Didn't mean to ignore this. I've been sick and haven't been up for deep thinking. :) Thanks for your answer I'll keep it in my folder and take a look when I can.

Michelle

>Mind if I toss a couple ideas out for thought?
>
>The issue here is ultimately going to be derived from and 'swirl around' a healthy understanding of both the nature of God and the nature of mankind.
>
>When Jesus was teaching the disciples about turning the other cheek He was indeed teaching them about the level and depth of forgiveness a believer should have towards those who would abuse them. For example, in one of the attendent passges He makes a remark that when they would be compelled to go one mile they should go two. In the culture of that day Roman soldiers had the legal rigt to compel a Jew to carry their 'stuff' for one mile (Stadia actually but I forget the number). Jesus' remarks would have sort of shocked his disciples as the Jews hated the Romans (and Samaritans, Gentiles, and just about anyone not a Jew.. <g>)
>
>This was similar to when Peter asked whether he should forgive seven times. The rabbis taught that one only had to forgive three times at the most so Peter probably put his thumbs in his robe and looked at the other disciples with aknowing nod thinking, Man, I'm really spiritual!" <g> At which Jesus said he should forgive seventy times seven or such an outrageous number that it would seem impossible.
>
>That was the whole point!
>
>That is Jesus was trying to show to the disciples that the resuirements of God were so far beyond human capabilities that they were impossible. Forgiving one's sworn enemies would also fit into this category as well.
>
>So then you ask, "Are you suggesting that God has given man a standard to live up to that man cannot live up to?"
>
>Yep.
>
>"Why?", you might ask.
>
>Simple.. To do two things:
>
>1) Absolutely convince mankind that mankind was unable in its own strength to meet God's standards, and,
>
>2) Cause man to turn to God rather than his (man's) own devices.
>
>why?
>
>Well, would you want to sit around for eternity listening to ma or someone else tell you about all the great things I had done for God? < LOL > Not me! You'd probably want to slug me in the first year or two.. <g>
>
>Seriously though, the whole ideas is to remove from man any and all opportunities for man to boast or take credit. In this sense I am absolutely not one whit morally more pure than these terrorists. I am a total sinner before God's holiness as they are and in front of God we are absolute equals. (As a side note Christianity has brought more freedom to women than anything else over the centuries - but that's another thread. <g>)
>
>You see... Religions all have as their goal the notion of making man better. Christianity has exactly the opposite goal. The goal of Christianity os to make all men worse, and then offer them forgiveness if they will accept it. Jesus said "Only the sick go to a doctor, not those who are healthy" (my interpretive words) The religious leaders of His day thought they were spiritual (whole) and Jesus went to those who knew they weren't.
>
>God's forgiveness is offered to all, including those who wish the very worst for us simply because we live in America. Hitler, Stalin, anyone... Now, it must be pointed out that this forgiveness must be based upon a real and genuine sorrow for sin and a real and genuine desire to turn one's life around (we call this repentance).
>
>You see.. God is love and in order for love to be genuine it can never ever be forced, coerced, demanded or offered except by the free exercise of one's will. You reserve the right to associate with those you choose, correct? So does God. Why would He want to associate with those who don't want anything to do with Him? So.. He'll never force anyone and anytime someone tries it's really sort of outside of a proper understanding of the Historic Christian position. Many have to their shame I might add. God has the right to set up the rules. We call that sovereignity.
>
>God never sends anyone to hell. They choose that for themselves by turning His free offer down. People will spit nails over this but it is true. You see, man likes darkness and will not (ie. choose) God's way. Islam seems to have anasty side where it many times forces conversion and in some countries it is a capital offense to convert to Christianity. Not very civilized I'd think. Christianity properly understood does not do this. Bastardized Christianity (IOW, not really Christianity but a fake) will do this.
>
>But you see.. In spite of the fact that God requires of man an impossible chore He has given man a way around that impossibility. The net result is a humility that causes one to know they are no better than anyone else and it comes from the inside out rather than the outside in which is what all religions do. Chants, chores, money, duties, do this, don't do that.. All of these deceive people into thinking that they have somehow 'earned' God's forgiveness and obligated Him. He won't honor that though because finite can never satisfy or reach infinity, though infinity has no trouble reaching finite.
>
>So.. When some realize that God freely chooses to freely forgive them based on His paying the price it gives us an example of how we should treat those around us. Hence the seventy times seven. Impossible!? Yep, but doable with God on His terms.
>
>I should forgive these terrorists and I do, with respect to their relationship with God. If they choose (remember, free will here) to reject God's free forgiveness that is their choice.
>
>However, the whole underlying concept here is one of personal responsibility. I am responsible to God for my behavior, as are the terrorists. A part of personal responsibility is being responsible with myself. As such I have a responsibility of tking care of myself in a positive sense. That would include not deliberately harming myself. This then is the basis of self defense. When I extend myself through my wife and biologically through my children I then lay the foundation for a national self-defense system - because socities are really aggregations of individuals. Just take the core and extend it and you will arrive where you need to be.
>
>Society or civilization is simply an aggregation of individuals who have surrendered some of their rights into a sort of corporate 'proxy'.
>
>As such, and particuarly in America where our rights and responsibilities are explicitly denoted as being derived from "the Almighty" the notion of our country defending itself against a threat is a simple notion to arrive at.
>
>Hate? No, not good. Revenge? Nope.. Retribution and justice are ok though.
>
>So.. We can arrive at a place where we should forgive these creatures (I feel personally very sorry for them) and at the same time, in a corporate sense, we have a duty, nay obligation to stop them before they do more. They will not stop of their own volition, though I wish they would. This is the difference between idealism and realism. Of course I'd like for them to change their behavior. I'd be the first to welcome them to the family of civilized peoples. The reality is different and as a direct result of their choices we will respond.
>
>I know this was way long winded but you asked a really good question! <g>