a bit of a beast when He gets angry? If that’s what you are saying, stick by your conviction and say it. If that’s the god you worship go ahead – He gave you the choice. I havn’t called you phoney. Do you think saying God is a bit violent and wild in treating those that disobey Him is an uncomfortable truth?
You talk about entering into relationships with those who abuse. I never said that once you forgive them in your heart that you have to enter into a relationship with them again. Look, it like this. I took Jesus at His word and forgave my abusers, etc and I found peace in place of anguish, bitterness, hatred and destruction. Now, if I got it wrong somehow; stupid me. However, I’m glad because I was able to rid myself of a ‘cancer’ that had destroyed my life up to that point. Maybe I should have been like your god and ripped their heart out; which had crossed my mind a number of times.
Maybe it was counterfeit forgiveness that I offered and maybe it counterfeit peace I feel in my heart. As you say, to offer counterfeit forgiveness is one of the most dangerous things I could do. Shall I pray to my God tonight and tell him I’ve been mistaken and to rescind my forgiveness of my offenders as I don’t want any of this counterfeit nonsense?
Complain about this comment
PTS Re:
From Matt. 25: 31 we are told that Jesus is talking about the start of the Millennium reign. So, we can see from these verses that those who have passed the test will be resurrected and those who failed will continue to suffer. Everlasting in the context it was given is relative. I believe the damnation of 1000 years will seem like everlasting or never-ending. I know that eventually hell (the state of man’s anguish) will come to an end and those who have had to suffer their own punishment will have paid their own price. To continue on any longer would be unmerciful and that is one thing God is not.
Could you break this down for me PTS - I am curious as to what your escatology is.
Complain about this comment
Ref 145 auntjason
lsv this is for you too.
Is Christ God?
Whether He is God or not, if He prays to His Father and says, "...forgive them..." Will His Father scold Him when they next meet and tell Him that He cannot forgive or ask for it and should know better? Come on; you are denying the word of God or you don't understand it.
Why did you think Christ uttered these words at such a crucial point in time and why, if they had not been important, were they recorded?
So everyone that had a hand in Christ's crucifiction were present on the day of Pentecost? Surely, when it says 'whom ye have crucified', it is referring to the people of Jerusalem generally and not those whom were present specifically. I fear you don't understand yourself.
You say, "Christ persues(sic) those who wrong him and commands them to repent or suffer judgement"
Now I know why you are a 'born-again' christian. You have just given away your motivation. You are afraid of hell, isn't that so? Somebody scared you into it. Some big, bad, guldering, red-faced preacher. You were told you were going to burn and you took the 'fire insurance'. What a way to be attracted to God - through threats.
I, on the other hand, was attracted by love. It was more because He offerred me a way to improve, have peace, live contently,and to walk a straight path to perfection. I suppose that's why we view the scriptures so differently. You see what threatens you and I see what inspires me.
Do you know something? If God asks me, when i stand before Him, what should happen to those who wronged me; I will say, as You have forgiven me, I want their sins against me forgiven as well. I will say, there has been enough suffering and regret and I want no more of it on any side for what has happened is over and done. I think my God may be pleased with that.
Complain about this comment
#146 - puretruthseeker -
Well you certainly excel in misunderstanding other people's words, even if nothing else.
Nowhere did I say that God condemns people who are ignorant, like the aborigine and jungle dweller etc. This is an assumption you have made which is completely unwarranted. Judgment is based on the light people have been given - John 3:19 - "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Clearly this is referring to a choice people have made. Furthermore, I am not into shoving anybody into hell - this is the stuff of your imagination. I am simply making the point that God condemns evil. And since God has given us free-will, then it is possible for people to choose to reject the love of God, and thefore to hate God. I am not identifying any particular person here - I am making a general point - and I am bemused as to why you can't understand this. Do you deny that people have free-will? If people hate God (whoever they may be) then no matter how much God loves them, they will suffer in the presence of God (Hebrews 12:29 - "Our God is a consuming fire"). This is just common-sense logic. How can anyone be forced to love God??
You talk about God being more merciful than me. Perhaps this is the only correct thing you have actually written, since all mercy comes from God. Therefore God most certainly is more merciful than me, and also more merciful than you. Let me remind you about God's mercy: James 2:13 - "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
God's mercy triumphs over judgment. This is absolutely true. But have you not also noticed that judgment is "without mercy" to the one who has shown no mercy? Who is it who shows "no mercy" to the unmerciful? I think the answer is God. This verse proves that God does not show mercy to all people, but only to those who receive and embrace his mercy.
So in what way am I wrong when I wrote: "This is not because God hates them, but because they hate God."? Those who hate the love of God have rejected his mercy. They therefore are unmerciful. The Scripture says that because they are unmerciful they receive no mercy from God. What is written in James is exactly in accordance with what I wrote.
Love is the basis of the law - Romans 13:8-10. This passage makes clear that all the injunctions of the law - i.e. "thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery etc" are expressions of love. But what is God supposed to do with people who reject love and therefore disobey these commandments? Smile sweetly at them? Say, there, there, everything's OK, pat them on the head, and say "don't worry about it"?? If that were the case then God would not be a God of love, since he would be denying his own moral nature rooted in his unchanging character of love. All this nonsense about Hitler being saved implies that God could not give a toss about all the suffering that Hitler's victims went through. Whole families just carted off to concentration camps to be gassed, worked to death or even worse have medical experiments conducted on them without anaesthetic. Handicapped children murdered. Even bed-wetters murdered. Cities razed to the ground. There was no mercy in the heart of Adolf Hitler, and he died without repentance (how do I know this? Because if he was remorseful, he would have given himself up to the authorities and not blown his own brains out in his bunker). According to the Word of God, because Adolf Hitler showed no mercy, he will be shown no mercy. And this is what the God of all mercy declares in the Bible. If you want to rebel against that Word of God, so be it. Your blood is on your own head.
In this sense therefore, God is violent in his anger to the unmerciful.
I quoted from Hosea, which you seem to think should be taken literally. I am actually quite disturbed by your reaction to this, because I was not suggesting that this was to be taken literally but rather I said (and I quote): "look at the language used to describe the judgement of God on his idolatrous people". Note the word "describe". In other words, it is "descriptive" language - metaphorical language. So I am not saying that God literally physically rips someone's heart out, but my question to you is: why does it say this? This language is the language of violence, and it describes God's wrath towards a certain group of evil people. Are you in rebellion against the Word of God, and refuse to accept the truth of what this is saying? Are you suggesting that the book of Hosea should not be in the canon of scripture, since it talks about "the violence of God" against the wicked?
I have simply been making the point that God's anger against evil (and "evil" is defined as that which is contrary to "love") is both passionate and, at times, violent. If you don't accept this, then you have rejected the God of the Bible. How do you explain the judgments of God in Revelation? How do you explain the judgment of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, the Midianites, Ahab and Jezebel, Samson and the Philistines, Ananias and Sapphira and I could go on and on and on....?
You say that this "violent" unmerciful God is the god I worship, with the implication that this is a false god. But you fail to answer my questions about the events in the Bible and the descriptions in the Bible about the nature of God's wrath against the wicked. I can't understand you. You claim to be upholding the Christian God - the God of the Bible - and yet you refuse to actually submit to the Bible. How do you explain all God's judgments?
Do you actually believe in the Bible??!
As for counterfeit forgiveness, I have explained that this is an idea of victims feeling under pressure to forgive their unrepentant abusers. I am not saying anything about your own personal situation or suggesting that you should not resolve your own feelings of bitterness and hatred towards those who have wronged you. That's your business, and none of my business. You just seem to jump to conclusions about what I have written, which I find quite disturbing. What I am saying is that you have no right to impose on other vulnerable people your ideas about forgiveness which seem to play down the seriousness of evil, the seriousness of unrepentance and the seriousness of God's condemnation of evil.
So I will repeat what Jesus taught: "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." (Luke 17:3). I have no idea where you are coming from, or what Bible you are using, what teaching you are following, but I fail to see what is wrong with my point of view, when I simply say that forgiveness is conditional on repentance.
IF he repents, forgive him. What is it about the word "IF" that you do not understand?
Complain about this comment
Ref 147 auntjason
I would reveal my eschatology for you if I believed you were really interested in finding out more truth, but I feel you do not. Rather, you want to pick at it and snipe.
I have read the scripture not a few times. Each time I do I always have a number of themes that I look out for, such as qualification for salvation, the nature of the Godhead, the meaning of faith, the structure of the Church, where did we come from, and so on. When I open my scriptures I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ to reveal His word to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. When I read them I allow the Spirit to identify things to me that I may have otherwise overlooked. This happens often and in different ways. One way, is that a scripture will stick in your head, another way is that the Spirit will soften you and bring you to tears at the beauty and love of what you have read. Again, another piece of scripture will seem so intelligent and pure that your mind will be enlightened.
Now I spent a long time doing this and the process has help me to develop a strong love and knowledge of my Father in Heaven and in His Son Jesus Christ. For me to 'hand over' what I have learned to be criticised, just seems wrong. I would suggest however, that you pack away all your commentaries, open your mind and do what I did. That way we should arrive at the same conclusions. You'll thank me for it.
Complain about this comment
Ditto on misunderstanding other peoples words.
It seems that we speak a different language and that creates a gulf between what you understand and what I understand. However, I am more than happy with my understanding.
I suppose that we could exchange opinions from now to the Saviour returns and never find concensus. There is just one point though that I need to clear up. We used Hitler as the epitome of evil and I stated that It wouldn't be impossible for him to repent before he died or since then and the end of the Millennium reign (I can just imagine your temple pulsing right now)- due to the encompassing power of the Saviour's atonement. However, using what little intelligence you think I may have, I would guess that he will not come forth on the morning of the first ressurrection. But, what about my granny?
She was a great wee woman who had time for everyone. She was kind and always went the extra mile. She never had a bad word to say about anyone. She probably was too timid to steal or break the law. We were always reminded to tell the truth by her. However, she didnt believe in God. She had worked in her youth for her local vicar. Now, although she never spoke about it, even to my mother, we knew something bad had happened to her. She believed that religion was a bit of a sham.
She's dead now. Tell me, will she be punished alongside Hitler forever?
Complain about this comment
#151 - puretruthseeker -
"However, she didnt believe in God. She had worked in her youth for her local vicar. Now, although she never spoke about it, even to my mother, we knew something bad had happened to her. She believed that religion was a bit of a sham. She's dead now. Tell me, will she be punished alongside Hitler forever?"
The eternal destiny of your granny is nothing to do with me and is entirely a matter between her and God. If she died in a state of "unbelief" that does not necessarily mean she cannot receive God's mercy, because only God knows the real reasons for her unbelief.
All I can say is that if she responded to whatever light, faith and love (i.e. grace) God gave her - irrespective of her position regarding "religion" - then all would be well. I have said elsewhere that I believe that there are some atheists who are more godly than some Christians. This is not unbiblical if we think about the verse I quoted in my last post - "judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." So the basis of God's judgment is not "religion" but mercy. I don't limit God's grace, but there are some people who reject God's grace. If your granny is one such person, then that is a matter for her alone before God.
I don't hold to a theology which permits me to declare who is not saved. This is a matter for each person and God. I only gave the extreme example of Hitler to make a point based on the assumption (from the historical evidence) that he did not repent.
Complain about this comment
It is estimated that in the last ten years, over 4 million people have died un-naturally i.e. as a result of violence between nations etc... or as a direct result of exploitation by greedy corporate businesses and governments serving their interests at the expense of the poor.
We have huge sections of the world's population, not just living below the poverty line, but starving to death. Huge populations displaced, living as refugees.
I cannot read Jesus' teachings without the plight of such people becoming uppermost in my mind and wondering what I can do to place myself on their side and set myself against the individuals and structures which render them poor and disadvantaged.
I cannot read the judgement day parable without noticing that Jesus states clearly that we will be judged on whether we responded to the plight of the poor.... or not. This parable also fits in with everything else recorded about his life.
I believe that Jesus can cope with my personals sins and that ultimately, they are not uppermost in his mind. He has other more pressing matters.
To Peter, who loved that spiritual experience on the mountain top and wanted to build tents to stay there and enjoy the moment - "Get back down the mountain!"
Do any of you not feel that this focus on every single word in the Bible is really very self indulgent? You are not going to be judged on how well you know your scriptures. The Pharisees knew them inside out and it never prompted them to care about the poor.
Arent you terrified of Christ's words about judgement, wondering, am I doing enough for my brothers and sisters in need? Does it matter one jot whether judgement happens after death if I'm repentant, if I am not repentant etc...?
Wouldnt it be the most incredible thing to go through this life, priding ourselves on our superior knowlege of the Scriptures, but having completely missed the point of them?
Do you guys really believe that
Complain about this comment
... you are going to convert anyone with the arguments set out above?
Complain about this comment
#153 - RJB -
"Do any of you not feel that this focus on every single word in the Bible is really very self indulgent? You are not going to be judged on how well you know your scriptures. The Pharisees knew them inside out and it never prompted them to care about the poor.
"Arent you terrified of Christ's words about judgement, wondering, am I doing enough for my brothers and sisters in need? Does it matter one jot whether judgement happens after death if I'm repentant, if I am not repentant etc...?
"Wouldnt it be the most incredible thing to go through this life, priding ourselves on our superior knowlege of the Scriptures, but having completely missed the point of them?"
Isn't it strange how people who fancy themselves as being so "loving" and compassionate are quick to fire vicious accusations at other people when they don't get their own way?
As someone who has been involved with the relief of poverty in Africa for many years, and whose health has suffered as a result and whose life has been in danger on a number of occasions overseas, I take great excpetion to your extremely self-righteous contribution. Now, apparently, it is a sin to read the Scriptures, now your higher wisdom tells us that God judges those who seek to not only live by bread alone but "by every word that comes from the mouth of God" as those apparently irrelevant Scriptures tell us!
Personally I am of the view that to use the vulnerability and sufferings of the poor as a pretext to undermine other Christians' desire to understand the Bible and use their minds, is an insidious act of manipulation and abuse.
I am not afraid of the judgement of God, but I am very afraid of people like you.
Complain about this comment
LSV
Why the outrage?
Where is my "vicious accusation?"
Where do I say it is a "sin to read the scriptures?"
Where do I say that all of the scriptures are irrelevant?
"An insidious act of manipulation and abuse."
"I am very afraid of people like you."
Could all of that outburst not have been translated as-
"RJB, I have read the scriptures all of my life and it led me to spending much of my life working for the poor in the third world, putting my own life at risk and adversely affecting my health."
You would have impressed me LSV. You may even have convinced me to read my Bible more. As it stands, you dont come across in that last post as a person I'd admire and like to emulate. But maybe you were just having a bad morning....
Complain about this comment
#156 - RJB -
Well I might have been having a bad morning, but I guess I was not the only one.
To suggest that my discussion about the nature of forgiveness and repentance is just the views of someone who sits around nit picking over words of the Bible, and who couldn't care less about anyone else, is not something that particularly blesses me.
My response may have been a bit OTT, and for that I apologise, but as I say, I think I am not the only one who was having a "bad morning"!
So if I have to "wash my mouth out with soap" as penance, I think you could perhaps do the same.
Complain about this comment
LSV
Does your apology depend on me acknowledging my selfrighteousness? (Aaaah, dead sneaky eh?!!)
Now, if you wash your mouth out with soap and I dont, will you be truly forgiven and me not? Or viceversa?
And do you really mean actually washing my actual mouth out with actual soap? Or do you really mean, "Look, I was a bit grumpy, but so were you so lets just call it quits. Its not very Christian of us to be treating each other like this"?
I'll assume the latter.
Seriously LSV, that IS actually one of my points about the Bible and what I'm reading on this whole site. I seem to be hearing,
- It should be carbolic soap!!
- No any soap will do, as long as it is soap.
- Never, only carbolic soap shall do the job!
- etc.. etc..
I'm sitting here half the time getting frustrated, reading all of this and saying to myself, - Its nothing to do with bleedin' soap!!! Its about the intention!!
I fully admit that my knowledge of the various Protestant denominations is woeful and that is partly the reason I am on here, to learn. But with all the scripture quotes getting fired at each other I cant help but start to wonder what all this is about.
After six years studying it, twenty years preaching it and failing miserably trying to live it, I came to the conclusion that the Bible says-
GOD LOVES ME. LOVE GOD. LOVE ONE ANOTHER. (especially your enemy.)
Now it doesnt actually say those four things in the same sentence anywhere in the Bible, to my knowledge. But thats what it means.
All of that is me being polite and attempting to respond with a bit of tongue in cheek. Now I'll say something seriously.
The so called Christians on this site (all of it) who have dragged the name of Jesus through the dirt with their venomous comments, their sniping, their hatred and their intolerance - ALL DONE ADORNED WITH QUOTES FROM THE HOLY BOOK, need to get back to their church(es) get on their knees and beg The Lords forgiveness for publicly bringing scandal to his name. Then they need to go to the people they have sinned against and ask for forgiveness for forgetting what all their BIBLICAL QUOTES are actually all about.
Put in another way, wash your mouths out with soap!
Complain about this comment
lsv
I thought you would cope out on my granny.
You say, “If she died in a state of "unbelief" that does not necessarily mean she cannot receive God's mercy, because only God knows the real reasons for her unbelief”. But she wasn’t ‘saved’ nor did she repent. So what sort of salvation do you understand? You say we need to be ‘saved’ and repent or else God will be “violent” towards us. Now you are saying that it’s not as clear cut as that. You talked about how Revelations does not reveal a God of unconditional forgiveness. But He might be to my Granny when everything is taken into account. You talk about, if she responded to the light, faith and love God gave her (so all this obedience and sinning is God’s fault – He was the one who gave us our portions of ‘grace’?) all will be well. All will be well??? I’m not saying you are wrong here but you can’t preach ‘born again’ doctrine and then say mitigating circumstances can be taken into consideration. I don’t believe the current ‘born-again/saved’ doctrine but I believed everyone will get to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ before the Judgement. But you sound confused. Make up your mind.
What are you going on about ‘godly atheists’ and the basis of Gods judgement is not “religion” but mercy? You sound like someone trying to explain the trinity.
This all started between you and me over the nature of God. You were insinuating that God was angry, fierce, vengeful and violent; although, when I pressed you, you coped out. I will again quote you the passages you asked me to, but yet failed to reply and acknowledge. They are:
Ref 71 “He also made a whip and violently drove the moneychangers out of the temple (and I won't even mention the acts of God in the OT!)” – (so Jesus acted violently, and you appear to suggest that the acts of God in the OT were too?)
Ref 78 “...the God of the Old Testament, who most definitely was "violent" in judgement? Need I quote the many passages which reveal this?” (This makes God appear like a rogue – Luther would have been proud of you)
Ref78 “Do you think that the book of Revelation reveals a God of unconditional forgiveness?” (If it does then He is not a God of love – did Jesus require the repentance of His tormentors?)(I’m not saying that we shouldn’t repent in fact I believe it is essential for our salvation)
Ref 78 ...there is a "condition" attached to the operation of the love of God. (really?)
Ref79 He insulted the Scribes and the Pharisees with the following words :...( to intentionally insult is a sin?)
Ref97 Love is a cruel flame to those who reject it. (Are we talking of vindictiveness here?)
You never responded to my reply in which you were only looking for one quote. I gave you 5 quotes. You haven’t learned yet as you keep on misrepresenting God. In you post Ref141 you say 3 more things that make God seem like a tyrant:
God’s, “... anger is not some innocuous, soft and comforting attitude, but is a real enmity against all the works of the devil.” (As the devil doesn’t do the ‘works’ himself, we are talking about His enmity is against those of His children whom He would dearly love to save, right?)
You say that Matt 25: 41-46 , “...mentions an extremely violent reality”
You say, “If the only way to bring some people to their senses is to discipline them in a way that appears violent - let's use the word "robust" - then God is not going to shy away from this.” You really mean violent as you don’t seem to be able to get away from the word. Are you saying that God’s actions only appear violent but in reality we are all big softies and His apparently violent acts are just ‘robust’, so we should stop whingeing and take our punishment? Next you will be arguing that black is white.
You say it a, “...fearful thing falling into the hands of God”
You don’t even consider Jesus to be meek who came to this earth to show us what His Father was like. You seem to have missed the point. Here was a Man who allowed Himself to be lead like a lamb to the slaughter. He allowed Himself to be mocked. He allowed Himself to be beaten and abused. He allowed Himself to be nailed to a cross. At anytime all it would have taken was His word to stop the humiliation, beatings, and the abuse. And what did He say? Let me remind you. FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. What a perfect example of love.
What you say about God does not equate to a loving Being.
Many would say they would feel safe in the arms of Jesus but would be uneasy contemplating the stern encounter with God. I presume you would feel this way.
However, you do not understand the scriptures. Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament working under the directions of His Father; who is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes.
I suppose I don’t really blame you for your view as it is one that has been perpetrated throughout the centuries since the Church has been in apostasy.
Let me state what I have deduced about the bible. Many important points of doctrine touching the salvation of the human family have been taken from the bible. Many others have been lost before it was put together. It doesn’t contain a complete history of everything that happened. There are too many gaps for us to come to one single meaning of it all. We tend to misread what it means because it doesn’t provide us with a clear picture. We misread parts due to mistranslations.
Now, with regards “God’s anger”, some complain that the supposed harsh, vengeful Old Testament God seems inconsistent with the loving, peaceful God of the New Testament. The scales of justice and mercy seem to be out of balance. I feel that the reason people misconstrue the anger of the Lord is that they tend to assume that God’s anger is identical to their own as fallen mortals—they don’t understand correctly the nature of divine anger. When we read something and think that God is being ‘sharp’ we assume He is ANGRY. However, this sharpness is the power of His word and that which we call ANGER is the truth manifested boldly concerning iniquities. The anger of the Lord, then, is the truth of God’s justice manifested against the disobedient. When individuals are not in harmony with the eternal principles of justice and accountability, they may perceive the revelation of that truth (through God or his prophets) as anger or harshness. The guilty take the truth to be hard because it cuts them to the very centre. This was often the response of the rebellious Israelites to the consequences of their breach of eternal laws—laws which God is bound by and which he administers in long-suffering, mercy, and love.
Of course the centuries-long drift away from belief in such a perfect and caring Father hasn’t been helped any by the man-made creeds of erring generations which describe God variously as unknown and unknowable—formless, passionless, elusive, ethereal, simultaneously everywhere and nowhere at all. Certainly that does not describe the Being I behold through my prayerful study of the Bible. Nor does it match the living, breathing, embodied Jesus of Nazareth who was and is in, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his (Father) (Heb1:3, 2Cor 4:4, Col1:15)
In that sense Jesus did not come to improve God’s view of man nearly so much as He came to improve man’s view of God and to plead with them to love their Heavenly Father as He has always and will always love them. The plan of God, the power of God, the holiness of God, yes, evens the anger and the judgment of God they had occasion to understand. But the love of God, the profound depth of His devotion to His children, they still did not fully know—until Christ came.
So feeding the hungry, healing the sick, rebuking hypocrisy, pleading for faith—this was Christ showing us the way of the Father, In His life and especially in His death, Christ was declaring, “This is God’s compassion I am showing you, as well as that of my own.” In the perfect Son’s manifestation of the perfect Father’s care, in Their mutual suffering and shared sorrow for the sins and heartaches of the rest of us, we see ultimate meaning in the declaration: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” (John 3:16-17)
“Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive. … God does not look on sin with the least degree of allowance, but the nearer we get to our Heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.
I can picture God weeping over those who claim to love Him yet don’t know Him and view Him as ‘violent’, ‘vengeful’ and ‘quick to judge and destroy’
You say, “...we either accept the Bible or reject it as truth”. I say we accept the Bible and reject your interpretations as truth.
You say you, “...make no apology for upholding the character of God as revealed in the Bible” I say you owe God an apology for defaming His character.
Read the scriptures again prayerfully and with fresh eyes and when you come to the first thing that ‘touches’ you do as it tells you - as if it is speaking directly at you. You will thank me for it.
I think this will be my last post on this thread. I no longer wish to debate with you but if you want to criticise my words go right ahead. Goodbye.
Ref 142 auntjason
You claim to pray for people regarding their salvation but ask God to bring judgement upon them if they don't repent of the 'henious' sins committed on you and your family - stop it and try loving them instead then they may repent. You need to set the example.
You claim to want death for those who hurt you - thats not nice.
You claim that pseudo love/forgiveness is the cause of immorality in the UK - think it out a bit better.
No need to respond. Bye
Complain about this comment
Post REF 143: Puretruthseeker
"You say dead men can’t believe. Why not? It’s only their bodies that are dead."
Just clarify *dead* men *cannot* believe the Gospel is what the subject is.
PTS Said:
"Really? 1Peter 3:19 Jesus, just after His death and before His resurrection, taught the spirits who had once lived."
And where does it say dead men believed the gospel? - and where does it say these spirits - are even human?
Also *taught* is not in any translation I have - the greek holds more to the idea of proclaimed.
It seems to me that 2 Peter shows us who these spirits are.
2 Peter Ch2 v 4 - For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to prision to be kept until the judgment.
PTS: said:
"A spirit, once left the body, doesn’t go to heaven. It goes to paradise, where Jesus told the thief on the cross he would be that day. When Jesus first appeared He said, “Touch me not, I have not yet ascended to the Father”. So, He went were your spirit or mine would go if we dropped dead now."
PTS: are you being taught these doctrines - or are you learning it yourself?
What does your church teach?
So is Jesus with his father - or is he in some intermediate state somewhere with the rest of the dead?
Paul said:
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago— whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows— such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man— whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows — was caught up into Paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
So for Paul - Paradise and Heaven is the same place.
PTS Said:
"You talk about sinners as if you hate them. Are you not a sinner?"
Where did I say I hate anything - or anybody for that matter?
Of course I am a sinner.
PTS: Said
Would you say you were elected to go to heaven?
Yes absoultly.
So, if it wasn’t for election then salvation wouldn’t be a complete work of grace. Is that what you are saying?
If God did not elect anyone for salvation - then grace - salvation, and indeed the crucifixtion, are pointless - as nobody would have been saved.
I take it you do believe in foreknowledge - and for whom Christ knew would believe?
Complain about this comment
To all you people who have written long tomes about my views, I will sum up in one sentence what I have been saying:
God is passionately opposed to evil and those who refuse to repent of their evil.
I am not going waste any more of my time debating with people who refuse to accept that simple truth, which is so blindingly obvious in the Bible that I don't know how anyone can question it. You clearly totally misunderstand what I have written - or perversely refuse to accept the truth. Even the atheists have enough sanity about them to see this truth, and it is because of the strength of God's passion against evil that they dismiss the Bible as a violent book! Frankly I have more time for them than I have for the incoherent ramblings of one particular contributor on this thread.
I've done my best and can do no more.
PS - but if anyone does feel like making one last comment (perhaps in order to feel they have "won" by having the final say, please do me one small favour: tell me what version of the Bible you are using which contradicts the above statement I have made about God's passionate opposition to evil. I would love to purchase that Bible and study it. It must be a truly intriguing book).
Complain about this comment
Ref 148 PTS:
PTS Said:
Is Christ God? "Whether He is God or not"
I hope you don't doubt that he is PTS.
Whether He is God or not, if He prays to His Father and says, "...forgive them..." Will His Father scold Him when they next meet and tell Him that He cannot forgive or ask for it and should know better? Come on; you are denying the word of God or you don't understand it.
Why would his Father *Scold* him for praying for his enemies????
PTS - Never did I say it was wrong to pray - Father forgive our enemies - the heart of the debate is - are sinners forgiven by simply praying a prayer.
Let's pretend for a moment those Christ prayed for were actually forgiven by him - and let's say a few of those he prayed for went on crucifying and sinning without care - and now we move forward to them being judged by God - Are they forgiven????
Keep in mind that Christ's forgivness is unconditional - he actually *forgave them*
Were you forgiven simply because somebody prayed that you would be - or were you forgiven because God called you?
-J
Complain about this comment
This place has become way too toxic. I'm away somewhere a bit less religious. Adios.
Complain about this comment
PTS Post 145:
PTS Said:
"Now I know why you are a 'born-again' christian. You have just given away your motivation. You are afraid of hell, isn't that so? Somebody scared you into it. Some big, bad, guldering, red-faced preacher. You were told you were going to burn and you took the 'fire insurance'. What a way to be attracted to God - through threats."
PTS Said: "You are afraid of hell"
Can't believe you even wrote that - it's as if you mock Christ's justice.
PTS Said : Somebody scared you into it?
Yes - the day I feared God was a lovely day indeed - and that somebody you refer to was the Holy Spirit, who pointed me to Christ.
The scriptures are indeed correct - when they say the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
PTS Said:
"I, on the other hand, was attracted by love. It was more because He offerred me a way to improve, have peace, live contently,and to walk a straight path to perfection. I suppose that's why we view the scriptures so differently. You see what threatens you and I see what inspires me.
PTS Said:
"I, on the other hand, was attracted by love.
And the spirit showing me my need of a saviour - and that he died for my sin is unloving how?
So you were attracted by love, and i was attracted by fear, is what your saying - is that correct?
It was more because He offerred me a way to improve, have peace, live contently,and to walk a straight path to perfection.
At any point in your conversion - or just at any point in your christian life have you understood that your sin cost Jesus everything?
Have you no concept how angry the Father is at peoples sin, including yours - keeping that in mind - do you not realise Christ took the Fathers wrath in your place - at any point in your Christian life have you feared sinning against God?
Sounds to me your not taking the cost of your sin seriously.
PTS Said:
You see what threatens you and I see what inspires me. sic
So I feel *threatened* and you feel *inspired* by the same thing.
So because I have a biblical view of God I am under threat - by who?
You are just inspired when read about God's wrath in the bible - it's so loving, you just can't but feel great in utopia???
Love - Greater love hath no man that he lay down his life for his freinds - I hope you understand the cost of that life.
So I am neither threatened or inspired - I am in awe of what it cost Jesus - I am free, and do not want to trample under foot the blood of Christ, because I fear him.
God is loving, holy, wrathful, longsuffering to name but a few.
I want to be balanced in my view of God according to scripture - PTS I think you need to balance your love scales with a little reality check from the word of God.
Can you seperate the attributes of God PTS - I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Guys,
Effectively communicating on an online blog can be difficult, because people usually don't have the time to fully articulate their view so that there's no possibility of misunderstanding, and what frequently happens is that there is much misunderstanding as a result. Even language itself has this limitation. I hope you decide to stick around.
Complain about this comment
RJB
I rejoiced with you when I read your postings #112 and #129 but my joy was almost equally great when I read post #153. It was wonderful to find you still the mirror of Christ. I have not read any of your thoughts with which I would agree more.
I am afraid I am going to go further than you. As I have read many of the threads since my return I have concluded that the Bible is possibly one of the most pernicious tomes ever to have been complied in the history of humanity. There can be few things more inimical to living the life of Christ than excessive study of the scriptures.
The Bible contains a powerful narrative, a universal myth which connects with human need on so many levels, but, look at it closely, and one hears the voice of God at best intermittently. That voice, however, shouts at us from the poor, the marginalised and the needy: it is a voice you have echoed often in this blog - I hope you will long continue to do so.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
As you already know, I find myself in the company of those who are encamped (or, perhaps, entrenched?) under the standard, 'bible = God’s Word'. (Helio is aghast, maybe you are too.) I think it possible to defend this position, however to do so, on this website, at this time, would be to scupper one's own boat, (although I'm not sure there's much of the good ship evangelical left to scupper at the moment!)
And so I will not take issue with you; rather I shall post from Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, as these are the words which have been on my mind this last week, and in the process hope that the little game of 'Theological Assassin', which we evangelicals like so much to play, will come to an end.
He writes of a priest counseling the wife of a dying and abusive drunk:
" 'Thank God he's dying! One less to keep!' (said Katerina, the wife.)
'You must forgive in the hour of death; this is a sin, madam, such feelings are a great sin.'
Katerina Ivanovna was busy with the dying man; she was giving him water, wiping the blood and sweat from his head, setting his pillow straight, and had only turned now and then for a moment to address the priest. Now she flew at him in a frenzy.
'Ah father! That's words and only words! Forgive! If he'd not been run over, he'd have come home today drunk and his only shirt dirty and in rags and he'd have fallen asleep like a log, and I should have been sousing and rinsing till daybreak, washing his rags and the children's and then drying them by the window, and as soon as it was daylight I should have been darning them. That's how I spend my nights!... What's the use of talking about forgiveness! I have forgiven as it is!'
A terrible cough interrupted her words. She put her handkerchief to her lips and showed it to the priest, pressing her other hand to her aching chest. The handkerchief was covered in blood. The priest bowed his head and said nothing."
Complain about this comment
Ref 165 John_Wright
I enjoy reading the scriptures and I have found that my life has changed by applying the words of Jesus. I thought this was faith - doing what I was asked to do in the scriptures. I turned from a very destructive lifestyle that could have been the cause of an early demise. I thought this was repenting. I have tried to see the good in others and through this began to see the good in myself.
At times my mind has 'crystalised' when I have understood a passage of scripture like never before and I have cried with joy. At times, it was as if the passage was like the layers of an onion and I was having the privilege to peel back some layers and obtain a greater insight. At other times when I have read about the atonement of the saviour my tears have been with regret for His suffering and appreciation of what He did for me and others. I have experienced great joy and happiness even though I am poor and have few possessions. I have tried to love everyone, seeing them as my brother or sister. I have had, at times, an assurance that God was pleased with me. However, the real christians on this blog tell me that my view of God is wrong.
They tell me that He is not loving at all because He has a nasty side. Like a red rag to a bull He gets mad at sin. And when He gets mad, I'm in trouble. They tell me that I shouldn't forgive my enemies because it is counterfeit. They tell me things that i can't understand because I mustn't be an authentic christian like them and have the great understanding that the real God give to people like them.
Now, maybe it's because I have never mouthed the magic words, 'Jesus come into my heart' and i don't claim to be 'saved'. Maybe it's because I am not a member of a church either. I don't know. But they have me worried. No, in fact they have me scared.
They have attacked my views this last while back as I don't view God as a cross between Jonny Adair and Mother Teresa. It's as if the gates of their heaven have open and their God's dogs have been let loose on me. Excuse me, I'm off to pray. I will be right back.
I'm just up off my knees and have prayed that the real God would forgive me for getting Him mixed up with the sissy one. I have told Him not to forgive the rotten bastards who have abused me when I was younger and the guys who sent me to prison. I told him that I wish they would burn in hell for ever and ever - and longer if possible. Somehow or other, my head seems to be busting right now and I'm thinking of looking up the only surviving agent provacateur and giving him what he deserves - God's sorting out the other one right now.
My world looks a good bit darker right now. Is this what happens, initially, when you get saved and will it look brighter tomorrow?
Complain about this comment
Peter - a well-judged (as ever) reply. May I put you on the spot and ask you a couple of question which really puzzle me? I appreciate you may not wish to answer just at the moment.
While I might quibble at aspects of its origins there is nothing whatsoever in the out-working of your faith with which I would disagree. I respect both your opinions and the grace with which you habitually express them (would I could emulate it). I agreed less with Graham and my eschewing of the intellect in matters religious meant we did not really connect but his learning and commitment earned my complete respect. I have always really rather liked OT: there is a mischief underlying many of his postings which I love and his steadfastness in the face of quite ghastly personalised attacks is utterly admirable.
There is, however, something vastly different about the posters from the WW threads (with perhaps a few exceptions). I do not hear the voice of Christ there at all - I hear the hateful voice of the pit. I would honestly love to know why you think this manifestation has damaged evangelical Christianity.
Do you think the ministry of Whitewell MC is an evangelical Christian ministry?
I know you cannot judge though I suspect from past exchanges you do not believe that all who call on the Lord are truly His; do you consider the people who hounded Graham off this blog are evangelical Christians?
Complain about this comment
#167 - petermorrow -
I've popped up again and I feel like responding to your post.
I am a bit of a fan of Dostoyevsky, but I must admit that I find Crime and Punishment a little bit confusing, from a moral point of view.
Here's a description of one of the two murders Raskolnikov committed:
"... this unhappy Lizaveta was so simple, downtrodden and utterly intimidated that she did not even raise her hands to protect herself, even though this would have been a most natural, life-saving gesture for her to make at that moment, as the axe was raised right above her face. She merely raised her unengaged left arm the tiniest distance, a long way from her face, and slowly extended it towards the axe, as though in an attempt to ward it off. The blow landed right on her skull, blade-first, and instantly split open the whole upper part of her forehead, almost to the crown of her head. She fairly crashed to the floor..."
So I think you would agree that this was a particularly brutal crime, which was committed against a completely helpless innocent woman who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now Dostoyevsky builds up to Raskolnikov's conversion to Christianity while he is in prison - the book ends at that point and one assumes that he is converted. However, what I find disappointing is that even in prison this character feels no remorse for his vicious crime:
"And if even fate had sent him no more than remorse - burning remorse that destroyed the heart, driving away sleep, the kind of remorse to escape whose fearsome torments the mind clutches at the noose and the well, oh, how glad he would have been! Torment and tears - after all, that is life, too. But he felt no remorse for his crime."
The text then relates the cynical thoughts he was thinking...
"... 'My conscience is easy. Of course from a legal point of view a crime was committed; of course, the letter of the law was violated and blood was spilt, well then, here is my head, take it in exchange for the letter of the law... and let that be that!' ..."
The narrator then goes on to say that Raskolnikov's only regret in prison was that he had turned himself in to the authorities.
The story ends with the following words:
"But at this point a new story begins, the story of a man's gradual renewal, his gradual rebirth, his gradual transition from one world to another, of his growing acquaintance with a new, hitherto completely unknown reality. This might constitute the theme of a new narrative - our present narrative is, however, at an end."
The context of this final paragraph is Raskolnikov's conversion to Christianity.
The problem I have is that this so-called conversion is of someone who feels no remorse for the vile crime he has committed, who feels no compassion for the helpless Lizaveta he murdered, and whose only regret was that he gave into the weakness of handing himself in to the authorities.
How utterly foreign this is to the words of the Bible! I am reminded of the words of God in Isaiah 66:2 -
"But on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at my word."
Also Isaiah 57:15 -
"I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit."
What is contrition if it is not remorse and repentance?
I am so overjoyed that I serve a God who cares about the victims of crime and who does not justify the wicked with false ideas of forgiveness, which do not require that evildoers need to repent. I delight in a God who feels for the Lizavetas of this world. Who weeps over those who are helpless before the brutes who abuse them. Who has compassion on the weak who cry out to him for help. I delight in a God who comes against the bullies, the brutes and the tyrants of this world. Who does not simply acquit them unconditionally, but who seeks to protect the weak by judging those who are arrogant, unremorseful and unrepentant. This is a God in whom I can trust, and whom I can truly worship.
And I make no apology for saying this about my God.
Complain about this comment
LSV Said:
"I am so overjoyed that I serve a God who cares about the victims of crime and who does not justify the wicked with false ideas of forgiveness, which do not require that evildoers need to repent. I delight in a God who feels for the Lizavetas of this world. Who weeps over those who are helpless before the brutes who abuse them. Who has compassion on the weak who cry out to him for help. I delight in a God who comes against the bullies, the brutes and the tyrants of this world. Who does not simply acquit them unconditionally, but who seeks to protect the weak by judging those who are arrogant, unremorseful and unrepentant. This is a God in whom I can trust, and whom I can truly worship."
And I make no apology for saying this about my God
I could not think of a better way to put it - absoultly nailed it with that statement LSV.
PTS - I wish you well - I have stated what I believe the Bible says concerning this topic of compassion / forgivness / repentance.
You have some good points that you make, and I am glad you made them.
I hope you continue to contribute - but please understand if I disagree it is not a personel attack at you.
Debate is healthy - so keep debating - your input has made me for one look a little deeper into the subject.
Also as John Wright and Peter Morrow has stated - we can get a totally wrong picture of the person we deabte on blogs - we only get to know a small part of them.
Anyhow I hope the picture that is painted of me is not an unforgiving pious hater of people just because I believe in justice and repentance.
I'm sure anyone knows me, and hears me pray frequently will say I pray for those who have wronged me and hurt me - that God in his love and mercy would show them their sin and the glorious Gospel - in this way I love them.
-J
Complain about this comment
LSV - an interesting post and a very valid point of view even though my understanding of God and Scripture is, of-course, very different from yours.
Peter will answer for himself but when I read the passage he quoted I saw, at first glance, two things: the powerful metaphor of what we might call the covering of the blood, and the inappropriateness of looking for the words of forgiveness when forgiveness is worked out in hard, dirty, demanding practice. It is a powerful denunciation of the evangelical preoccupation with formulaic assent as opposed to lived Christianity.
What would you think of viewing repentance in the same sort of way? We today tend to look at repentance primarily in terms of feeling sorry, a change of mind and a change of attitude: an emotional response.
I was recently reading St John Climacus' Ladder of Divine Ascent (Climacus is still highly revered in the Orthodox tradition) and was struck, on reading Peter's piece, by how it chimed with his idea of repentance. We do not so much turn away from what we are as direct what we are towards God. Repentance becomes not so much a change of mind as a change of course: man moves from the deeds of sin and selfishness into actions of self-negation and service, into the knowledge of God.
St John wrote: "Let us try to learn Divine truth more by toil and sweat than by mere word, for at the time of our departure it is not words but deeds that will have to be shown". I think this is what Dostoyevsky is saying - both about Katerina and about Raskolnikov.
Complain about this comment
I asked a friend his opinion on this idea of unconditional love - I thought his reply was very profound.
1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,
1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,
1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme
Should Paul have forgiven Hymenaeus and Alexander - instead of handing them over to Satan. That reminds me of Ananias - and his wife Sapphira, ? see Acts 5, perhaps the Holy Spirit should have shown them *love* instead of striking them dead.
The fact is Jason this idea of unconditional love - is willing to let sin/crime go un punished - which is a breach of the second greatest commandment (love your neighbour as yourself)- it is not very loving to your neighbour to allow criminals to run free and to commit crime against them. So his love turns out not to be love, but in fact hatred for his law abiding neighbour - by putting him in harms way.
-J
Complain about this comment
l_v_s
The purpose of the gospel is to save sinners. That’s all those who do wrong. God loves the wrong-doer as a son or daughter. This includes all of us. It includes those who commit big sins and those who are less obedient. He loves those who are being sinned against and He loves those who are abusing them. HE DOES NOT LOVE THE SIN BUT HE LOVES THE SINNER.
There are some who post on this blog like yourself who think that god only loves and cares for
“...the victims of crime...”
“...the Lizavetas of this world...”
“...weeps over the helpless...”
“...has compassion for the weak...”
“...comes out against the bully...”
“...who protects the weak...”
You state it is this God that you trust. The truth of it is that not only does God love and care for all those that you mentions but He cares for all those who sin against them. He sees them as wayward, lost, pathetic, confused, etc and as a loving Father He would want for them to change.
Now, if you read over my posts, you will not find anywhere where I have said that if I am to forgive those that sin against me that God will forgive them too. I would hope that He would but their eternal welfare will depend on them; not me pleading with God to have them punished and to make them suffer. I believe that if I forgive those that sin against me, I can have peace. If I have had the opportunity to have my sins forgiven, maybe I can go someway in showing mercy to others. It helps me to feel magnanimous. It helps me feel divine. It’s never easy but I find that it is worth it. I also find that it becomes easier with time. If the reader would rather harbour up feelings of resentment, anger and vengeance, it’s your life – go right ahead.
To explain further, if someone broke into my home and robbed me, I would report it to the police. If the police investigated, apprehended, prosecuted and penalised the culprits I would agree with that. However, I would not hold spite or any other negative feeling against those persons because I would forgive them. If it happened to be local lads, I would seek them out and with an attitude of understanding attempt to show them the consequences of their actions (fear of crime, distrust for young people, etc) and try to repair the bridges that may have been damaged. In this way, without pushing religion at them, I would show them by my actions a forgiving mentality. This is where living the gospel has brought me to. This is my understanding.
Parrhasios
You mentioned that today we speak of repentance as feelings of sorrow, and a change of mind and attitude. You also mentioned Climacus’ words regarding repentance where, “We do not so much turn away from what we are as direct what we are towards God.” I think we must do all of the above and more for real repentance and, thus, forgiveness to be complete. I see repentance this way:
First, we must have FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST which will lead US to want to change our life for the better. As we study the gospel, we recognise that we have sinned or acted against the will of God.
So, next, we must RECOGNISE that we have sinned and feel sorrow for what we have done.
Then, we must STOP doing what is wrong and strive never to do it again.
Next, we must CONFESS your sins to God and ask for forgiveness. If we have sinned against another person, we must also ask that person for their forgiveness.
Our next step would be to make RESTITUTION and do all in our power to correct the problem our action caused.
This should lead to us KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS which brings the power of the gospel into our life and includes being of service to others, forgiving others, etc
Last but not least we need to ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAVIOUR which is the most important part seeing that forgiveness come through His atoning sacrifice.
Some on this blog think that there are some who study the scriptures but don’t live them. I can assure anyone that, for me, living them is more important but I also believe it important to obtain Christ’s words then apply them – not make things or misconstrue up as I go along.
Auntjason
I talked to a friend too.
God love us unconditionally. Whether we sin or are sinned against. Tomorrow it will be the other way around – we will be the sinner and someone else will be the sinned against. Now, does God only love us when we are sinned against? Does He stop loving the moment we have a wrong thought and start again when we repent or become the victim of a sin? Is God fickle? You seem to think that God loves some – no matter what they do and does not love others – no matter what they do.
As a fallen mortal I love my children. Sometimes one of them will do something that hurts me or is wrong. Do I stop loving them? Off course I don’t. I may dislike their actions but I don’t stop loving them. I will let them know that I feel hurt and displeased by their actions and hope this will help them consider the consequences of what they have done and have a change of heart.
Now, let’s say that one of them has been consistently and increasingly moving away from the way I have taught them to behave. Let’s say that, for whatever reason, be it peer pressure, drug use, relationship problems or the like, that they are causing continual problems in the home and the family environment is being badly affected. What if, no matter what I do, I just don’t seem to be able to get through to them and everyone else is becoming miserable. What do I do as a loving father?
Let me outline a process that I may take. It is not conclusive but would have the main elements of love within it.
I suppose my first move is to reiterate the damage they are causing within the home, amongst the family and to themselves. Then I need to re-affirm the love that we as a family have for them. I then must advise them that the behaviour can’t continue as it is not acceptable. Then I must warn them that if the behaviour continues that they may have to leave the family home for the greater good. (This has never happened, by the way, but I’m using it to illustrate a point) Should the warning go unheeded and the behaviour continues, I have to take the difficult step to separate my child from the rest of the family. However, I never cast them off. I never stop being a father. I never stop loving them. If need be, I help them find accommodation, I help them get the things they need to live, I encourage all family members to maintain relationships and I invite them back to the family home often to share food, be part of family traditions, etc. This way, I don’t abandon them, turn away from them and stop loving them. This way they are more likely to see the error of their ways and return to the family. Now, surely God has greater love than me. Surely, He has more understanding.
You quote 1Tim 1:18-20 regarding Hymenaeus and Alexander. Proper care of the church (the people) by Timothy and other appointed leaders is the central theme of Paul’s letter. It is my view that Paul was warning that false doctrine would become popular, which would constitute a serious threat to the faith. Read what he says later on in the letter at 1 Tim 4:1,2. With this in mind, if Hymenaeus and Alexander were spreading such doctrine it would only be fitting that they would be removed, be excommunicated, or be ‘delivered unto satan’. Paul adds ‘...that they may learn not to blaspheme’ Now, if the blessings of Church membership was removed such as the privilege to have personal revelation and the protection of the Holy Ghost was suspended, surely this could be understood as being ‘handed over...’. As the authority over these two, Paul could well describe his actions the way he did. I have no doubt that Paul showed these two love and would have hoped, ‘...that they may learn not to blaspheme’.
Ananaias and Sapphira is a more difficult part of the scriptures to fully comprehend. However, at the time the Church was living a sort of pure religious form of communism. Yes, Ananias and his wife died while talking with Peter but we need to read the passage clearly with unbiased eyes to get some understanding of it. Nowhere in the passage does it say that they were killed by the Holy Ghost – this is just another myth that has been perpetrated to make God appear vengeful. When Peter exposed Ananias it could well be that his discovery prompted a heart attack. Likewise his wife when she found out her husband has just dropped dead, the shock may have been too much for her. We are not told the physical condition of the pair so we cannot assume that the reason for their deaths was anything but due to natural causes precipitated by the shock of being found out. I’m not saying this is what happened – there is not enough information. However, it does not say that the Holy Ghost was responsible and it is unfair to use this argument.
Unconditional love does not allow sin/crime to go unpunished – quite the contrary.
Unconditional love is just yet merciful.
Unconditional love is not fickle but constant.
Unconditional love builds bridges and does not breaks them.
Unconditional love rehabilitates and does not damn.
The God I worship has unconditional love for me.
Does your God have unconditional love for you?
Complain about this comment
John_Wright
After sending you that posting Ref 168 last night, I went to bed and had the most restless night ever. In a dream, I saw satan with horns, all red and evil looking. I also seen God, who was in a real fit, fighting with satan. Satan didn't stand a chance - he was pulverised. After the fight I saw a line of people stand before God. I heard him shout, "If there are any sinners here your in real trouble." To one He was all sweetness and He gave them a harp and directed them to a beautiful land. To another He had a face like fury and He picked them up and threw them into a big pit with flames coming out of it. All the children were looking more afraid of him than they would be on their first visit to Santa Clause. The adults were no better. When it came to my turn He asked me this question, "Is this the way you envisaged me". I said, "At one time I thought that you only possessed the most positive of attributes and qualities in perfection but I was informed by some real 'born-again-saved-christians that I had you all wrongly figured out". I continued, "I took their advice and asked Jesus into my heart and stopped forgiving those that done me wrong - unless they came with their tails between their legs and apologised for my forgiveness. I then told them that I couldn't forgive them - that it was out of my hands - and they better repent of their sins, take Jesus into their hearts and ask God to forgive them or else they would have to face His wrath". God said to me then, "What did they say?". I said to Him they told me to get knotted and go to hell. At that God said, "And where do you think you are going?" I said, "Heaven". At that He burst into the most bowel reaching laughs I have ever heard and I woke up in a sweat.
Needless to say the dream was the most frightening one i have ever had and I'm back to accepting the God who I have previously grown to love. The thumping headache has lifted, the murderous thoughts have gone and my world has brightened again. I just thought you would like to know in case you were worried about me.
Complain about this comment
LSV #170 (more direct reply to Parrhasios to follow)
One of the features of Crime and Punishment which fascinates me is the deliberate spilling of Raskolnikov's heart upon the pages; it is, at times, as if it were a page after page exploration of, 'the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked'. Yet, having said that, the one scene in the story which sticks with me is that of Katerina tending to her dying husband. I have no idea if there is an 'accepted' reading of this, but, for me, I see and hear, among the darkness of Raskolnikov's schemes, Marmeladov's neglect, and the poverty of St. Petersburg, Katerina's love and forgiveness. And the most potent aspect of this is that it should shine inspite of her open wrestling with her circumstances. She speaks words of frustration, but her actions, in the mundane tasks of life, speak love.
The painful thing for all of us who claim to 'believe' is that Dostoevsky seems to be drawing a deliberate distinction between the demands made by the priest, for words, and the demands of what he appears to call 'true' forgiveness. I cannot read it without wincing.
The development of Raskolnikov's character then, was not on my mind, and to be honest I would have to spend some time re-reading the book to answer more fully; but by way of hasty response I will say that when I read the words, "But at this point a new story begins, the story of a man's gradual renewal, his gradual rebirth," and following, what I hear is an invitation to understand that Christianity is the process of the rebuilding or untangling of the human heart, a process which has only begun in Raskolnikov and which will take the rest of his life. It is not a story which is written for us, perhaps because it is each of us who must become the central characters of this new narrative.
Complain about this comment
PTS -
Never have I encountered someone who misunderstands other people's words to the degree that you do.
Because I have said - in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ - that forgiveness is conditional on repentance ("if your brother sins against you, forgive him"), you seem to have imagined that I am on some kind of crusade to damn people to hell. And you seem to be insinuating that I am telling you to go to hell (see your post 175).
In my opinion you are not thinking clearly, judging by your responses. Of course you will vehemently deny that, but your comments are emotionally laden and irrational.
I have not at all said that you are going to hell. I have not denied that God is love. And, in fact, I am not denying that God loves all people.
But what I am saying is that the Bible makes absolutely clear that salvation - which, of course, includes forgiveness - is dependent on repentance. If you dispute this, I will take the time to write a long post listing a great many of these scriptures.
Furthermore, there are hundreds of verses in the Bible which describe the wrath of God against evil. And these are not simply confined to the Old Testament - even though the Old Testament is part of the canon of Scripture and reflects the character of God, since God's character does not change. But there are also verses in the New Testament that speak about God's anger against the wicked and his judgments on the wicked. I have quoted some of these and you just simply bat them away as if they don't matter, and try to promote your own entirely subjective interpretation of the Bible.
You seem to have this belief that Christians who take the Bible seriously, and who take the judgment of God seriously, are somehow people who are full of personal vengeance and hatred. If I knew you personally I would actually like to know the real reason why you think this. I have certain suspicions about people who think like this, to be honest. It is not very easy to be so personally direct when we are talking to each other as strangers hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
I don't consider myself a hate-filled and vengeful person. If you knew me you would probably think I am rather laid back as a Christian. I am certainly not one of these macho "muscular" Christians who goes around pointing the finger at people. In many ways I am quite liberal theologically (by so-called "evangelical" standards). But I do not accept that love ever condones evil.
The fact is that the Christian Church often just does not take evil seriously. We flirt with it. We downplay it. We justify it. We evade facing up to it. We concoct every clever reason to avoid the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. We may even major on the "unconditional love of God" to evade personal moral responsibility (whether that is what you are doing is entirely a matter between you and God, so don't read into my words some accusation against you. I am simply making a general point from my own experience within the Christian Church).
I am not at all suggesting that you should not forgive those who have wronged you. That is entirely a matter between you and God. I cannot emphasise this more strongly. If you think that I am trying to persuade you to not forgive people, then you have directed at me a most evil accusation. I have said no such thing. But I am saying that you have no right to pressure vulnerable people to forgive the unrepentant in the way that the woman who was raped was forced to do (if you remember the example I gave some time ago).
Complain about this comment
ref #169
Ah, Parrhasios, it's easy to write grace!
Beyond that, gee wizz golly, I don't know what to say. Sometimes negotiating these threads is like playing rugby with a jelly ball!
However, let's play.
I'm deliberately taking a different tack here, pretty certain in the knowledge that (1) you will not mind and because (2) I need a break from all the linear certainty that's been doing the rounds this last while.
I think you will get my drift, but if you need me to be more prosaic, I shall be!
Answer one, but not necessarily to question one, and if the BBC can stick this, I'll post others.
Jairus
So, God takes your child by the hand
and pulls her from her deathbed.
He says: "Feed her, she is ravenous."
You give her fruits with thick hides
-pomegranate, cantaloupe-
food with weight, to keep her here.
You hope that if she eats enough
the light and dust and love
which weave the matrix of her body
will not fray, nor wear so thin
that morning sun breaks through her,
shadowless, complete.
Somehow this reanimation
has cut sharp the fear of death,
the shock of presence. Feed her
roast lamb, egg, unleavened bread:
forget the herbs, she has an aching
fast to break. Sit by her side,
split skins for her so she can gorge,
and notice how the dawn
draws color to her just-kissed face.
Michael Symmons Roberts
Complain about this comment
PTS:
Reponse to post 174:
PTS Said:
"Nowhere in the passage does it say that they were killed by the Holy Ghost – this is just another myth that has been perpetrated to make God appear vengeful. When Peter exposed Ananias it could well be that his discovery prompted a heart attack. Likewise his wife when she found out her husband has just dropped dead, the shock may have been too much for her. We are not told the physical condition of the pair so we cannot assume that the reason for their deaths was anything but due to natural causes precipitated by the shock of being found out. I’m not saying this is what happened – there is not enough information. However, it does not say that the Holy Ghost was responsible and it is unfair to use this argument."
Sorry PTS - It is obvious when Peter said "You have not lied to men but to God" Ananias was being judged for his sin.
PTS Said:
Let me outline a process that I may take. It is not conclusive but would have the main elements of love within it.
I suppose my first move is to reiterate the damage they are causing within the home, amongst the family and to themselves. Then I need to re-affirm the love that we as a family have for them. I then must advise them that the behaviour can’t continue as it is not acceptable. Then I must warn them that if the behaviour continues that they may have to leave the family home for the greater good. (This has never happened, by the way, but I’m using it to illustrate a point) Should the warning go unheeded and the behaviour continues, I have to take the difficult step to separate my child from the rest of the family. However, I never cast them off. I never stop being a father. I never stop loving them. If need be, I help them find accommodation, I help them get the things they need to live, I encourage all family members to maintain relationships and I invite them back to the family home often to share food, be part of family traditions, etc. This way, I don’t abandon them, turn away from them and stop loving them. This way they are more likely to see the error of their ways and return to the family. Now, surely God has greater love than me. Surely, He has more understanding.
You believe that Christ died for and loved every human ever born - and so every child is his and he loves them and tries to support them - but at times has to remove them from his care.
Now that all sounds great but what do you do when that does not work - and your children get worse?
What God done in the flood was wipe out everyone of his *children* apart from eight souls.
Would you drown your children? - if not are you more loving than God?
You said surely God is more loving than me I think you may struggle with the above statement - youer concept of love is not correct.
Do you remember Christ saying you are of your Father the devil?
It seems to me he did not consider these people to be his children.
Anyway there are so many verses about judgement and repentance and so forth, I would be lost for choice.
PTS - I am not trying to breed bitterness in you = please understand that - my goal has always been to read the scriptures without bringing any presuppositions to the text - even if that means the scriptures go against my own judgement, of what *I believe is moral and right.*
It simply impossible to read the Bible and come to the conclusion that God does not kill people - sorry if that is crass = but it is true.
And it also impossible to read the Bible and come to the conclusion that God does not love.
If God simply loves without condition then Jesus died for all his children - without them needing to repent - this then leads to total forgivness which then leads to everbody being saved because all are forgiven,
The problem with that view is - we have to try and get rid of Hell, repentance, harsh judgements like the flood ect.
Sorry I disagree with you again - but I do still pray for you and wish you well.
Complain about this comment
Ref 177 l_v_s
Ditto on the misunderstanding of other people’s words – Jesus’, the prophets and mine.
I have no problem with repentance being necessary for forgiveness (read my response to parrhiaos in the same post to you) but you seem to be of the opinion that forgiveness cannot happen without repentance. I’m saying it can. I have done it and Gordon Wilson is a prime example of it.
You can attack my thinking all you like if you have difficulty understanding, but my thinking is crystal clear to me and rational. If my comments are emotionally laden, that is no reason to attack them – my relationship with God, if nothing else, is emotional.
I didn’t say that you said I was going to hell; that was just my ‘dream’.
When you balance up your description of God it sure doesn’t portrait Him as loving but as an angry tyrant. I have yet to read words from you that mention positive characteristics of God other than ‘God is Love’. You have said that God is passionately opposed to evil and those who refuse to repent. Let me break that down for you:
1. God is passionately opposed to evil.
2. God is passionately opposed to those who don’t repent
I accept the first statement. I oppose the second. You cannot say God loves all people and God is passionately opposed to those who don’t repent. That’s what you are saying and it doesn’t square. You see, we are all sinners. You sin every day. Do you repent for every single sin you commit? No, you don’t. But you think that if someone hasn’t yet been ‘covered by the blood’, as you probably put it, that God is opposed – sorry, passionately opposed to them. From what you write, I get the impression that your God only loves His people; and their sin – their disobedience – their sins of omission – their evil doesn’t count somehow. It’s ‘born-again’ false doctrine.
I understand salvation requires, amongst other things, repentance and thus forgiveness. I have always believed that and nowhere on this blog have I said anything to the contrary. If I have point it out. It is you reading into things that are not there. In all of our exchanges when you accuse me of misreading you, I give you reference to where you said it. You on the other hand just assume things that I say and want to argue against it. So, you have no need to write a long list – I have one.
When the scriptures talk about God’s wrath, as I said before, we as ‘fallen man’ interpret that in our understanding of what we think wrath is like. I don’t need to describe a scenario for you we all know what it is like. However, when understanding the characteristics of a perfect Being who does not sin we have to try to understand that wrath in the context of His perfect love. If we were in the presence of God right now, we would not be able to identify His wrath. He would be exquisitely serene beyond belief. Jesus showed us what the Father was like. He didn’t wreck the temple – he tipped over some tables and ushered tout the animals. No on got hurt and he was inoffensive while He was doing it. Losing his temper is just something we have been told from we were children but it is a lie. However, it influences our view. When Jesus described the Pharisees, He did not shout, He spoke quietly. He wasn’t offensive – they took offense. We need to relook at the scriptures with new eyes to get a better understanding of the characteristics of God the Father and Jesus Christ. So, the God of the Old Testament is consistent with the God of the New Testament. Your understanding of God does not support that. No wonder the atheists dislike religion – they just don’t understand God. Anyway, can you quote me one verse where God personally attacked an individual or group.
I don’t bat your scripture quotes as if they don’t matter, I interpret them through my understanding – which is different from yours. So, do we have an objective interpretation of the Bible? I could say your quotes are subjective as well. At least my understanding is consistent. Your view of God can’t be true as you view Him as equally loving and; wrathful and vengeful in terms that we as fallen man understand.
I think I probably take the Bible more seriously than you. I have talked to your type, assuming I have judged you properly and I think I have, and never found an open mind. You see yourselves as saved already despite what the scriptures teach. You condemn me for my view. You get angry with me and frustrated because I use the scriptures to show you what you don’t want to see or can’t. Maybe the reason that prefer this form of communication is due to my experiences in the past with ‘saved’ people. Generally, they have tended to be unsavoury and I have never been able to understand why Christians get so defensive at first then switch to attack. Anyway, if you don’t accept what I have to say, you can ignore me as others do here.
I didn’t say that love condones evil. Rather, love will conquers evil but is concerned for the evil-doer in the mean time. That’s the distinction I make. I’m just saying there is more. Please try to understand me and we may reach some sort of agreement.
Remember, I am not involved with the/any ‘Christian’ church as I don’t accept the so-called authority.
I am not trying to evade any type of personal responsibility, quite the contrary. That’s why I have taken the stand that I have. I will not hand the teaching of the gospel to someone who has no better understanding of the Bible than I have; and maybe even less.
With regards forgiving others without their repentance; what you seem to be saying to me is that there is no point me forgiving others who wrong me because it not valid – it’s counterfeit. These are your words. This is what you are saying. That is what you have been saying to me from the start. Have you forgotten?
Forgiving others who have not repented has worked for me because I followed the leadership of Jesus and my faith was rewarded. It worked for Gordon Wilson too.
You over-react by accusing me of evil accusations against you then you accuse me of something that I didn’t do in pressuring others...Let me quote you directly. “But I am saying that you have no right to pressure vulnerable people to forgive the unrepentant in the way that the woman who was raped was forced to do (if you remember the example I gave some time ago).”
Are you ok? How am I pressurising anyone? Have I spoken directly to this woman Rita? Is someone passing my messages on to her? Did I force her to do anything? Are you even aware of what you are saying? How can I take you seriously anymore? Reply if you like but as far as I’m concerned I don’t think there is any point in us communicating further. I wish you all the best for the future.
Complain about this comment
#180 - puretruthseeker -
"1. God is passionately opposed to evil.
2. God is passionately opposed to those who don’t repent
I accept the first statement. I oppose the second. You cannot say God loves all people and God is passionately opposed to those who don’t repent."
This is what the Bible says:
"God is love." 1 John 4:8
But also it says...
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
God loving the sinner, but hating the sin? Then why desire for the sinner to be condemned?
"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" Matthew 22:13
These are not the words of someone using the moniker "logica_sine_vanitate". These are the words of God, describing the condemnation of a "sinner". Is this God's "love for the sinner"?
"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of his indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever..." Revelation 14:9-11 (and please read this with the warning of Revelation 22:19 in mind).
Are these my words, the words of a "closed-minded, dogmatic, vengeful born-again Christian"? No. They are the words of God.
I could go on, but if you don't accept the point I am making, then it is pointless my staying up all night quoting the many passages of the Bible which reveal God's wrath against the wicked.
You can write what you like about my God being vengeful. He is vengeful towards the wicked (see Nahum 1:2-3). That is not because I say he is, but because he says it about himself. Your quarrel is not with me, but with God.
It is not illogical to say that God loves all people and yet condemns those who refuse to repent (and by the way... repentance is a response to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, so don't throw all this stuff at me about having to dig around in myself to confess every conceivable sin. That is a false understanding of repentance). Love has a moral content. It is a spiritual reality. What if some people actually hate the love of God? God loves them, but they hate God. Therefore they are condemned. How can a proud, arrogant, evil person possibly enjoy the presence of God? The presence of God would be hell for such a person. It does not matter how much God loves them, they will suffer, because they are, in their will and in their heart, evil.
Why can't you understand that?
PS - Thank you for your concern for my future, and I reciprocate the blessing.
Complain about this comment
auntjason
You seem to have this split personality God too. You use such violent language when you describe God as a killer and Him wiping out people.
Your misunderestanding of God is down to those who taught you. You perpetrate a misconception of God. For a start, God is perfectly loving; perfectly just; and perfectly merciful.
At the time prior to the flood the people had become extremely disobedient to eternal laws. Violence filled the part of the earth that was occupied. Noah warned them but they would not listen. Any children born into the world at that time would have become wicked like their parents. Eventually, the family of Noah would have pass on and there would have been no worthy or righteous individuals left. If that was the case, there would have been no Abraham and God's chosen people Israel; no upright and virtuous woman to be the mother of Jesus; and no Jesus. Now as it states throughout the Bible, God knew us before He formed us in the belly. If there were a world population say, of a few million people who had gone beyond the point of no return with regards turning back to God, and there were many billions who were waiting to come to this earth to be tested; would it have been just, merciful or loving in the overall scheme of things to permit those who had failed their test already to remain on the earth? It wasn't loving to have all His children, with the exception of Noah, etc., to suffer because of the threat posed by each other person alive at that time. It wasn't even merciful to let them remain in such a dangerous world. It wasn't just to have those spirit children be born into those families. Now, I feel strongly that God was sad beyond understanding to have to do what He did to resolve the dilemma He faced. To think of Him getting stuck in and reaping vengence was not, and never will be, part of His character. Therefore, the Flood was an act of love and not vengence.
Jason, I'm sorry but I have come to the conclusion that I want to stop communicating as this is a wearisome process and I think you are happy with you view as I'm happy with mine. All the best for the future.
By all means criticise my perception to show your 'proper' understanding and I hope you get plenty out of sharing your views as I think you are in good company here.
Watch out for those who think they are smart and write cryptically - they are putting you down and being cowardly about it.
Complain about this comment
vsl
You are one scared man who worships a God whom you are afraid off. You only joined His 'side' because you were afraid that you would be view wicked and His vengence would be unleashed on you. I don't expect you to admit it; you have already revealed in your writing. You are in for a surprise. I't not going to be as bad as you thought. Shame on those who taught you. Shame on those who shaped your perception. I will make you a deal right now. If God is like you understand Him I will walk away from Him. I'm that confident He isn't.
Complain about this comment
#183 - puretruthseeker (notice how I don't pervert or invert your moniker like you have perverted mine - such a "loving" thing to do, don't you think?)-
Well I am glad I persevered with the discussion with you as you have now shown your true colours.
You claim to be so full of the God of love, but yet throw around cheap comments that have no basis in reality. You make assumptions about someone you don't know and have never met and seem to have profound insight into his motives. This is not very "loving"!
I have patiently explained why I see no contradiction between the love of God and the moral uprightness of God who does not trifle with evil. I am not scared at all of a God who hates evil. In fact I would be scared of a God who did NOT hate evil!!! Such a God would be perverse and fickle and no one in their right mind could trust him. Think about it!
In fact, let me remind you of a wonderful verse of the Bible (which is a book I assume you believe in???). It goes like this:
"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions." Hebrews 1:9.
This is a reference to Christ, and therefore applies to all those who have the Spirit of Christ. The Holy Spirit gives joy and blessing to those who love righteousness and hate lawlessness.
Therefore I testify that what you have said about me is entirely false. The holiness of God is a joy to me, and not a terror. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.
I am not ashamed to shout from the housetops that God loves righteousness and hates wickedness and I warn anyone reading this that God will not trifle with evil. If anyone rejects this, and thinks that the love of God simply trivialises evil, then that person's blood is one their own head. I can then only shake the dust from my feet and move on.
Complain about this comment
vsl (this is neither loving nor hating - however I see you have done it too in Ref 177 and you did it with others. Stop being hypocritical)
You have not 'patiently explained' there is no contradiction in the god you worship; you have highlighted it.
I see you trying to back-peddle somewhat by using terms such as, 'moral uprightness' and 'trifle with evil'. Let's face it, your god and mine are different.
You quote Hebrews 1:9. There is nothing inconsistent with my view here. You know and I know that the words in the Bible are not the words that were uttered. Whether the original word was shunned or disliked or whatever, is neither here nor there. What is important is that God hates, detests, shuns or dislikes lawlessness, iniquity, wrong-doing, sin, evil, transgression, breaking the commandments, or whatever you want to call it - He does not hate the sinner. The reason He 'hates' the sin is because of the misery it brings upon the lawless one - His child - at that point in time and for the consequence of it for the future; and not because it irritates Him as you seem to think. Off course He loves the one being sinned against but does He stop loving them when they sin against someone else? If He did, He would be inconsistent, changeable and fickle.
In a recent post, my view of dealing with a disruptive family member was criticised. What I was trying to show in the scenario was that I would show an increase in love toward a wayward child, not subject it to my anger. There is probably more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents than for all those that are following obediently. But who would repent if at first they didn’t feel god’s love? Well the modern ‘Christian’ like you would.
Too many people in the false churches come to God like this: They are told (usually by an angry looking preacher who has got himself worked up over those dirty rotten sinners)that they are sinners and God hates sin and will punish the sinner with pain that will go on for ever and never stop (engender fear). They are then told that God is calling them right now (power of suggestion). They are told that Jesus died for their sins (the explanation of which is overlooked) and if they ask Him into their heart (a juvenile attempt and nowhere found in the Bible; but maybe if the fear is adequate, it will do), then those magic words will save them from a hell that God has prepared for those that disobey Him. If this is done they are told their sins are forgiven – the slate is wiped clean and that they are saved and always will be saved no matter what they do.
This introduction to God establishes a premise that God is vengeful and all knowledge about God thereafter is influenced by that premise. I know about this system of ‘winning souls’ – it is practiced every Sunday night and as often as occasion arises all over the globe. I don’t particularly blame people for arriving at the perception they have, but I think that they should question their views and not abdicate the responsibility to some preacher who is as lost as they are. So, I have come to my conclusion about you because you come across like so many I have met that call themselves 'born-again' or 'saved' christians. I find they have a sanctimonious, self-righteous smugness that allows them to think God is for them; and against everyone else because they are 'evil. I find this distasteful and ignorant.
However, just for a moment, let's assume that God gets angry at sin and punishes those who are sinning, as you say. That throws up lots of questions, such as:
What must God be feeling right now?
Is He angry with me right now or does He love me?
What about the billions of sins happening right now - is God in a rage over them?
Who is God punishing right now or do they punish themselves by moving further away from Him as a result of their sin?
Seeing that sin is constantly happening, when does God get a break from all this anger you speak off?
When does He show His loving ‘side’?
How can God be angry and at peace at the same time?
How can He have feelings of love for me and be upset with my neighbour and want to condemn him at the same time?
And so the questions go on without any possibility of us knowing the answers - unless through revelation we have been given an insight. But if we have no insight, how do we come to know God in order to get eternal life as stated in John 17:3?
My scriptures just fell open, just now, to something you might find interesting. You seem to want me to answer the question if God loves the sinner why does He desire the sinner to be condemned. I will quote you: "God loving the sinner, but hating the sin? Then why desire for the sinner to be condemned?" He doesn’t want the sinner to be condemned, the unrepentant sinner condemns himself. Listen to Paul's words to Timothy.
1 Tim 2. "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL MEN.(v1) For this is GOOD and ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour.(V3) Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.(v4) Look what Paul says in the previous chapter, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS of whom I AM CHIEF.(V15) Now, did God hate Paul?
You seem to think that God is a respecter of persons which the Bible tells us He isn't. He loves us all despite the fact that we sin. He doesn't hate the ones you want to point the finger at (sorry, you said you didn’t point your finger) - the sinners; because that would include you too and me. I, like Paul, will say that I am the chief among sinners. I suppose you claim exemption? He understands we are fallen and that we don't live in a perfect world. He understands that the temptations can be alluring. He understands our weaknesses, He understands our dilemma. He understands that our sin will sets us on a course away from Him. He understands that our sin will make us miserable. He wants the truth to be told. He doesn't want men taking upon themselves the role of talking for Him without His proper authority. He dearly wants us to come unto Him so as He may bless us with His love. He doesn't want us to be damned. He doesn't want us to be cut off from His presence. That's why He sent His Son. That’s why He is a God of love - constantly. I understand His wrath because I view Him as perfect. You think His wrath is like yours. That’s because of the way you were introduced to your god. I was introduced to God differently and hence, I view Him differently than you.
Your view of God throws up a contridiction in His response to His children - love/hate
My view is constant - love only
It's impossible to be all loving and be able to wish someone harm. You may be able to do it but I'm finding it harder the more I come to know God. I am sure it is impossible with God or He would cease to be God.
We can debate till the cows come home but we are not speaking the same language and we are not talking about the same Being.
Complain about this comment
#185 - puretruthseeker -
I may have used PTS (which is a very common thing on blogs - i.e. to abbreviate people's names), but I did not invert the letters, so I am not being hypocritical. Your insistance on inverting the letters of my moniker (with its obvious implication) rather calls into question your claim to be so "forgiving" and "loving" a person. So if you are going to start using the word "hypocrisy" then take the plank out of your own eye. Your behaviour belies your theology, I'm afraid to say. Why don't you start showing that you are such a forgiving person, if that is what you believe. All you are spewing out at me is lies, bile and hatred.
Frankly I am amazed at you. If you had read all the posts I have contributed to the Will and Testament blog, you would see that I am probably the last person to be accused of all things you are throwing at me. How many times have I argued against predestination? How many times have I quoted 1 Timothy 2:4 about God's desire for all people to be saved? I really cannot believe my eyes when I read what you are writing about me.
I just do not see anything remotely resembling myself in your words. Fundamentally the only point I have made is that the Bible talks about condemnation. I can only ask you a very simple question. Do you believe that finally all people will be saved? Are you a universalist?
I have simply referred you to those parts of the Bible which talk about God's judgment on those who REFUSE to repent. I am not talking about people who have been predestined by a vengeful, fickle God. I am talking about free-will.
You seem to think that I am one of those people who uses fear to bring people to faith. If you knew me, you would be ashamed of that comment - I mean REALLY TRULY ASHAMED. I appreciate that you are simply making assumptions about me from what I have written on this thread. But they are false assumptions. As someone who has suffered greatly from the kind of guilt manipulators you write about, it frankly bemuses me to read someone accusing me of the very thing that I hate.
This conversation I have had with you has come to the point where I think it reveals the limitations of this kind of blog. If I met someone like you and could talk to them face to face, I believe many misunderstandings could be cleared up. The truth is that you have completely got the wrong end of the stick. I am simply trying to uphold a balanced view of the Bible, and take seriously those difficult parts of Scripture which do clearly talk about God's vehement opposition to those who REFUSE (note the word "refuse") to repent. You seem determined to deny that there are people in this world who hate God.
There are victims of serious crime who do not need the psychological pressure of being forced to "forgive" their abusers. There needs to be time to come to terms with the horror of the thing they have suffered. This is an important process before God and many of the Psalms clearly reveal the need to be honest before God about feelings of personal hatred and revenge. That is not the same as going out to take revenge. But pain, bitterness and hatred is a reality that needs to be worked through in a relationship of honesty with God. There is a tendency in some parts of the church to use the doctrine of unconditional forgiveness to undermine this important process of healing, and I gave the example of Rita and the rape (a true story) to underline this.
This is what I have been trying to say. God is firmly on the side of the victims, even though he loves all people, and desires all people to be saved. But let us not use the grace of God to skirt around evil, and to minimise its very serious effects.
I fear that even this explanation will be misunderstood. It seems that any attempt on my part to explain my position results in some grotesque twisting of my words. It feels as though I am up against someone who seems determined to misunderstand me, and to just blithely ignore certain passages of the Bible.
That's all I can say. I wish you every blessing for your life and for the future, and I assure you that nothing I have said is intended to be a personal attack on you. But I also hope that you will learn to stop jumping to conclusions about people, and to take the time to think a bit more deeply about the words of the Bible.
Complain about this comment
logica_sine_vanitate
I am truly sorry about inverting your moniker. It was unintentional. I did it without thinking. I was being sloppy and didn't thing I had it around the wrong way. I then got used to using ‘vsl’. When I realised what I had done, I nearly wet myself laughing. So, please forgive me if I caused you offense but it wasn't intended. Hopefully you can forgive me.
Maybe I have got you all wrong and maybe you have got me wrong too. What this does show however, is how difficult it can be to understand the written word unless it is qualified. I will admit, from our first exchanges that I tried to 'work you out'. That first impression must have stuck. No doubt you did the same thing. No doubt we have been writing to someone differently to who we are respectively. If this is the case, it goes someway to add weight to my point that our initial introduction to God continues to shape our perception of Him. Also, it shows that I can misrepresent what you meant and you possibly did the same thing in return. Doh!
What it also highlights is; how on earth do we ever get a true interpretation of the Bible? I have done my best to understand it but I struggle with it so much and probably try to squeeze one part of the jigsaw into places where it doesn't go. However, because I don't fully understand it doesn't put me off loving God the Father and the Saviour. I feel that some day I will know all truth however, it may not be in this life.
Just to answer some of your questions then:
I believe that Jesus giving up His life on the cross and taking it up again and returning as a resurrected Being is a gift for all mankind. I believe we will all get our bodies back again despite how we lived our lives.
I believe what Jesus went through in the Garden was to pay the price for the sins of all mankind. Now, I believe, if we have faith in Him that He took our sins and somehow paid for the; and if I repent and seek His forgiveness and continue to repent and seek forgiveness and do all that He asks me to, I will be assigned a 'mansion'. This part of His sacrifice will only apply to those who increased their talents and applied His atonement in their lives. I feel this will depend on our personal righteousness and obedience. However, I believe that death and hell will cease at the end of the millennium and each of God's children will live in an environment in which they are comfortable for time and all eternity. Satan, his followers - all disembodied spirits - and all those who 'sin against the Spirit' (don't ask me what that is) will be cast into outer darkness and continue much in the way they do now.
I believe in free will and it would be remiss of god to force us to do anything. If He did, we couldn't be judged for our actions. He may intervene but only on really important occasions and for righteousness sake.
From what you say, you seem to see evil as a thing. I see that satan and his followers are at work tempting us to do that which is not right. But I see wrong/evil as the choice that the individual makes. Wrong is wrong, evil is wrong and wrong is evil - all committed by the children that God loves.
Also, i't not that I ignore parts of the Bible, it's just that I understand them differently. I now accept that your perception is not mine and mine is not yours. You may think that I have something to learn from your perception but I used to view God much in the way that you do and i wasn't happy with it. I prayed a lot about it, studies much of the Bible and spent more time trying to apply in my life what I discovered. What has happened is that my perception changed as I allowed myself to soften and I have what I believe now, is a better understanding of God. I may be wrong but I don't want to go back to the God I was introduced to all those years ago.
I hope you can understand where I am coming from even thought you may not share my perception. All the best to you - logic before vanity. (I hope that's what it means)
Complain about this comment
#187 - puretruthseeker -
Thanks for your response.
I think we'll "call it a day" with this discussion. It's gone on for too long. I will try to think about what you have written, and I hope some of my comments are food for thought.
I wish you well. Every blessing.
By the way ... it means "logic without vanity/falsehood" (it's a bit pompous I must admit, but I'm stuck with it now!)
All the best, Al (which is the abbreviation of my first name - that's as far as I will go in divulging my identity).
Complain about this comment
Peter and Parrhasios
Thanks, both of you, for your posts above. Peter, you continue to teach me what it is to be Christ-like. If there is a human form of the gentle breeze in Elijah's cave, it is you.
On this particular thread you introduced a new concept for me about blogging. The whole notion of silence, a silence that is filled with Christ.
Both you and Parrhasios have my deepening admiration for your sensitivity, wisdom and your 'compassion'.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Peter # 178
I get you and would expect no less - not sure I entirely agree but I guess you might expect that too - I thought for a brief moment we were thinking along the same lines when I saw pomegranate seeds were top of the menu!
Complain about this comment
To all posters.
I want to say that my last month posting on this blog has been an experience I will never forget. In a way I never wanted to start as I felt that there is no unity within 'christianity' and, as I expected, I was certain that the reaction I would get would be no different from the one I used to get when talking face-to-face with 'christians'. I stop debating my understanding a long time ago and only came out of 'retirement' to see if anything had changed. Nothing has. There are those who are confused but won't admit it; those who privately question their beliefs but don’t admit it; those who are elitist and can't admit it; those who snipe from the fence and think they don’t need to admit it; and those who require treatment but don't know they need to admit it. So the time has come for me to stop posting. Can I hear shouts of, 'hooray'. Before I go, however, I want to leave something which I hope you can give some consideration to.
What I have said I not only believe but have faith in. All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results. Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith moves the possessor to some kind of physical and mental action; it carries an assurance of the things hoped for.
Although faith is a gift, it must be cultivated and sought after until it grows from a tiny seed to a tree. The effects of true faith in Jesus Christ include:
1. an actual acknowledgement that the life one is pursuing is acceptable to the Lord (Heb. 11:4)
2. a reception of the blessings of the Lord that are available to man in this life ( including love, joy, peace, temperance, long-suffering, meekness, kindness and goodness as a start)
3. an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come if we endure to the end(Matt. 10:22) and have increasingly come to know God(John 17:3)
There are some obstacles to faith found in John 5:44 and James 1:5-6 which we need to be aware of.
When we exercise faith regarding a particular point we are rewarded and our faith becomes an knowledge in that thing. For instance, in my own case, I forgave those who didn't deserve my forgiveness and I was rewarded with peace instead of the animosity I had for them. My exercise of faith was rewarded and I knew that I had put my trust in a true principle. I no longer need to, anymore, exercise faith in the principle of forgiving those who hurt me and despitefully use me. I know that if I forgive them my vengeance, animosity, hatred, etc will be replaced with peace. This process takes time but the more it is practiced the easier it becomes. I know. I can testify to that.
If nothing else I have said on this blog is accepted, I pray that what I have just written is.
I am grateful to those who challenged my perception, and especially to logica_sine_vanitate who put up with me the longest; and I wish you, 'Al,' God's richest blessings. To others who sniped from the bushes near the fence I hope my absence will have created enough space for your curving ambiguities. Be honest. Be courageous. Goodbye.
Complain about this comment
Good bye PTS and thankyou for responding to my posts.
God is love - but - love is not God.
Oh forgiveness you seem so meek and sweet.
You require an answer - you are never alone.
I hear you call out to the abuser - "come".
Your heart grows sad, for you hear no reply.
Rebellion is raised against you.
You seem so helpless and weak.
Again, I hear you say - "come".
The ears of those you pursue have closed.
They open their mouths and speak with fury.
Why do you suffer this injustice?
"I am not alone"
"Justice is my other name - for I am many."
Now I see you burning with wrath.
Omnipotent power, and judgement is within you.
How can this be?
You seemed so weak.
"Do not be decieved"
"You have known my love, but not my wrath."
"Abuser" I hear you call.
"Abuser I am Justice."
"Abuser why have you greived forgivness?"
"Abuser were is your friend rebellion?"
I am astonished - who are you forgiveness?
I am that I am.
My heart is fearful of you.
"Fear of me is the beginning of wisdom"
Are you not all loving?
"My love is Holy, and long suffering to those who will believe in me - I judge evildoers because I am love."
Now I understand you are the one they call Jesus.
-J
Complain about this comment
#192
"Can I hear shouts of, 'hooray'."
No.
Complain about this comment
PTS- My theory is that you'll stick around, and comment occasionally, when you spot something you're interested in. That's a good thing. So, not goodbye, but... thanks for posting, and talk soon. You've made a thoughtful contribution and that's what discussion is about.
Complain about this comment
puretruthseeker -
I'm not saying hooray you're going.
When serious issues are being discussed - especially concerning spiritual or doctrinal matters - there are often two types of people who respond to someone who takes a strong stand:
1. Those who are prepared to get in the ring and have a good fight about the issue, and are not worried about a bit of blood, sweat and tears.
2. Those who make you feel that you are just an irritating troublemaker by daring to rock the boat and have an opinion.
I respect you as someone who falls in the first category. It's better to be open and honest and state your views clearly, than it is to sweep everything under the carpet for fear of causing offence.
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" as the Good Book says (Proverbs 27:6)
Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS