From a humanitarian standpoint, 9-11 was a horrific tragedy; something along the order of the sinking of the Titanic. But, from an historic perspective, 9-11 appears to be much more significant.

Some have compared 9-11 with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. And there are obvious similarities. But, others have insightfully compared 9-11 to the infamous Reichstag fire that was instrumental in catapulting Hitler and his Nazi party into an incontestable position of political supremacy. Consider the parallels:

Even as the German parliament was still in flames, the Nazis immediately blamed the communists for the arson. On 9-11, before the sun even set, with no investigation whatsoever, President Bush said that Bin Laden was the evil mastermind and a few weeks later the United States invaded Afghanistan to get him. Ironically, in spite of America's vast surveillance capability, no trace has yet been found of Mr. Bin Laden.

The Nazis used the Reichstag fire as a pretext for instituting a Gestapo police state. Of course, we all know where that led. Similarly, the passage of the Patriot Act in the wake of 9-11 gives the government of the United States broad and sweeping powers that ordinarily would have been considered unconstitutional.

The same pattern can be seen in the fact that after the Reichstag fire, the Nazis rounded up their political enemies. After Pearl Harbor, the United States also illegally interred thousands of Japanese Americans. Since 9-11, Muslim and Arab Americans have similarly been unfairly targeted.

Once the Nazi dictatorship was fully in power, Hitler maligned Poland as a threat to the national security of the German homeland, as a pretext for his invasion, which was the official launch of the Second World War. Scott Ritter, the weapon's inspector who gained national prominence as an authority on the Iraqi weapons program, has compared the recent invasion of Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland.

In the patriotic fervor of 9-11, the Bush administration has targeted the so-called Axis of Evil triad of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. One of those three nations has already been invaded by the American military. And there is now considerable saber-rattling taking place aimed at the other two. Just this past week North Korea announced it has no choice but to prepare to defend itself against American hostilities by ramping up the production of its own nuclear weapons. It may stage a test explosion in the next few weeks in order to publicly demonstrate its nuclear capability. That would certainly be an ominous escalation of tensions in the high-stakes game of thermonuclear poker. Perhaps even more ominous, is that the United States has recently repealed the law against research and production of so-called mini nukes. That probably would not have occurred had America not been attacked on September 11th.

No doubt as we approach the second anniversary of September the 11th we will be reminded of the sheer horror of that day when the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed into a heap of twisted ruin and the headquarters of the U.S. military was attacked. Those who perished will again be memorialized; and the firemen who bravely rushed into the burning towers, only to lose their own lives, will be honored.

But, the aftereffects of 9-11 continue to reverberate around the world with increasing intensity. And just as Hitler's Reichstag fire was a critical turning point that eventually paled into insignificance in the ensuing Holocaust, and just as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand gave rise to the disproportionate horror of the Great War of 1914, September the 11th may eventually be forgotten as a human tragedy and more remembered as the precursor of World War Three, or as some officials are already calling it—World War IV.  The 9-11 attack can be credited with bringing the nations one step closer to the predicted Clash of Civilization. And because of that, another 9-11 scale event, perhaps a political assassination, or maybe a terror attack using WMD or something of that nature, could serve as a detonator for the eruption of global war.

It is hard to imagine that a large scale war using even a limited number of nuclear weapons would not fit the description of the Bible's foretold nation rising against nation, fearful sights from the heavens and a time of great tribulation.

A few years back the Watchtower adjusted their teaching on the illustration of the sheep and the goats. The Watchtower used to teach that Matthew 25:31 was fulfilled in 1914 and that since that time the sheep and the goats have been separated by means of the preaching work of Jehovah's Witnesses. But now we realize that it is a future event. However, as you point out, it is a huge contradiction because the verse plainly says the judging of the nations commences when the Son of man arrives in his glory and sits down on his throne.

There is only one throne. Yet, the Watchtower doggedly clings to the teaching that Christ also sat down on his throne in 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses seem oblivious to the glaring contradiction. Apparently, it is going to take the actual arrival of Jesus Christ to disabuse Jehovah's Witnesses of our unreasoning attachment to 1914.

Jesus did not say that the literal heavens and earth would someday pass away, he said: "sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place." That was merely Jesus' way of saying that God's Word will never fail to be fulfilled. Of course, the symbolic heavens and earth will pass away—as Peter said, "With a hissing noise."

In the preceding 17th verse, Jesus said he came to fulfill both the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus' death brought an end to the Law covenant that God had contracted with Israel through the mediator Moses. That released the Jews from the obligation of the Law of Moses and brought them under the law of Christ, provided that they had faith. And Christ's life and ministry, as well as his death and resurrection, also fulfilled many of the prophecies written concerning him.

At Hebrews 10:1, Paul said that the Law was merely a shadow of the good things to come but not the very substance of those things. In that respect the Law also casts shadows outlining certain features that continue. How so? Even though Paul taught that observance of a weekly Sabbath was not a binding requirement upon Christians, in the 4th chapter of Hebrews, Paul indicated that there remains a Sabbath resting for the followers of Christ. At Hebrews 4:11, Paul wrote: "Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest, for fear anyone should fall into the same pattern of disobedience."

Also, while many prophecies pointed to the first coming of Christ, many others point to "the second time he appears," as Paul worded it. So, while Jesus' death brought to a successful conclusion God's purpose in connection with the fleshly nation of Israel, it was merely the beginning of God's dealings with the nation of spiritual Israel. It is, then, in relation to the spiritual house of Israel that the words of the Law and the prophets live on to their ultimate fulfillment.

That's why Paul wrote at Hebrews 3:5-6: "Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest whom we confess—Jesus. He was faithful to the One that made him such, as Moses was also in all the house of that One. For the latter is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who constructs it has more honor than the house. And Moses as an attendant was faithful in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterwards, but Christ was faithful as a Son over the house of that One. We are the house of that One, if we make fast our hold on our freeness of speech and our boasting over the hope firm to the end."

That probably depends on how you present your feelings about that issue to the elders in your congregation when they go over the baptismal questions with you. It is unfortunate that our confession of faith is so tightly wrapped up with chronology and dogmatic interpretations of prophecy. The problem is that the 1914 chronology and related interpretations come from the Bethel headquarters of the faithful and discreet slave, so if we doubt or question their teachings it is generally assumed that we do not accept their authority in other matters. So, that's the real issue, whether we accept the faithful and discreet slave as being the Watchtower.

Since our baptism is merely an outward symbol of our inward dedication to God, not to men, you ought to trust God to work this matter out for you. Relying on him to guide you will prove that you really are dedicated to him and ready to be baptized.  It may be that it might not even be an issue.

There is an account in the Bible where Paul discussed the matter of forgiving a brother who had formerly been put out of the congregation. In his 1st letter to the Corinthians, Paul told the brothers they should remove from their midst a particular brother who was having an immoral relationship. Apparently, Paul's counsel moved the congregation to do that very thing. However, in the 2nd chapter of 2nd Corinthians, Paul apparently referred to the same man and exhorted the congregation to kindly forgive him. That section of Scripture reads:

"Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary now, you should kindly forgive and comfort him, that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. Therefore I exhort you to confirm your love for him. For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things. Anything you kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for your sakes in Christ's sight; that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs."

The very fact that Paul exhorted the congregation to kindly forgive the apparently repentant man indicates that at that time they were not willing to do so. If they had forgiven the man, Paul would not have had any reason to write what he did. But, obviously Jehovah saw fit to have that account in the Bible to help us find a balance between removing unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregations and receiving repentant individuals back. The account also shows that each congregation has the right to extend forgiveness as well as the right not to extend forgiveness. Paul did not command them as an apostle to receive the man back, he merely appealed to them as a brother that they ought to do so for Christ's sake. We are not told whether the Corinthians listened to Paul and accepted the man back.

Ultimately, though, you must accept responsibility for your own situation. King David once committed an awful sin when he had an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, and even had her husband killed. When Jehovah's prophet confronted David, he confessed to the crimes and God mercifully extended him a pardon and did not have him put to death, as the law stipulated must be done to adulterers and murderers. But, Jehovah did not shield David from experiencing heartache and humiliation for his sin for the rest of his life. As an indirect consequence of his sin, Jehovah allowed David's son, Absalom, to usurp the throne and publicly violate David's concubines on the palace rooftop.

While you may be assured that God has forgiven you, now you are faced with gaining the forgiveness of the congregation. The question is, how determined are you to regain their love? When David was forced to flee the throne, he accepted it as discipline from God. (See 2 Samuel 16:11-12) Are you willing to humble yourself and accept the terms the congregation has laid out for you to return?

It sounds as if after your sin and disfellowshipping that you withdrew completely from the congregation. So, in that respect you may never have really experienced the full effect of losing the privilege of their association, because you were absent by choice. Now, though, that you have come back you seem to expect the congregation to immediately embrace you. It doesn't work that way. It didn't work that way for the Corinthian man, and it won't work that way for you, either.

But, the fact is that tens of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped the same as you-- some more than once. And of that number, a large percentage are reinstated. Since you want to be a part of the congregation and under the authority of the local elders, and since you asked for counsel, instead of demanding their forgiveness, why don't you start off by humbly asking your elders what you must do to be reinstated, and then just do what they tell you to do? Doing so would be public proof of your genuine repentance.