Posted on 04/30/2006 10:19:15 AM PDT by jmc1969
Michael Berg has come to terms with his son's murderer. But to most Americans that man is still enemy No.1, writes Martin Daly in New York.
In the darkness, when the pain becomes too great, Michael Berg pulls out a chair for the man who decapitated his son and talks to him about compassion and forgiveness.
Michael Berg has cried publicly many times for his dead son but he has forgiven Zarqawi, considered by the Americans to be the premier threat to peace in Iraq, but who remains free despite a $US25 million ($33 million) bounty on his head, and the huge numbers of personnel and technological resources being used to track him down.
In offering forgiveness to a man who this week told the world he planned to continue killing, Berg has had to go down dark, complex paths and has had to come to terms with an horrendous loss that has become public property.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
I would be so overcome with grief that my only choice would be to turn the entire situation over to God, or madness would ensue.
That I understand, but I do not see forgiving this monster as being anywhere near turning it over to God.
That being said, if that SOB Zarqawi were here right now I would kill him with my bare hands and it would be Gods wrath and not revenge for me.
So would I, but for me it would be self defense. In the sense that defending my civilization is an act of self defense.
Thank you for your prompt, courteous and thoughtful response, now that I understand where you're coming from, I hereby retract my assertion that you are an idiot.
Which sinners were excluded when he gave his life on the cross?
"Mr. Berg has made his son's death a public issue. He is using this as an anti American platform. I'll hold him and his ilk accountable for prolonging this war against the U.S. I cannot forgive him or his son for being traitors. For every soldier killed I'll hang that on the heads of these weenies. His grief is his own not for the public."
OK. I have no problem with your opinion, either.
One can forgive an adversary, but that doesn't imply the enemy won't be slaughtered. I don't fault him for that, but in considering his perspective placing Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King on the same plane, I suspect his luke warm thinking is good for nothing.
Oh, just everyone who doesn't accept Him as their personal savior.
Whether their sins are mass murder, or shoplifting a candy-bar when they were six...
I think this guy is like Cindy Sheehan. When their multi-cultural leftist outlook gets smashed by evil they are unable to adust.
They snap.
They do come from a similar place, simply amazing the fellowship of the left. Imputing evil to those who are trying to fight the Jihadi terrorist scum, and ignoring the true evil of, how do I say this enough........the Jihadi terrorist scum.
I'm sure Cindy Sheehan has forgiven her son's evil nutcase killers, too, while channeling her hatred toward President Bush.
These people are UNREAL.
Judas and all those that also reject the Holy Spirit.
Check my tagline and take heart. Governance is a generational thing. These moonbats are getting old (although they hate to admit it). They shall move on out of prominence, and shortly behind them will be the children of the Reagan Revolution. The shift will be dramatic.
well I haven't forgiven him, and thank God the majority of Americans haven't either
Don't worry, he still hates President Bush. I'm sure he could never "forgive" him of anything.
Such is the twisted logic of a Liberal.
Reminds me of a certain woman in love with Hugo.
We forgive for hurt that we've suffered, so, of course the father can't forgive for the sufferings of his son. He forgives for his own suffering which was the loss of his son.
As far as the argument that "none is due," you're right. But being right is sometimes a very unpeaceful and lonely place to find ourselves.
When Christ on the cross asked God the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do" He certainly knew that his murderers hadn't asked for forgiveness so, by your terms of justice, didn't deserve it.
By your definition of deserved forgiveness, Christ was wrong to ask for this... unless there is another reason for practicing forgiveness.
Christ was correct and that there is, indeed, another reason to forgive. That reason is love - the kind of love that God has for all men, which is unconditional and, therefore, selfless.
Within this second reason is another, not so obvious, reason to forgive whether the person "deserves" it or not. That reason is our own balance of emotional and mental health.
By forgiving others, we are freed of the burden of carrying those injustices which, eventually, wear us down even to the point of crippling us emotionally.
"Which sinners were excluded when he gave his life on the cross?"
The reprobate were excluded. John 10:14,26-27. Not all hear His voice for not all are His sheep. He gave His life for His sheep AND He gives them eternal life. His atonement is effectual, not just potential.
Did the magnanimous mr berg also forgive hitler while he was at it???
You're very right: JESUS wasn't a complete Pacifist.
HE rebuked people for their sins when they were hard-hearted/unrepentent and HE places a High-Priority on repentence and brokenness-of-heart.
But remember, that when HE was cricified & dying, and the Phariees & priests & scoffers were mocking/slandering HIM, his words were...
"Father, Forgive them...for they know NOT what htey do!"
Think about it.
Christ was in a position to ask for forgiveness for whoever he wanted. He was the one about to suffer the wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.