Friday, June 28, 2013

What does it mean to "judge," and why does the Bible say to "judge not"?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

What does it mean to "judge," and why does the Bible say to "judge not"?


Christ said, "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). What did He mean? Is all judging wrong?



Answer:



Jesus Christ said in His Sermon on the Mount: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:1-2 [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.

[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.





See All...). Therefore, many assume that it is wrong to pass judgment of any sort, and that all people should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right.



Strong's Concordance notes that the word translated "judge" in Matthew 7:1Judge not, that ye be not judged.



See All... can also mean "condemn." What Christ was saying was that, as we are incapable of seeing a person's heart or knowing his or her relationship with God, we are not to take the place of God in making judgments about someone's motives or eternal salvation. And we should be humble, knowing our own weaknesses and sins.



However, in other sections of the Bible, Christ says very clearly, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.



See All...) and "a tree is known by its fruits" (Matthew 12:33Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.



See All...). While we cannot see hearts, we can see—and judge—actions. There are times God calls on us to discern others' actions because of their effects on us. For example, the Bible tells us to avoid angry people and those whose sins may rub off on us (Proverbs 22:24Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:



See All...; 1 Corinthians 5:11-12 [11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

[12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?





See All...). Hebrews 5:14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



See All... tells us that the spiritually mature are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."



We are not to judge where a person stands with God, because we are simply incapable of doing so. But we must be able to "discern both good and evil" in the actions of ourselves as well as others in order to grow in wisdom and avoid falling into problems ourselves.



For an additional study tool, please read our booklet The New Covenant: Does it Abolish God's Law?

.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

The Humiliation of America and what it means for you

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.



by Michael Snyder

 America is in trouble. For all of its vaunted power, it has experienced grave challenges in dealing with a 30-year-old computer consultant who, following his own conscience, deliberately leaked critical classified information. He gave classified records about how the United States government conducts widespread monitoring of its own citizens to a British newspaper. This action, of course, rocked the Obama Administration, and with it the world.



Media and political commentaries examining this situation have erupted around the globe, particularly as America authorities failed initially to take Edward Snowden into custody. Writing in a widely read piece titled "Why the U.S. is being humiliated by the hunt for Snowden ," Simon Tisdall, foreign editor of the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, called the ongoing situation a "pants down day" for the United States. He made these ominous comments:



"Important people are making themselves ridiculous…High on the list is John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State. Huffing and puffing, Kerry warned China and Russia of 'consequences,' as seems probable, they have conspired to deliberately thwart U.S. justice by twisting the long arm of the law.



"Like too many American politicians, Kerry seems to believe 'the law' is what the White House counsel and U.S. Justice Department deem it to be on any given day, and that this made-in-America 'law' applies inexorably to every country and every corner of the world." Tisdall went on to point out how American law is today not recognized as universally authoritative.



Now those are harsh words. And we don't repeat them to make a political point, but rather to underscore what God says about national behavior.



If one reads the Bible, he or she will quickly discover that God has quite a bit to say about how people and national governments are to conduct themselves. He always, without exception, uses the biblical Ten Commandments as core guiding principles. They apply to all nations and peoples.



Perhaps surprising, many secular authorities recognize this prior influence of biblical law and statutes, particularly when it comes to the legal history of the United States.



Despite this spiritual bedrock foundation, many of the American laws based on the Ten Commandments and other biblical principles have been steadily eroded. This fact has been chronicled here on ucg.org and in both the pages of the Good News magazine and on the weekly half hour Beyond Today program .



Based on recent events, it would appear that this spiritual erosion has not gone unnoticed by Almighty God. The ancient record of the Bible is plain. There are distinct blessings for obedience, and there, tragically, are distinct curses for breaking those spiritual laws. Make no mistake: these spiritual laws apply to every national government on the planet, not just ancient Israel. They are, and remain, in force.



With escalating humiliation of America through the Snowden situation, one cannot help but be reminded of an ancient national prophecy that is activated by the breaking of God's law: "I will break the pride of your power; I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze" (Leviticus 26:19And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:



See All...).



Yes, America and other nations of the earth will attract God's attention for divine law-breaking. Perhaps surprisingly to some, it is not God's preferred purpose to destroy nations for disobedience. As the prophet Ezekiel declared: "' As I live,' says the Lord God, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die ?'" (Ezekiel 33:11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?



See All..., emphasis added). God does make clear the way back from the brink of destruction.



The good news is that God allows, even strongly encourages, individual choice, and protects those who obey him. If you want to know more–and you should in this day and age—download our free Bible study guide, The Ten Commandments . Meanwhile, protect yourself spiritually: continue to watch BT Daily and receive critical Bible knowledge for these troubled days ahead at www.ucg.org .







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional; Bible Ignorance Runs Rampant

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional; Bible Ignorance Runs Rampant


by Mitchell Moss


Source: Wikimedia Commons/Upstate NYerHere we are at last: The Supreme Court of America has ruled that the law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman (the Defense of Marriage Act, aka DOMA) is unconstitutional. The Court also declined to rule on whether a state constitutional amendment in the state of California (called Proposition 8) that likewise defined marriage as between one man and one woman is constitutional or not.



It's insane how the cries to recognize same-sex marriage by law in this country have reached a fever pitch. I was joking this morning with a friend that I finally understand why conservative Baby Boomers are so upset about America—they lived through the '60s and '70s when moral decay really started to get going, where as I was born into the consequences of those two decades and accepted as normal the immorality around me. But now things are once again shifting dramatically toward the immoral, and suddenly I'm outraged.



It's not especially surprising that non-religious people would want to legalize gay marriage. If their only moral bearing is what the constitution specifically says, and they ignore the moral foundation it was built on of the Bible, then of course they're going to interpret it in whatever way will let them do what they want when it suits them. If a small majority of people decide shoplifting should be OK, it wouldn't surprise anybody that they would interpret the constitution to allow for that and push for Congress to pass laws to allow shoplifting. Those people don't bother me. What really bothers me are the people who claim Christianity in whatever small or large way in their life, but who are being carried away by the secular crowd and support gay marriage, but then try and use the Bible to justify it.



To me, the perfect crystalization of the outright insanity of this came in the form of this tweet, which was retweeted by a friend of mine from high school:







Unbelievable. It took me a while even to express in words why this tweet is such absolute nonsense.



Here's a person whose point of view is representative of a large group of people, so don't think I'm picking only on her. What she does is not only misuse the scripture that captures much of what the Christian life is all about (faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love), but misquotes Jesus Himself in a bad play on words that is utterly ignorant of what He was actually saying. The words she plays on and so badly misunderstands are the one where He describes that the way of life that leads to eternal life is one that is difficult—and that the one that leads to destruction is easy. That the sinful life is easy and it leads to destruction, but the godly life is hard and its reward is eternal life. That it's hard to have self-discipline and to not do everything that just feels good. That it's hard to obey God and follow Christ, especially when it means that the core of who you are is contrary to His way of life. That it's bearing your cross daily (self-denial of the things that are wrong because you are putting God first) is the only way, but it's the harder way.



But this tweet tramples on the sacrifice of Christ by embracing something He would so strongly condemn, but using His own words (and the words He inspired as written down by the apostle Paul) to defend that same thing! He died so that the penalty of our sins could be wiped away if we choose to claim that sacrifice. People who support gay marriage but also claim to accept Christ's sacrifice are nailing His hands to the cross all over again.



All this serves just to remind us to stick our nose in the scriptures and understand what they mean then live by them, so that we aren't carried away by these popular messages which feel right, but which are in fact morally bankrupt. Now more than ever we need to be practicing our religion and becoming more like Christ.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

World News and Trends: Is Mexico the next threat to U.S. stability?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

World News and Trends: Is Mexico the next threat to U.S. stability?




article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder





Mexico's rise in crime, violence, drugs and kindnappings indicate it's headed towards an inevitable downfall. What will this mean for the United States?



Even in terms of annual legal crossings on the U.S.Mexican border, the estimated number of 300,000 makes it the world's busiest. Yet the possibility of a failed Mexican state ranks high among American international worries.



A regular column in the International Herald Tribune asked: "What do Pakistan and Mexico have in common? They figure in the nightmares of U.S. military planners trying to peer into the future and identify the next big threats. The two countries are mentioned in the same breath in a just-published study by the United States Joint Forces Command, whose jobs include providing an annual look into the future to prevent the U.S. military from being caught off guard by unexpected developments " (Bernd Debusmann, "Among Top U.S. Fears, a Failed Mexican State," Jan. 9, 2009, p. 2).



Both of these countries are close to the top in the reported rankings of failed states subject to rapid and sudden collapse. The dangers associated with Pakistan are more painfully obvious. A retired American intelligence analyst said in December 2008 that Pakistan is "one of the single most challenging places on the planet" (ibid.).



Mexico is more of a surprise. One paragraph in the article reflects the gravity of Mexico's plight: "Vicious and widening violence pitting the drug cartels against each other and against the Mexican state have left more than 8,000 Mexicans dead over the past two years. Kidnappings have become a routine part of Mexican daily life. Common crime is widespread. Pervasive corruption has hollowed out the state" (ibid.).



Mexico's governmental infrastructure remains under continual pressure and assault by drug cartels and other criminal gangs. The Joint Forces Command study plainly stated: "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for Homeland Security alone. One minor indication is that the Mexican border town of Tijuana is now off-limits to American marines because of its increasing violence" (Chris Ayres, "You Wanna Die Tonight, Gringo?" The Times, Jan. 23, 2009, p. 2). (Sources: The Times [London], International Herald Tribune. )

.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Immigration: How a Foreign Invasion Is Reshaping the West

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Immigration: How a Foreign Invasion Is Reshaping the West
article by Melvin Rhodes





In the last 50 years, millions of people from the Third World have moved into the Western democracies. Many have contributed to the welfare of these nations, but others lack work skills, proper education and democratic convictions. What will it mean if and when these ever-growing minorities begin to constitute the majority in several key countries?



Suddenly, immigration is becoming a bigger issue throughout the Western world. Governments around the globe are very concerned about potential problems that massive immigration may bring.



The American state of Arizona, which borders Mexico, recently passed a law authorizing police to inquire of people they've stopped for other legitimate reasons if they are in the United States legally, should there be sufficient reason to suspect otherwise, and to ask for proof of their legal status in such case. Illegal immigrants have contributed to mounting crime, increasing health and educational costs and other problems in the state.



Most of Arizona's citizens support the law, though some organizations outside the state have announced boycotts, which could cost it a great deal. Even the federal government is considering filing lawsuits to prevent the law from being implemented.



Immigration reshaping Western countries

A car bomb placed in New York City's Times Square on May 1, 2010, was the 11th attempted terrorist act in the city of New York since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The bomb—which, thankfully, failed to go off as planned—raised some deeply troubling questions about even legal immigration.



How could a young Pakistani immigrant who lived the American dream possibly want to kill hundreds of his fellow citizens? The United States and other Western democracies, still coming to terms with radical Islam, are finding it hard to fathom. It just doesn't fit into the multicultural ideal!



France, Belgium, Italy and other European countries are passing laws to block Islamic women from wearing full veils in public. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel is insisting the country's large Turkish population should assimilate, while the Turkish prime minister insists they should have their own separate schools to protect their Islamic identity.



Meanwhile, a Danish cartoonist whose cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad led to riots in a number of countries was threatened by an ax-wielding intruder, and a Swedish cartoonist was physically attacked by protesters shouting "Allah is great!" as he gave a lecture on free speech. Muslims insist that freedom of speech, long cherished in the West, has its limits.



In Britain, the issue of immigration may have cost Prime Minister Gordon Brown the recent election. When a 65-year-old supporter of his own party approached him during the campaign and expressed concern about all the immigrants from Eastern Europe flowing into her neighborhood, Mr. Brown was overheard in his car describing her as a "bigoted woman." Leaders clearly don't like the sensitive issue of immigration being brought up.



But it's not going to go away.



Majorities becoming minorities in their own land

People are feeling increasingly threatened by the changing demographics in their own nations. The ethnic composition of Western countries is rapidly altering due to massive immigration in the last few decades. The United States alone took in 10 million more immigrants in the seven years following Sept. 11, 2001—many of them from countries rife with radical Islamists. To many citizens, this just doesn't make sense.



An increasing number of Americans are aware that these demographic changes will lead to a majority nonwhite population in their own lifetimes. How they handle this will determine the country's future. As Time magazine put it: "How the current majority reacts to its incipient minority status is the most crucial socio-demographic issue facing the country" (Gregory Rodriguez, "The White Anxiety Crisis," March 22, 2010, international edition).



In an amazing break from tradition, many Western nations changed their immigration policies after World War II and welcomed millions of people from the Third World. Even the United States, often deemed a cultural "melting pot," had an immigration policy prior to 1965 that favored maintaining the racial status quo.



The late Senator Edward Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill deliberately changed earlier policy, welcoming a big influx of immigrants from the world's poorer nations. At the time, Americans were assured it would not alter the ethnic mix and social fabric of their nation.



Now it's evident this assurance was false. One could easily make the argument that the election of America's first African-American president would not have happened without the reality of changing demographics.



Immigration leading to unrest

The issue of immigration was briefly discussed on NBC's Chris Matthews Show on May 9, 2010.



During the program, John Heilemann of New York magazine observed: "We're going through one of these once-in-a-century transformations that cuts across a lot of different things—cultural change, there's big demographic change, there's big economic change, and technological change, and it makes people really nervous. It's been going on for about 15 years in America—the sense of anxiety, the sense we've lost control of our lives."



Also on the show was Cynthia Tucker, a columnist with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who offered this perspective: "I've always thought that this great melting pot or salad, however you want to describe this diverse nation, works as long as the economy is good, as long as the pie is growing and every American believes he or she has an opportunity to get a piece of that pie, we're all pretty happy."



However, now that the economy is not doing so well, the United States could be in for a more stressful time when it comes to assimilating the various ethnic groups that now live in the country.



The same applies elsewhere, of course. Some of the eurozone countries are on the brink of financial collapse due to decades of overspending. Severe government spending cuts are inevitable. The nations have already seen unemployment rise. Without jobs, many are already blaming immigrants for their situation.



In the latest election in Britain, the anti-immigrant British National Party almost tripled the share of the vote it received in the 2005 election. In fact, anti-immigrant parties are seeing growing support in a number of European countries.



The perceived threat applies on several different levels.



Security a growing concern

Besides feeling that their way of life is threatened, both culturally and economically, people are also becoming more concerned about security as radical terror movements increasingly recruit homegrown terrorists. Commenting on the recent attempted bombing in Times Square, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor Fouad Ajami wrote the following in the May 10, 2010, Wall Street Journal:



"'A Muslim has no nationality except his belief,' the intellectual godfather of the Islamists, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, wrote decades ago. Qutb's 'children' are everywhere now; they carry the nationalities of foreign lands and plot against them. The Pakistani-born Faisal Shahzad [who set up the car bomb] is a devotee of Sayyid Qutb's doctrine, and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was another.



"Qutb was executed by the secular dictatorship of [Egyptian President] Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966. But his thoughts and legacy endure. Globalization, the shaking up of continents, the ease of travel, and the doors for immigration flung wide open by Western liberal societies have given Qutb's worldview greater power and relevance. What can we make of a young man like Shahzad working for [the cosmetics company] Elizabeth Arden, receiving that all-American degree, the MBA, jogging in the evening in Bridgeport, then plotting mass mayhem in Times Square?



"The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires and the failures of the Islamic world but brought the ruin with them. They mock national borders and identities. A parliamentary report issued by Britain's House of Commons on the London Underground bombings of July 7, 2005, lays bare this menace and the challenge it poses to a system of open borders and modern citizenship.



"The four men who pulled off those brutal attacks, the report noted, 'were apparently well integrated into British society.' Three of them were second-generation Britons born in West Yorkshire. The oldest, a 30-year-old father of a 14-month-old infant, 'appeared to others as a role model to young people.' One of the four, 22 years of age, was a boy of some privilege; he owned a red Mercedes given to him by his father and was given to fashionable hairstyles and designer clothing...Two of the four, rather like Faisal Shahzad, had spent time in Pakistan before they pulled off their deed.



"A year after the London terror, hitherto tranquil Canada had its own encounter with the new Islamism. A ring of radical Islamists were charged with plotting to attack targets in southern Ontario with fertilizer bombs. A school-bus driver was one of the leaders of these would-be jihadists.



"A report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service unintentionally echoed the British House of Commons findings. 'These individuals are part of Western society, and their "Canadianness" makes detection more difficult. Increasingly, we are learning of more and more extremists that are homegrown. The implications of this shift are profound'" ("Islam's Nowhere Men: Millions Like Faisal Shahzad Are Unsettled by a Modern World They Can Neither Master nor Reject," emphasis added).



Prophecy warned of consequences for national sins

The modern descendants of the ancient Israelites include many of the nations that make up today's Western world. In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, God promised tremendous physical blessings if they would obey Him, but He also warned them of the dire consequences of disobedience. The promised blessings for obedience are awe-inspiring; the assurances of punishment for sins are deeply troubling.



These chapters make for sobering reading when we consider trends in recent years. In Deuteronomy 32, verse 25 warns of "terror within"—a prophecy clearly being fulfilled now, with an even greater increase in the problem likely still to come.



The apostle Paul spoke of how God created "from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;



See All...).



Of course, this passage does not mean that correctly controlled immigration is inherently wrong, seeing that when the Israelites left Egypt the door was opened for a certain number of non-Israelites to dwell among them. However, they had to leave their culture behind and abide by the same laws God gave the Israelites. We are now learning the negative consequences of the multicultural society that has been propagated for the last 50 years.



Mixing cultures, and especially religions, can be volatile! We should have known that before the change in immigration laws just by looking at history and at other societies where mixing religions has led to serious tension and conflict.



The people of Europe feel particularly threatened. With higher population densities than the United States and closer proximity to the volatile Middle East, many West European nations have significantly high Muslim populations. Add to this Europe's low birthrate in contrast to the high Islamic birthrate, and the potential for violent conflict only increases.



And as we've seen, it's not just security that is threatened. Economics also play a major role. God Himself warned of serious consequences for the native peoples as a result of immigration: "The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail" (Deuteronomy 28:43-44 [43] The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.

[44] He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.





See All...).



In other words, the strangers—those of foreign cultures and religions—will end up on top, in control and in time possibly dictating a way of life foreign to the indigenous population.



This is, of course, exactly what happened when European settlers started arriving in North America, Australia and elsewhere—they ended up on top and in control, displacing the native populations. Now, two or three centuries later, they are the ones losing control to newer arrivals.



Immigration trends and birthrates show that sometime in this century the peoples who currently dominate most of the Western nations will be minorities in their own lands. Whatever you may think of the ethnic mix, the reality is that significant change is underway, and it's threatening no less than the future of Western civilization. GN

.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Life Lessons: Nine Lessons for Dealing with Conflict

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Life Lessons: Nine Lessons for Dealing with Conflict


 by Gary Petty

 Jesus said, "Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God." Everyone agrees with the concept, but how can we practice peacemaking? Sometimes it seems like you can't get through a day without experiencing conflict with a family member, neighbor, co-worker or a stranger on the subway.



The book of Proverbs contains many practical steps of basic conflict resolution.



Points to build on

1. The most important step in dealing with conflict is to understand that when you are at peace with God it is easier to make peace with others . Many times we are driven by an attitude of anger and self-defense instead of the inner peace that comes from God.



Proverbs 16:7When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.



See All...: "When a man's ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him."



2. Once an argument begins it tends to escalate into anger and irrational behavior. It is much better to deal with the issues while both parties are still calm. It is important to pick the proper time and place for discussion. If emotions are beginning to run high ask for a short break to get control.



Proverbs 17:14The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.



See All...: "The beginning of strife is like releasing water; Therefore stop contention before a quarrel starts."



3. Many times we emotionally respond to what someone is saying without hearing the entire story. Stop and listen to what the person is really trying to say before responding.



Proverbs 18:13He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.



See All...: "He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him."



4. When dealing with conflicts between other people, listen to both sides before making any judgment.



Proverbs 18:17He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.



See All...: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him."



5. Dealing with conflict in the early stages is much easier. Once a person is offended or hurt it takes much more effort and time to come to a resolution.



Proverbs 18:19A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.



See All...: "A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a castle."



6. Responding in anger is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Sometimes it is better to overlook another person's fault or offense for the sake of maintaining the relationship.



Proverbs 17:9He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.



See All...: "He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends."



Proverbs 19:11The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.



See All...: "The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger, And his glory is to overlook a transgression."



7. Some issues aren't worth fighting over.



Proverbs 20:3It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.



See All...: "It is honorable for a man to stop striving, Since any fool can start a quarrel."



Proverbs 17:28Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.



See All...: "Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive."



8. Conflict is fanned by gossip. Avoid a person who thrives on gossip because he or she will destroy relationships.



Proverbs 16:28A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief friends.



See All...: "A perverse man sows strife, And a whisperer separates the best of friends."



Proverbs 17:9He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.



See All...: "He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends."



9. Carefully and objectively examine your position before you enter into an argument. Consider that you may be at least partially wrong. It is best to work out conflict before you need a mediator. When you involve a mediator you may find out that you are the one who is wrong and your reputation harmed.



Proverbs 25:8-10 [8] Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.

[9] Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another:

[10] Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.





See All...: "Do not go hastily to court; For what will you do in the end, When your neighbor has put you to shame? Debate your case with your neighbor, And do not disclose the secret to another; Lest he who hears it expose your shame, And your reputation be ruined."



Application

Post these nine principles in a prominent place so that they are a constant reminder of how to conduct conflict resolution.



Before dealing with conflict first pray to God to help you see your part in causing the strife, ask for forgiveness for both you and the other person and seek peace with your Creator. Then you will have the inner strength to be a real peacemaker.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The Abortion Debate: What Does God Say?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Abortion Debate: What Does God Say?






article by Darris McNeely





Every year a staggering 44 million abortions are carried out around the world. Each day about 120,000 lives—enough to populate a medium-sized city—are terminated by abortion, a practice legal in most countries. But how does God view the taking of the lives of millions of the unborn—or even one, for that matter?







Source: 123RFForty years after being declared legal in the United States, abortion remains a polarizing topic in society and in politics. Judges nominated for the country's Supreme Court are analyzed for their views on the issue. It becomes a public feeding frenzy that excites emotions and splits society into opposing groups. Emotions become raw.



The continuing abortion debate reveals deep fears and division. It is tragic that such a matter as the life of a child in its mother's womb, something that should bring people together, continues to divide and tear the moral fabric of a people.



In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that a woman's legal right to privacy extended to her decision to have an abortion.Thiseffectively legalized abortion. The result has been more than 50 million abortions in the United States over the last 40 years—a number equivalent to the entire populations of the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming combined.



Each year more than a million babies are aborted in the United States—a number greater than the population of any American city other than the nine largest and roughly equal to all the military deaths in all the wars in the nation's 237-year history.



Worldwide, the annual number is many, many times that—an appalling 44 million. China alone admits to more than 13 million per year. And since 1980, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 billion abortions have been carried out around the globe—a number equaling more than one sixth of the current world population. This is far greater than all those killed in all wars in recent centuries.



Our minds reel at such figures. But what should we think about this issue? Where do you stand on the issue of abortion? Do you support it as a woman's right over her own body? Do you support it only in the case of rape, incest or where a woman's life may be endangered? Or do you, as many do, oppose it in any form? Who has the right to judge this matter?



Much more than just politics

Abortion is an emotional issue. It's also a legal issue where states make it so. It's also a moral issue. But most of all it's a spiritual issue. Regrettably, most don't recognize this. God is the Creator of life. What God says is the final word. His Word issued from His throne in heaven is the ultimate "supreme court"—a judgment no man or court of men could ever overrule.



The debate about abortion, the taking of a life from the womb of a mother, must be understood within a framework that starts with what the Creator of life says about His creation. God's Word, the Bible, is our foundation—our starting point for understanding.



The taking of life is not a mere political issue. If you think it is, you're wrong. It's a moral and ethical matter because life belongs to God. He created life, and He sustains all life on this planet. So His Word alone is where we begin to truly understand this issue.



Let's go to the Bible, to its beginning with the record of creation and then beyond, to understand what it says about life. Let's notice what is recorded there for us:



"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.



See All...). Here we are told that it is God who created human life. His breath animated Adam, the first man. God as Creator of life holds the judgment about life.



In Exodus we find the Ten Commandments. The sixth declares, " You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13Thou shalt not kill.



See All..., emphasis added throughout). The Sixth Commandment speaks strongly to the sanctity of created life. Only God who gave life has the authority to take life or order others to take it.



What about the unborn?

Does this verse apply to the unborn? You'll see that it does if you consider the unborn child to be human, to have life.



God takes great care in these founding documents for mankind. These writings were forged in a different world than ours, and they map out His view of human life. Scripture says that human beings are created in His image. Life began when He breathed it into the first man. Human life is of God. Therefore, it is sacred.



God took great care to show that human life must be protected, even in the womb. Notice this example, again in Exodus: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely . . . he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" (Exodus 21:22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.



See All...).



The description here is of a pregnant woman "with child"— a human life, not a mass or blob of tissue!



Exodus 21:23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,



See All... continues, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life." In other words, if the injury to the woman results in the death of the unborn, considered here a life, then it is called murder —with the penalty being a life for a life.



The Bible considers the unborn in the mother's womb to be a human life—nothing less. It's considered murder to take an action that destroys that unborn life!



Another key reference in Scripture about life in the womb is found in the story of Jeremiah, one of the major prophets of the Bible. In Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.



See All... God tells him, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.



See All...).



There are enough references in the Bible to the life of an infant in the womb to give understanding that God considers the unborn child to be a human life. Consider also John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother Elizabeth's womb when her cousin Mary came near carrying Jesus in her womb (Luke 1:39-45 [39] And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

[40] And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

[43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

[44] For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

[45] And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.





See All...).



The argument that an unborn child is not human or not really life is one of the most insidious arguments used by abortion proponents. To be blunt, it's an argument meant to remove any guilt that the decision to abort is the taking of innocent human life.



God, the Creator of all life, sees all aspects of life within His creation. He considers the life of a child in the womb to be something known by Him even at that stage of development. If God knows the child in the womb, it's a life that should be protected and cherished.



The amazing purpose for human life

How important is a human life? How vital is life— every human life—to God the Creator?



The answer is that human life is the center focus of God's plan and purpose for the universe. Notice this all-important passage King David wrote in the Psalms:



"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet" (Psalm 8:3-6 [3] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

[6] Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:





See All..., English Standard Version).



In Hebrews 2 this passage is quoted and developed with a fuller revelation and explanation of man's destiny:



"For in that He [God] put all in subjection under him [mankind], He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:8-9 [8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.





See All...).



The next verse goes on to explain that part of Jesus Christ's mission and purpose was to bring "many sons to glory" (Hebrews 2:10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.



See All...). But what does that mean?



God's purpose for human beings is to expand His divine family with "sons and daughters" (2 Corinthians 6:18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.



See All...) created through a process ending in a change from physical flesh to glorified spirit through a resurrection. This is the divine reason for life, and the human act of reproduction is a model of that great process that will lead to the birth of children into God's immortal spirit family.



When human beings decide for themselves to intervene in and terminate the process of human life, they wrongly take for themselves the decision to end the life of one created to ultimately become part of the family of God! (To learn more, read "The Mystery of Human Existence: Why Are You Here? ".)



A culture of self-deification and death

Abortion is the deliberate taking of innocent human life. It is murder. The arguments that seek to split hairs about when life begins and whether a child in the womb of a woman is "viable life" are the height of human pride. The arguments over "rights" and "freedom" of a woman's power over her own body, and whether any human government can define life, is a modern tower of Babel—an insult to God and His divine Word. It is a modern form of idolatry where the self —and the supposed rights of self—are worshipped and esteemed higher than God.



In abortion we have created a culture of self-deification. We have made ourselves "like God" (Genesis 3:5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



See All...). We say we will determine what is good and evil, right and wrong. We say that human life is nothing more than meaningless tissue that can be disposed of at will and at any time during the nine months of pregnancy. We say that a man and a woman can decide the power of life or death on a growing child created in the image of God with the potential of becoming God's own son or daughter.



If you know someone who is considering abortion, have them read this article or get reputable counseling. The life of unborn children should be regarded as precious and protected—not something to be callously extinguished through this terrible act.



It must begin with you and in you. You can decide to change. You can decide to turn from this culture and evil and death and choose to follow life. You can turn to the God of life. The Creator of all life offers you the chance to choose to love Him and obey His teachings.



By making this conscious choice you can increase the quality of your life. By grabbing hold of God, His teachings and His laws you can begin a journey back from this abyss created by a lawless world. You can turn from the self-centered culture that dares to redefine life on its own terms.



What we are asking you to do right now is examine your values and turn to God for help. Read what the Bible tells you about your destiny. Look into God's plan for your life and begin today to live with His purpose guiding your steps.



Have you chosen in the past to end a pregnancy? God offers forgiveness and hope. His grace is available when there is repentance and change of heart. You can move on from that decision and build a life based on God's knowledge.



God, the Creator of life, has set before us the most incredible promise of divine life within His family. The life He sustains on this planet today is the seed for His eternal spiritual family. All human life is precious to God, even the life of unborn children. We cannot and must not compromise on this point!



God laid out the teachings that protect life. He tells us to choose life. When we do, we honor life's Creator.







[ Read the corresponding articles: Child Sacrifice: We're Not So Different Today and A Lesson About Life From Mary ]

.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

A deeper threat is coming from China

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Discern the Times


 As interesting as the NSA spying issue is, a deeper threat is coming from China.



[Darris McNeely] Jesus told His audience on one occasion to discern this time. I think what He was saying was to be able to cut through the distractions and to understand the real threats that are taking place. I recently did a BT Daily where I talked about the NSA's spying , alleged spying on American citizens by tapping into all of these billions of telephone calls that are made each day and the controversy that's erupted over that, which is interesting given that we are all on the grid.



Our lives are open. We willingly even divulge personal information on Facebook, Twitter, and every time we use a cell phone and go on the internet today and shop around. Nonetheless this is an issue that has erupted, and I was reading an article that drew a distinction between that and certain threats that come from China in China's ongoing efforts to hack into western companies and even our own security systems and military systems in the United States.



An article in today's Financial Times says, "Keep the Focus on the China Cyber Threat." And the statement that it makes here is that the great danger of the furor over the NSA, the National Security Agency's spying is that it will distract attention from the immense threat from China that US companies face. China trying to hack into companies' databases and even military installations is a major threat. There are other threats that loom before the United States as well. And that's the point. This can be a distraction. Yes, it is important that American's have their liberties guaranteed and protected, but the reality is that we have bigger threats.



And when Jesus said in Luke 12:56Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?



See All..., He said that to the hypocrites and to his audience he called them hypocrites and He said, "You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth. How is it though you do not discern this time?" It's important to make the distinction and understand what sometimes might be a distraction from larger threat that pose a more imminent danger. Understanding the times, weighing it all out, that's a critical point I think Jesus makes in this one warning.



That's BT Daily . Join us next time.

.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Who Do You Trust?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.



by Paul Hadley

 Recently Reader’s Digest polled over 1,000 Americans to come up with a list of the 100 most trusted individuals (Courtenay Smith and Alison Caporimo, “Reader’s Digest Trust Poll: The 100 Most Trusted People in America,” RD.com).



Number one on the list was the actor Tom Hanks. I’ve enjoyed a number of his movies over the years and he comes across as a pleasant enough man, but the most trusted person in America?



I love the game show Jeopardy. Now I know why. Its host Alex Trebek is ranked as the 8th most trusted person. I like his wry wit and dignified demeanor, but a game show host the 8th most trusted person in America?



In fact of the top 10, seven are connected to the entertainment industry. What does this say about the state of our society?



I found it interesting that people who should be leaders of society and trustworthy were ranked so low. I had to go all the way to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at number 36 to find someone currently serving in government. Unfortunately Judge Judy at 28 is more trusted than a sitting judge on the Supreme Court.



Religious leaders fared even worse. Billy Graham came in highest at 67.



Business leaders caught a break with Bill Gates. He came in at number 7, although I suspect he made the list primarily for his charitable work. After him though the next most trusted business leader is Warren Buffet at number 71.



What does this tell us about our society?

First, it tells me how fixated on entertainment we are that actors seem to be the most trustworthy group in the country. Think about that! People who are paid to play a role and make us believe they are something they are not, are the most trusted in America. We feel so attached to them and think we know them so well that we actually are willing to say we trust them.



Secondly, it tells me that we have a famine of honest leadership, and that the people we should want to trust have disqualified themselves from earning it. It seems we see corruption and dishonesty at all levels of government. On top of that our political system has become so toxic that even when there is no wrongdoing each side seems intent on destroying the reputation of the other.



With all the business scandals that have occurred over the last decade it’s certainly understandable that business leaders overall are not trusted. The world of religion has also had its share of shameful conduct.



So who do we trust?

We all have people close to us we should trust such as a spouse, family members, close friends but people make mistakes and even in those relationships trust can be damaged. Some are so hurt by betrayals of trust that they go through life with “trust issues”.



If anyone should have had trust issues it was the ancient King David of Israel. He was betrayed over and over by those close to him. King Saul brought him into his inner circle and later tried to murder him. David was also betrayed at different times by a wife, by sons and by trusted friends.



He also knew what it was like to be the betrayer of trust because he had a close friend killed to cover up committing adultery with his wife.



Yet David knew where he could place his trust and put it in music. He wrote “And those who know Your name will put their trust in You; For You, Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You.” (Psalm 9:10And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.



See All...)



David understood people, including himself, were not where he should put his ultimate trust but instead he needed to place his trust in God.



So I ask again, who do we trust?



If we place our ultimate trust in people we will be disappointed. However when we get to know our Lord and Creator we will find like King David did, that is where our trust belongs.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Where Have All the Fathers Gone?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632

Where Have All the Fathers Gone?






article by Mario Seiglie





A devastating epidemic is leaving a trail of broken hearts and broken dreams in its wake. What is this tragic outbreak? It’s the epidemic of disappearing fathers, who are sorely needed.







Source: Photos.comAs soon as they heard the door open, the two young girls jumped up and began yelling, "Daddy's home, Daddy's home!" No longer quietly sitting with Mommy, their heartbeats were now racing and their eyes widened, anticipating playtime with their father.



Soon he was tossing them up and down, and they squealed with laughter when he acted like a big bear. Their mother sat by, watching with delight and amusement, ready to calm things down should the horsing around get too rough.



Who would've thought such a scene could be in danger of disappearing?



Disappearance of the intact family

Sadly, it's come to the point in many countries that fewer children than ever will have the opportunity to grow up in a home with both a father and a mother. According to the latest statistics, only a third of the children in the United States will reach age 18 with both biological parents living at home.



"Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation," warns social historian David Blankenhorn. "It is the leading cause of declining child well-being in this society. It is also the engine driving our most urgent social problems, from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sex abuse to domestic violence against women" ( Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, 1995, p. 1).



With U.S. divorce rates hovering just below 50 percent and the resultant single-parent households alarmingly on the rise, it's no wonder that only a minority of kids can count on living with both Mom and Dad. Usually, it's the father who doesn't stick around and leaves the mom to rear the kids by herself—which is a distinct disadvantage for the children. (See "What Happened to Dad?")



How important is the role of the father in child rearing? New studies have shown that dads, who normally are not given as much credit as moms in child rearing, actually play a vital role in the upbringing of children and their future success. Amazingly, this research reinforces the same principles written in the Bible thousands of years ago! Let's look at some of the evidence.



"And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.



See All...).

The Bible describes the ideal father as actively and tenderly engaged in his children's rearing and education.



Yes, his masculine child-rearing tactics often include horseplay with the kids that can annoy and cause anxiety in Mom, the maintainer of domestic peace and order. Yet his rowdiness actually fulfills a vital role in the children's social, physical and intellectual skills in school and beyond.



"Children's social, physical, and intellectual development benefit greatly from the involvement of fathers," observes Yale child psychiatrist Kyle Pruett (quoted by Judsen Culbreth, "What Dads Are Made Of," Reader's Digest, June 2005, p. 72A). The intellectual gains are noticeable from the first year of life and continue on past high school.



"By eight weeks," Dr. Pruett explains, "infants can anticipate differences in maternal and paternal handling styles ... When infants were approached by their mother, they slowed and regulated their heart and respiratory rates, relaxed their shoulders, and lowered their eyelids (Ahh ... Mom). When the father approached, the infant's heart and respiratory rates quickened, shoulders hunched up, and eyes widened and brightened (Dad's here ... party time!)" ( Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, 2000, p. 25).



A father's playfulness helps his children develop motor skills, hand-eye coordination, balance and confidence. I remember teaching my four daughters at an early age to ride a bike, snow ski, roller-skate, snorkel and enjoy many other types of sports. Their favorite time as children was when we invented games like the helicopter ride, with me whirling them with my feet like the blades of a helicopter, and the volcano, where they would fall from my knees into the bed. Such activities created a lasting bond between us and helped them lose their fears about taking on new challenges.



Child studies show that this kind of rough-and-tumble play helps children develop social and emotional experiences that prepare them for school. For instance, they learn to be confident, to take turns and to become leaders. "Kids who learn these early social skills from their fathers do better with peers," says Dr. Ross Parke, professor of psychology and author of Fatherhood (quoted by Culbreth,



p. 72B).



Conversely, the lack of a father figure tends to leave kids more passive and fearful. Child research indicates that it is the closeness felt by the child to the father that is most predictably associated with a positive life outcome 25 years later.



"Children who feel a closeness to their fathers are twice as likely as those who do not to enter college or find stable employment after high school, 75 percent less likely to have a teen birth, 80 percent less likely to spend time in jail, and half as likely to experience multiple depression symptoms" (Pruett, p. 38).



Researchers further found that "both sons and daughters of the dad-involved group [in the study] had higher levels of verbal skills," with the boys' IQ being "positively associated with their father's nurturing, (appropriate emotional and behavioral response to child's needs) and, interestingly, negatively associated with their father's disciplinary restrictiveness.



"Boys with nurturing fathers scored higher than the boys whose fathers were less involved unless the father was a strict, authoritarian disciplinarian" (pp. 43-44). So, although discipline has its place, when it becomes harsh and overbearing, as the Bible warns against, it yields negative results.



"My son, pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding" (Proverbs 5:1My son, attend unto my wisdom, and bow thine ear to my understanding:



See All...).

Mothers normally give care and comfort while fathers focus more on teaching children about the world around them. Notice, for example, that when mothers pick up a baby, they usually have the infant face her—whereas fathers often pick up children so they can look outward, and explore what is in front of them. Dads are "wired" to play a very important role to separate children so they don't become too absorbed in their mother's world.



"It is in the toddler years, from 1 1/2 to about 3 1/2," says Dr. Pruett, "that fathers play one of the most critical roles they ever play in the life of their child: helping the child safely and securely separate from the intense maternal dependency of infancy.



"Healthy though dependency on their mother is for children at the beginning of their life, they will not experience, let alone practice, their own competence and mastery skills if they do not strike off in search of their own physical and emotional autonomy. And in this world, you, the father, are the expert guide" (pp. 83-84).



Actively involved dads, who let their children explore the outside world and teach them about the marvels of nature, will help them develop curiosity and self-esteem. "Infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest. They tend to be more curious and less hesitant or fearful, especially in the face of novel or unusual stimuli" (Pruett, p. 41).



Eventually these exploratory skills will become crucial in school and the workplace. People who are inquisitive, socially developed and not afraid to try different methods will have an easier time excelling as challenges arise. After all, Dad already taught them how to deal in the real world, how to overcome frustrations and figure things out for themselves.



"Fathers can affect how well their children progress in school, which subjects they prefer and even the kinds of occupations they choose," says Dr. Parke. "Whether a child prefers reading and hates math or aspires to be a physicist or an engineer rather than a book critic or a historian is affected by the father's attitudes, encouragement and other behavior" ( Fatherhood, 1996, p. 156).



Studies done in the 1960s about the effect fathers had on their children surprised even the researchers. For example, they found the amount of time fathers spend reading with their children is a strong predictor for many intellectual abilities—in particular, of the daughters' verbal skills. Remarkably, the same study did not find mothers reading to children to have similar effects, indicating there was something unique in the father's role of reading to them.



For example, women who were high achievers, such as Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi, former prime ministers of Britain and India , respectively, mention they were highly influenced and encouraged by their fathers in their academic and political careers.



Another important role in which the father excels is teaching children about spiritual and moral values. When the father is a good role model of morality, children respect both of their parents more. If the father establishes rules that are fair and a level playing field in which the children can flourish, they tend to be more obedient. But when the mother sets the rules, children tend to defy them more.



"Sons of fathers who took more responsibility for limit setting, discipline, and helping their child with personal problems and schoolwork," adds Dr. Pruett, "had significantly higher empathy [having feelings of sympathy and compassion for others] scores ... Father deprivation is directly linked to difficulties in a child's self-control" (Pruett, pp. 48, 51).



"But did He not make [husbands and wives] one ...? And why one? He seeks godly offspring" (Malachi 2:15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.



See All...).

When God united Adam and Eve, the first two human beings, in marriage, He told them to multiply and fill the earth. God had carefully designed the family unit so children would be reared between two parents who would act as opposite (masculine and feminine) poles.



The child would then be in the middle of this union, receiving equal influence from both parents. An analogy would be of a metal ball suspended between two magnetic poles. Similarly, each parent exerts his or her unique influence so the child is reared to have a balanced and full personality.



Researchers have confirmed that actively involved male and female parents are ideal for bringing up balanced and mature children. Here are some of their findings:



• Children yearn deeply for dads and are born with a drive to find and connect with their fathers and not only with their mothers.



• Fathers have the internal capacity or instinct to respond to their child's desire to connect.



• Men and women do not differ in the depth of love toward their children.



• Each child is loved in a unique way by the father and the mother.



• The desire to feel emotionally connected to their children throughout life is the same for men and women, though it may find



differing forms of expression.



• Fathers and mothers are equally able to interpret their child's behavioral cues.



• Fathers and mothers are equally anxious about leaving the child to the care of someone else.



• With the exception of lactation, there is no evidence women are biologically predisposed to be better parents than men.



• Men who become active fathers gain in their ability to understand themselves and others.



• A father who is deeply involved with his children experiences beneficial health results.



• A father present at childbirth is the single most important factor that protected against birth complications and further illness or trauma in the newborn.



• Parental love that overindulges a child usually results in selfishness.



One encouraging trend in Western society is the number of parents who now want to coparent, or share in the physical and emotional care of their children as well as in the responsibilities and decision making. Instead of leaving it to Mom to basically rear the children, now more fathers want to become actively involved.



In a long-term survey of newly married couples who were asked to rank certain values in their marriage, coparenting has moved from the 11th priority out of 15 in 1981 to the second priority in 1997, a surprising shift in values in less than one generation.



"Men from Wall Street to homeless shelters," says Dr. Pruett, "speak with conviction about wanting to father their children more actively than they themselves were fathered. As a senior manager at the investment house Goldman Sachs puts it, 'I don't want my son to feel the same void in his heart where his father belongs that I do in mine'" (p. 1).



"And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse" (Malachi 4:6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.



See All...).

We see here that God is very concerned with preserving families. It's interesting that in the scripture above, it is the hearts of the fathers that must first turn to the children, before the children's hearts are then turned toward their fathers.



How can the hearts of fathers be turned to their children? An important way is taking an active role in their children's lives!



Simply reading to them has been shown to make a big difference in improving children's verbal skills. Playing with them, so that they feel the warmth, tenderness and masculine good humor of a father, goes a long way to establishing those bonds of closeness that have been shown to determine such positive outcomes in the future.



Taking children out for a walk and pointing out all the wondrous living things around them will arouse their curiosity and kindle their thirst for knowledge. Showing them how to overcome their fears by tackling physical challenges, such as how to ride a bike or take up a sport, helps create confidence, sociability, physical coordination and perseverance that are so valuable in school and the workplace.



Teaching them strong moral values is also another way fathers turn their hearts to the children. It's wonderful for sons or daughters to be able to turn to Dad for moral guidelines and see their father love their mother and become a role model for them.



Fathers are also ideally suited to develop logic skills in their children so they can understand not only what they should do in a given situation, but why they should do it. The Bible is a marvelous source in this regard, for not only does it reveal true moral and spiritual principles, but it also explains from God's point of view why they should be followed and what happens when they are and when they aren't.



On the other side, how can children's hearts be turned toward their fathers? Again, the best source to begin searching for the answer is the Bible, which says this turning of the heart begins with parents following God's example in His love for His children and by children honoring, obeying and loving their parents.



After all, the Fifth Commandment instructs a child to "honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land" (Exodus 20:12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.



See All...). According to God, both parents should be involved in child rearing, and the children should show equal respect for both of them.



As research has confirmed, there's nothing better than God's original design of a loving father and mother, along with an extended family, rearing their children in His ways. Dr. Parke states it succinctly when he says that mothers and fathers are indeed different, "but their distinctive styles of caretaking complement each other perfectly to the advantage of children" (quoted by Culbreth, p. 72D).



It is a tragedy that society has come to the point of asking where all the fathers have gone—with so many leaving or abandoning their proper roles. If you are a father or will be at some point, you don't have to follow the trend. Instead, by following God's laws and true values, you can be the kind of father He wants you to be! And your children will be blessed. GN

.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate



article by Mario Seiglie





Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University. He is the author of many articles and the books Icons of Evolution (2000) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (2006), and coauthor of The Design of Life (2007) and How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not) (2008).



The Good News: Dr. Wells, you have been following the evolution vs. intelligent design debate for quite some time. What is your opinion on how it's been faring and who is winning?



Jonathan Wells: Before I answer, it's important to clarify the issues. "Evolution" can mean many things—such as change over time, or minor changes within existing species, neither of which any sane person doubts. The problem is Darwinism—the theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided processes such as natural selection acting on minor variations. Darwinists often confuse the issue by starting with the noncontroversial meanings of "evolution" and then slipping in their more controversial claims.



According to intelligent design, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world—such as some features of living things—are explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Intelligent design does not claim that everything is designed, nor does it claim that anything is perfectly designed. Nor does intelligent design tell us the nature of the designer—though many, including me, believe it was the God of the Bible.



Since Darwinism claims that all features of living things can be explained by unguided natural processes, and intelligent design claims that some features are better explained by an intelligent cause, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.



Currently, Darwinism is winning on the political, legal and media fronts in the United States. Most universities and public schools teach Darwinism as though it were unquestioned fact, though the truth is that a growing number of scientists are questioning it on evidential grounds.



Data from the genome projects are revealing major inconsistencies in the Darwinian claim that all organisms share a common ancestor, and no one has ever observed the origin of a new species—much less the origin of new organs and body plans—by variation and selection. On the other hand, the evidence for intelligent design is increasing. Sooner or later, the evidence will win.



GN: Some time back, you mentioned that if the "junk DNA" turns out to have viable functions, it would support the case for intelligent design. What does the recent data say on this subject?



JW: According to modern neo-Darwinism, genes that are passed from generation to generation carry a program that directs embryo development, mutations occasionally alter this genetic program to produce new variations, and natural selection then sorts those mutations—the "raw materials of evolution"—to produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the 1950s, molecular biologists discovered that proteins, the microscopic building blocks of bodily structures, are formed according to information encoded in different segments of DNA. They then equated "gene" with "protein-coding sequence" and "mutations" with molecular accidents in such sequences.



By the 1970s, however, it was clear that most of the DNA in human beings and many other animals does not code for proteins. In 1980, Francis Crick [codiscoverer of the structure of DNA] and Leslie Orgel argued in Nature that this noncoding DNA is merely "junk" that has accumulated in the course of evolution. For the next 25 years, many biologists continued to regard noncoding DNA as junk.



In his 2009 book Why Evolution Is True, neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. "If organisms were built from scratch by a designer," he argued, they would not have imperfections. "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution" [p. 81].



According to Coyne, "when a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed" [pp. 66-67].



In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67].



But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions. The Darwinists' claim that a large percentage of DNA is evolutionary junk is totally false. This reflects badly not only on them, but also on neo-Darwinism itself. By Coyne's logic, the genome-sequencing data refute neo-Darwinism and support intelligent design.



GN: This year is Darwin's bicentennial. What would you say is a good summary today about his writings on evolution?



JW: Why didn't we celebrate Mendel's centennial in the 1920s, or Newton's tricentennial in the 1940s? Both were great scientists.



Darwin is celebrated not because of his scientific contributions, but because his theory has become the creation myth of atheism. Darwin Day in the United States is a project of the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is dedicated to promoting "a nonreligious philosophy." Some atheists have even said they want to establish Darwin Day as a secular alternative to Christmas.



Most people never read The Origin of Species, but if they do they will find that it is a work of theology as much as science. Darwin's main argument was that certain features of living things "are inexplicable on the theory of creation," but make sense only on his theory of unguided descent with modification. Indeed, there are so many discussions of creation in The Origin of Species that U.S. courts might well consider it unconstitutional to use in public schools.



In my opinion, the best way to summarize Darwin's writings on evolution would be as a revival of ancient materialistic philosophy, such as that taught by the Greek Empedocles and the Roman Lucretius, illustrated with examples drawn from 19th-century natural science.



GN: What would you say was Darwin's greatest mistake regarding his theory of evolution?



JW: Darwin was mistaken about a lot of things. He was mistaken about heredity, which he attributed to characteristics—some of them probably acquired during an organism's lifetime—that were blended together from every cell in the body.



He was mistaken about vertebrate embryos, the earliest stages of which he believed showed us our fishlike ancestor in its adult state.



He was mistaken about the geographic distribution of species, which he thought could be explained entirely by migration or by geological separation.



He was mistaken in claiming that all organisms were part of one great "tree of life" with a common ancestor at the root.



And he was mistaken about the power of natural selection, which he argued—by analogy with artificial selection, which had never produced anything more than changes within existing species—produced new species, organs and body plans.



But Darwin's greatest mistake was to deny design in living things. The unguided processes he invoked have never been able to produce the major innovations needed for evolution. And the more we learn about living things, the more designed they look.



GN: Some scientists claim the chimpanzee genome is about 99 percent similar to the human genome, but others claim it is closer to 75 percent. What is the truth about this, and how significant are the findings?



JW: Comparing chimpanzee and human genomes is tricky, not the least because the sequences do not line up exactly and one has to decide where to start the comparison. The 99 percent figure involves only a part of each genome; and depending on the technique and the researcher, the estimates can vary significantly.



But whatever the estimate, the deeper question is, what does it mean? According to evolutionist Jonathan Marks, who published a book in 2002 titled What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, it means very little. Marks argues that since there are only four [molecular compound] subunits in DNA, any two living things are bound to be at least 25 percent similar. Someone who claims that humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar to daffodils.



In fact, the similarity between chimp and human DNA—whatever the figure may be—poses a problem for neo-Darwinism. According to neo-Darwinism, organisms are what they are because of their DNA—which is why DNA mutations can supposedly provide the raw materials for evolution. Then why are chimps and humans so different from each other not only in their anatomy and physiology but also in their intelligence and behavior? Basing an estimate of their similarity on DNA comparisons alone is a byproduct of neo-Darwinian dogma, not biological science.



There is actually abundant evidence that embryo development is not entirely controlled by DNA. More information is necessary, and this information is located in cellular structures that the embryo inherits apart from its DNA. But neo-Darwinian dogma tends to blind people to this evidence and thereby hinders scientific progress.



GN: You are a prolific writer about intelligent design. What are you currently working on in this regard?



JW: In the past year I have written two book reviews: "Darwin of the Gaps," a review of Francis Collins' The Language of God and "Why Darwinism Is False," a review of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True .



Mostly, however, I have been doing empirical and theoretical research in my own field, cell and developmental biology. The empirical research involves testing an intelligent design-guided hypothesis about a possible cause of cancer, which I published in 2005. The theoretical research involves formulating testable hypotheses about the nature and location of non-DNA information in the embryo, by analyzing the embryo as though it were a designed whole instead of an accidental byproduct of DNA mutations and natural selection.



GN: You mentioned some while ago that by the year 2025, the theory of evolution would have lost most of its appeal. Do you still think this date is feasible for that?



JW: Yes, I do. Of course, it's risky to put a date on such a prediction, but scientific discoveries are rapidly making Darwinism less and less plausible, and this is becoming more and more obvious to new students and to others not already committed to the old way of thinking.



I compare Darwinism to a frozen pond in the springtime. As winter passes and the days grow longer, the ice may look thick, but it becomes honeycombed with melt water. In the next thaw it may disappear overnight. GN

.