I don’t make it a habit of adding comments to God’s Minute but I feel that I must this time around.
I was telling my Priest a few days ago.
How come I can’t say - Ok...I’m going to forgive the Quebec Security Staff of the way they took my job away from me.
I will forgive the MLA’S for that China Style verdict of banning me from the Legislature.
I will forgive the Saint John Police Force of the way they tried to get my jailed and I could have gotten a record on my file for the rest of life.
I will forgive the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission of the way they promote racism and the discrimination against the poor in this Province.
I will forgive everyone and move on with my life.
How come I can’t just forgive and move on?????
Jesus was crucified and he forgave.
I am crucified mentally so therefore maybe I would follow the same approach?
Then today I received the God’s minute of the day!
Very strange indeed.
But the question is this?
How come I can’t forgive these people who did me great harm?
As someone told me the other day?
Charles? If you don’t move on? You are going to take an heart attack!!!!
Well, if I was pure Acadian blood?
I would have surely been dead from an heart attack a very long time ago but I’m half Scottish and we all know there’s nothing more stubborn that a darn Scotsman!!!!!
Oh well here’s the God’s Minute of the day!!!
HE WAS WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, HE
WAS BRUISED FOR OUR INIQUITIES; THE CHASTISEMENT
FOR OUR PEACE WAS UPON HIM, AND BY HIS STRIPES
WE ARE HEALED.
( ISAIAH 53:5 *NKJV )
Dear Pastor Allen,
Indeed we are healed of our transgressions, and iniquities
through the forgiveness of our sins. For it is written; HE HAS
DELIVERED US FROM THE POWER OF DARKNESS AND
CONVEYED US INTO THE KINGDOM OF THE SON OF HIS
LOVE, IN WHOM WE HAVE REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS
BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
( COLOSSIANS 1:13-14 )
When we think about how much forgiveness God shows
toward mankind, let us remember the words of our Savior
Jesus Christ, as he hung on the cross, "FATHER, FORGIVE
THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO." So
let those words be an example for you when you find yourself
angry with another! ( LUKE 23:34 )
After all it is also written: IF YOU FORGIVE MEN THEIR
TRESPASSES, YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER WILL ALSO
FORGIVE YOU. BUT IF YOU DO NOT FORGIVE MEN
THEIR TRESPASSES, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER
FORGIVE YOUR TRESPASSES. ( MATTHEW 6:14-15 )
So Charles, if you have been angered by another, why
not try to forgive them instead of holding a grudge. After all
your heart and mind will be at peace when you do! Amen.
With My Love & Prayers,
your servant Allen
[ Prayer Requests---Contact Us---Bible Study---*Donations* ]
[ Audio---Subscribe---Change of Address---Unsubscribe ]
at: http://www.godsminute.org
Apostle Paul Ministries, P O Box 55996, Hayward, CA 94545
(c) Copyright 2007 by Apostle Paul Ministries
This Daily Message was sent by request to:
Charles Leblanc at
12 comments:
It depends what you mean by 'forgive'. You aren't in a position to forgive, because nobody has asked you. Jesus asked GOD to forgive those who wronged him. (An interesting aside here is that for most of christianity the saying in the lords prayer was 'forgive us out DEBTS as we forgive our DEBTORS' because it was common practise that every seven years all outstanding debts were forgiven-interesting how religion 'changes with the times')
However, the question would be more pertinent if the Saint John police actually acted like they were sorry-they don't.
If security actually apologized for getting you fired and offered you some token or the money you should have earned, then perhaps forgiveness would be an issue.
If politicians apologized for banning you and let you onto the grounds again, then forgiveness would be an option.
You don't forgive somebody for punching you in the head WHILE they're punching you in the head!
3:18, in my humble view forgiveness is truly between an individual and God through Jesus' intercession on our behalf just as God through Christ has forgiven you (and I).
(Ephesians 4:31-32)
So there is no need to wait to be asked by someone for forgiveness in order to be released from resentment and bitterness. Charles who is on a righteous path on this one raises a very interesting question;
How come I cant forgive all of these people who have harmed me?(must be because I'm Scottish was the alleged excuse! Blaming his Scottish ancestors "me think is not a very good path to follow" William Wallace would say)
How can there be true forgiveness if a person still harbours negative thoughts and ill intents towards these people he believes caused him harm ?
Peter to Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8:22-23 said; "Turn from your wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive your evil thoughts, for I can see that you are full of bitterness and held captive by sin."
If one turns from his/her own wickedness and sinful way can he/she be blessed with the Power of forgiveness.
Charles; You should perhaps look deeper inside yourself into what you say and what you do, how you treat people around you (who your mentors were) and there, deep inside may be you will find the answer to your question.
"The Lord detests the way of the wicked but he loves those who pursue righteousness." Proverbs 14:9
God be with you always !
The real question is what should Charles actually be forgiving? Its not clear in all cases he is in a position to forgive anyone at all. In fact it's quite possible that Charles should be asking forgiveness. What proof other than Charles's own vivid imagination and the usual "stay tuned" is there to suggest it isn't Charles that should be apologizing. At best maybe the St. John Police force is deserving of the magnanimous gesture that Charles ponders. There at least is some proof to back Charles claims, but the rest?...not much... I'd suggest Charles best remember the old proverb "Pride goeth before destruction a haughty spirit before a fall"... Comparing what might actually be the result of your own vain and petty actions to your Jesus' crucifixion seems to pretty "haughty spirited and prideful"...Perhaps looking a little closer at yourself and you own actions might be a better direction to consider.
Actually, that's not true at all. We KNOW the actions of security. We KNOW they got him fired, that's not a question of needing evidence, they admitted it quite freely, people can go back and read the blog, what was it, two years ago now?
As for being banned, again, Charles is in the right simply because it is the GOVERNMENT which banned him without reason. I've been at odds with Charles over this before because I know what HE thinks is the reason, personally I don't believe it, I think he was simply a pain in the neck who was getting better and better at blogging so they wanted him out of there.
But that's another issue, and Charles was right to not mention it, because security was just doing its job. It's the politicians who owe charles an apology for that, as well as five other people.
Charles actions since then may upset some people, but the reality is that he's simply fighting back at a system that marginalized him in the first place. But it raises an interesting semantic question, what does 'forgiveness' even mean?
It's not up to US to judge what Charles does, or that is the definition of that 'pride' up there. Charles could go up to all these people and say "I have no more bad feelings toward you". He actually should do that, of course if you do that, wouldn't he then have the pride of having done a rightous thing? So it seems pride hangs around no matter what.
However, that doesn't mean he need change his behaviour. You can forgive somebody but still blog the hell out of them. So 'forgive' SHOULDN"T mean 'forget'. When security makes reparations, and when the politicians let him back within that taxpayers building THEN 'moving on' can be an issue. But if Charles is consumed by hatred at those who have wronged him, then I definitely think some meditation or something is in order, because that doesnt' hurt THEM, it only hurts HIM, and what's the point of that?
Actually anonymous 8:27 YOU know only what Charles has decided to tell you and all that means is you KNOW at best one side of the story and that side of the story can't even keep his facts straight. If you CHOOSE to believe him that is your prerogative and I submit your opinion based on what you want to believe but nothing more. You simply have decided to make excuses for an inexcusable rant.
I'm going to Plan B Tuesday morning. The true will come out then.
I plan to be arrested and we will have a trial.
Shawn Graham must have decided to spend lots of money on a court case against me.
I'm writing a blog about this during the next 24 hours.
Stay tuned....
That's not true at all, that's not my opinion, thats fact. Go back and read the blog. Or simply go ask security at the legislature. It is all documented, it is not people's opinion. Charles was said to be a security risk, he was hired and worked a full day on a friday in the legislature and was fired on monday.
For the other, it is not 'opinion' that eight MLA's in the legislature committee got him banned and gave no reason. That is FACT. Simply go back and read the accounts of it, simply go and ask one of the eight MLA's.
The 'opinion' part is simply the WHY they did it, and that's irrelevant, because in any democratic society it is a basic requisite that a person is given the reasons why they are convicted of a crime, or in this case, banned from a public building.
Charles says what he wants, its a free country and he doesn't need me or anybody else to 'defend' his rants, he has the same rights as everyone else. In this case I've said that I don't agree with what he thinks is why he was banned, but again, thats my opinion and perhaps Charles is right, who knows? And that's the problem, to determine what is fact from what is supposition requires a basic act of any democratic government-namely to come out with evidence.
If a man is arrested and thrown in jail you don't start around and argue about whether his rants are valid, you look at a government policy that would incarcerate people without due cause.
This is less serious, but is the same type of thing. Eight people met in a room and had an individual, and one who serves a public purpose (whether you like it or not), banned from a PUBLIC building. That's one paid for by you and me, in fact since part of the salary of an MLA is tax free, we pay more than they do.
So that is the issue, not the opinions about why it may or may not be. When the system is corrupt, you don't mull around talking about it, you CHANGE it. Which is what Charles is doing, with little help from anybody else. Like the roomers rights, this is a basic prerequisite of a democratic society. If you want to know why foreign investors won't come near the province, keep in mind that they have easy access to Charles blog and in the industrialized world, most knowledge based companies are looking at standards of living and working conditions for employees. Banning people from public buildings without due course and not granting basic human rights certainly is not a 'perk' for enticing immigration or industry.
Anonymous 11:53, you really have got to spend some time separating fact from fiction or in this case opinion. You seem to have a problem with the two concepts. There are facts of course that WE all know.
Charles was fired, that's a FACT.....For no reason, you have know idea...that's YOUR OPINION.....
Eight MLA's in the legislature committee got him banned, that's a FACT....For no reason and gave no reason...(Aside from the FACT that Charles claims half the time he knows the reason)... you actually have no idea.... that's YOUR OPINION.
As for the rest of your assumptions of corruption, your pining for the loss of human rights, the injustice of it all and this blogs effect on immigration, not only are they your OPINION quite frankly they verge on the bizarre.
When, because of your misguided assumptions you have already decided that OPINION is FACT it seems almost anything is possible. While that might make for an interesting fantasy world for yourself I think you might find the real world would serve you better.
You're entitled to your 'opinion', and if you find somebody else's opinion so bizarre I think you must live a pretty isolated existence. If you actually talk to other people, you'll hear all kinds of opinions.
However, perhaps if you reread what was stated you won't find it so bizarre. Nobody said Charles was fired for 'no reason', we KNOW the reason-the legislature security SAID the reason, and that was that Charles was a 'security risk'. We even saw the file on him, Charles frequently posts it.
Nobody ever claimed that eight MLA's banned him for no reason. Of course they have a reason, otherwise they might ban you or me or anybody else. We KNOW they had a reason.
So those are the 'facts'. Charles has been labelled a security risk, and has been banned from the legislature. Those are facts. Understand? That's not so bizarre is it?
Everybody knows all this, even Charles knows this. This is the whole point, that the REASONS that somebody is labelled a security risk and the reasons that they are banned should be open to scrutiny. From the government's side we have Tankers public statement, that he was 'harassing people'. Even the head of the union came out and said they were happy with the decision, because of the 'harassment'.
Yet just because somebody says something doesn't make it true, especially when it comes from a politician. Who was Charles harassing? In what way was he harassing them? If he was harassing a specific person, then he could easily be warned away from them, if he threatened them then a restraining order is possible.
These are all things that come out in a public trial, and that's exactly what Charles and others have been calling for. That's not so bizarre is it?
Its not 'pining' for human rights to state that a basic democratic right is to face ones accusers. If the government is justified in its actions, then it should be able to publicly defend them.
'secret trials' are the stuff of the third world, so its perfectly valid to question them when they occur in New Brunswick. As even the previous security officer of the legislature said, they had people practically beating down the doors of the legislature but they never banned anyone before. Read the blog above, there's currently a Minister for the government who served time for being an agitator.
If you find these ideas simply too much to be able to understand, perhaps its time to just move on.
Its amazing that someone can write paragraph after endless paragraph rambling on and on about rights, freedoms and oppression only to end up essentially telling someone to shut up and leave. Do you even read what you write? If you don't mind restricting freedom of speech can the restricting of rights be far behind? But of course YOU would only restrict bad rights...those ones that YOU don't agree with right? You have much more in common with those ideals you like to portray on the "other side" than your willing to admit. But that's to be expected there isn't a more narrow distorted point of view than that of the extremes... right or left. Believe me anonymous 11:47 I understand you better than you know. Your just not that complicated.
Huh? So let me get this straight, its OK for you to talk insulting to people but when they return it, they are infringing on your rights? So my posting at a blog is the same as eight politicians denying Charles entrance into the legislature? Wow, talk about fantasy.
I have zero influence over what gets posted here, and I've never told anybody to shut up, in fact, the more you post, the more endless paragraphs I can churn out. So I'm quite happy to see comments, I obviously prefer them to have some substance to debate, but whatever.
If you have more to say on the matter, by all means post away. You seem to have an endless supply of repetitive pointless paragraphs yourself, welcome to the club!
Here Let me make it real simple for you anonymous 11:37. I have never insulted you, I have of course criticized you. Now maybe when your with your little circle of friends that happen to think just like you that might be something you don't hear very often but in he real world best get use to it. Now as to suggesting I shut up well if you can manage to read your own post you did invite me to move on so don't get your panties in a twist, you know what you were saying.
As for churning out endless paragraphs that I am sure you can do. As a matter of fact I think I might even be able to help you out there a bit. Typing can be a tiring thing so might I suggest you simply go back to one of your earlier bit of prose and cut and paste. Its bound to save you time and I can assure you will have no effect on the content of your writings.
So see I can be constructive. I only hope someday you become wise enough to profit from my wisdom.
Post a Comment