Friday, July 31, 2015

Abortion: Silencing God's Children

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Silencing God's Children

by Tom Robinson 2 comments Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Woman holding pregnant belly. — Silencing God's Children

The ancient prophet Ezekiel thundered these words: “You took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to [false gods] to be devoured … You have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire” (Ezekiel 16:20-21).
The thought of sacrificing precious infants, burning them on an altar to a pagan god of stone, would strike most people today as abhorrent. But are we not guilty of the same crime when we sacrifice millions of innocent babies to the modern idols of selfishness and convenience?
Since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, more than 56 million abortions have taken place in America—an unconscionable slaughter of innocents in a professing Christian nation. Yet even this pales beside the ghastly figure of 40 million abortions every year worldwide (estimating low)—meaning that at least 1.2 billion children have been aborted since 1980 (numberofabortions.com).
Sadly, America has become a supporter of the broader killing. In one of his first acts in office, U.S. President Barack Obama “lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad” (Reuters, Jan. 23, 2009)—meaning U.S. taxpayers are forced to fund abortions and abortion promotion in other countries.
On Feb. 26, 2014, the president told his pro-abortion political group Organizing for Action that they are doing “God's work.” On April 26 of the previous year, he spoke at a gala for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, concluding with, “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America” (emphasis added throughout).
Such words strain our credulity. It borders on blasphemy that anyone, let alone the leader of a nation, would expect God to bless an organization that is in the business of destroying His creation—killing more than 300,000 unborn babies a year, about one every 94 seconds. What God is he referring to? Clearly not the God of the Bible!
As Fox News radio commentator Todd Starnes notes in his new book God Less America:“We ask God to bless America, but we silence his children. God bless America? We should be on our knees asking for His mercy instead”(2014, p. 210).

Killing the unborn is big business

But America is far from that. For abortion providers, the slaughter of the unborn can be a lucrative business. A former abortion provider has explained how she was on her way to becoming a millionaire by selling abortions to teenage girls.
The marketing began in kindergarten and grade school sex education. The goal for fifth and sixth grade students, according to Carol Everett, “was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on … That pill did not work, and we could accomplish our goal of 3-5 abortions between the ages of 13 and 18” (quoted by Peter Baklinski, LifeSiteNews.com, May 12, 2014).
Government has now mandated abortion insurance coverage for the whole country through President Obama's health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. Starnes points out: “The Obama administration is trying to force religious organizations to provide insurance for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs …
“The Internal Revenue Service launched investigations into pro-life organizations, demanding to know the contents of their prayers. They ordered a Wyoming church to turn over its membership rolls. This is happening right here, right now, in the United States of America. We are under attack from within” (p. 209).
Another pro-life group was told by the IRS that “they could not picket or protest abortion clinics. An attorney representing the pro-life groups called the IRS actions 'intimidating' and 'heavy-handed.' One IRS agent went so far as to tell a pro-life group it had to remain neutral on the issue of abortion and lectured the group's president about forcing its religious beliefs on others.
“'You have to know your boundaries,' IRS agent Sherry Wan can be heard saying in a recording. 'You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people's beliefs'” (p. 8). Remember that this refers to beliefs about what is in fact murdering unborn children!
Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled on June 30—in the case brought by the arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby—against government attempts to impose employer-provided coverage for abortion-inducing drugs when it's against the employer's religious beliefs. But this was by a narrow margin of 5-4, and time may see it overturned. In fact, Senate Democrats have already attempted to circumvent it. In any case it remains disturbing how rabidly the government has pursued the pro-abortion agenda and persecuted those who stand for life!

Overlooking infanticide

The media has been complicit in this, as it has in most aspects of the liberal-progressive agenda. Commenting on the failure of the news media to report last year on the trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell over late-term abortions and infanticide—ostensibly because it would draw negative attention to abortion—liberal political analyst Kirsten Powers wrote in USA Today:
“Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations? It's not your fault … There has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page …
“None of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months [as of the time Powers wrote this] … The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace”(“Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror,” April 11, 2013).
Meanwhile, the indoctrination of the younger generation continues. Officials at a high school in Tacoma, Washington, decided “to allow posters and events for a 'gay'-straight alliance while refusing to allow similar posters and events related to the local Students for Life …
“[The pro-life] group wanted to put up two posters. The first reads 'Since Roe v. Wade 1⁄3 of our generation has been aborted' … The second poster quotes President Ronald Reagan: 'I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.' But school officials said the posters might 'offend'” (“School: 'Gay' Is OK, But Pro-Lifers Must Go,” WND.com, Feb. 19, 2014). Yet of course they allowed the pro-gay messages.
Where is the outrage over the ongoing mass murder of helpless babies? In the approximately five minutes it's taken you to read this short article, about 375 abortions have been performed around the world (see the counters at numberofabortions.com).
God warns in Numbers 35:33 that “blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.” That includes all who bear responsibility. Clearly the whole world is facing judgment over this global atrocity!

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Zimbabwe's Empty Streets

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Zimbabwe's Empty Streets

by Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 1 minute

Add to my study list

Zimbabwe was once the economic powerhouse and breadbasket of southern Africa. Its rich lands allowed the nation to be self sufficient in virtually everything during the days when it was the pariah among nations. Today its economy is in shambles, inflation is in triple digits and starvation and AIDS has sapped the strength and will of its people.

In 2000 I spent several days in the country visiting with some of the people and seeing the remains of a once vital country. There was still some hope that life would get better, but in the four years since more have fled and, worse yet, it seems the will to rise up and push for reforms has all but gone. This article in the Christian Science Monitor has one paragraph that explains why the citizens have not yet appeared in the streets of Harare or Bulawayo…
Nor does it have a figure like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a unifying moral force in the anti-apartheid struggle. Zimbabwe's churches are divided, as is civil society and the political opposition.
New elections are coming on March 31. Will another sham election arouse the indignation of capable people? We'll see.

http://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/blogs/zimbabwes-empty-streets

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Another Call For Churchill

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Another Call For Churchill

by Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Add to my study list

World Magazine Editor Marvin Olasky has a column today that shows the lack of awareness most Americans have of the clear and present danger from nuclear armed nations like Iran or other radical Islamic terror groups.

The current flap over DP World's management of American ports highlights the inadequacies of this war on terror. The muddled thinking that would allow an Arab country access to not just port management but the inner workings of the port security plans is hard to figure. Why would we even want to let this happen? Is there not an American company that could do this job, allowing us to keep it home grown?

The urgency based, on the facts before us, is just not there. Iran is moving closer each day to possessing a nuclear weapon. They have said enough against Israel, America and western values to justify inclusion in the “axis of evil.” Does anyone remember that description?

This morning there was a report that Former United States President Bill Clinton was doing double speak this week with his comments about the Dubai ports deal. While his wife speaks against the deal from her senate perch, he is advising the Dubai government on how to finesse this issue with the public and lawmakers.

America and Britain are whistling past the graveyard. Some want to return to a normal world, thinking it is possible to subdue our enemies through a combination of diplomacy and military intervention. It is likely true that we have bought ourselves some time by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. But the demon is out of the bottle and we are seeing the reality of forces aligned against us, intent on our destruction. They will stop at nothing less.

Meanwhile our culture continues on, oblivious to the fact that it all could suddenly come to an end. The words of Isaiah call us to repent of the sins that overcome us from head to toe. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil,…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow”. There is room and time for repentance God says, but if not, “…if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword”. (Isaiah 1:16, 18, 20)

We don't Winston Churchill today but we have God's word to instruct us and send a wake up call. It is still not too late.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Japan Considers Preemptive Strike on North Korea

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

In Brief... World News Review

Japan Considers Preemptive Strike on North Korea

Posted on Aug 08, 2006 by Darris McNeely, Mike Bennett Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Add to my study list

After North Korea's provocative missile tests in early July, Japan said it was considering whether a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate its constitution.

According to Mari Yamaguchi (AP, July 10), several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Japan to launch a preemptive strike.

“If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack… there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

“With all of Japan easily within range of North Korean missiles, an opinion poll conducted by Japan's NHK television showed that 82 percent of respondents in Japan said they felt 'fearful' or 'somewhat fearful' of the seven or more missiles that North Korea shot into the Sea of Japan on July 4,” reported Anthony Faiola in the Washington Post July 11.

Japan's constitution, written after World War II, prohibits the use of military force, though Japan does maintain a 240,000-strong self-defense force.

However, AP quoted a Japanese Defense Agency spokeswoman as saying Japan has no attacking weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity.

For their part, North Korea scoffed at the UN Security Council resolution asking it to quit launching missiles and return to six-party talks. “The vicious, hostile policy of the U.S. and the irresponsibility of the UN Security Council have created an extremely dangerous situation on the Korean Peninsula,” said a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement ( The Week, July 28, 2006).

—Sources: AP, The Week, WashingtonPost.com

Friday, July 24, 2015

Mindsets A Set Mind

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Mindsets A Set Mind

by Robert Berendt 1 comment

Add to my study list

I am sure all of us have experienced meeting people with something so deeply etched in their minds that they find it virtually impossible to erase that impression. I know a woman who was caught under a wooden raft on a pond for a few minutes before being rescued. She developed paranoia of water. People have phobias about heights, snakes or spiders, the dark, a closed-in space, crowds of people and a whole list of other very real and debilitating fears. Paranoia is defined in Chamber’s Concise Dictionary as: “a form of mental disorder characterized by fixed delusions, esp. of grandeur, pride, persecution, intense fear or suspicion.”
Phobia is: “a fear, aversion or hatred, esp. morbid and irrational.” It is somewhat bewildering to see the tremendous grip such a fear has on the mind. We seem to develop a mindset towards things happening which frighten us and we do the same towards ideas and concepts impacting us in culture, education, etc.
The really frightening aspect of a fear so deep and so often not understood at all is that trying to correct the mind in this matter takes so much effort that people usually just learn to live with it. Worse yet, it seems if we do not tackle our fears and phobias, they only get worse. Often one fear induces another and another.
A person can be afraid of spiders and soon, it seems, he’ll avoid places where spiders might be, and even a spider’s web invokes the same terrified response. Years ago, a scientist named Pavlov wrote about his experiments with dogs. He would set up a series of lights or other effects and at the end of the series, a bit of food would drop out for a dog. The dog salivated as soon as he saw the food. It did not take long, however, before the dog began salivating as soon as one of the lights came on.
I was taken by surprise when I visited the home of a brother-in-law. The moment he stood up from his special comfortable chair, all the fish in his aquarium swam over against the glass. They were already anticipating food the moment he arose. My son’s family has a dog that gets fed once a day. On the odd occasion I have been in the home, I have broken off just a half of a dog’s milk biscuit from the box in the pantry. I do not go over terribly often, but now just as soon as the dog sees me coming, he greets me at the door and makes a bee-line for the pantry door, stands there with one paw in the air and looks only at the door. He has developed a mindset about me—and his mind is really set!
I have observed the pain many people carry with them from abuse they may have received as a child. An abusive teacher, for example, can turn a student off of education. An overly critical coach can hinder an athlete’s performance. Parents who constantly tell their children, “You are dumb,” or, “You will never amount to anything,” often instill an attitude that hampers a child for the rest of their lives. From those areas, we can only imagine the deep wounds that are left in children who are born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, drug addiction or other similar problems.
Abusive, alcoholic, violent or even absent parents all impact a child. Many people reach adult lives with thought patterns that are deeply ingrained and certainly not asked for. Some have no idea why they think and feel as they do. There are always reasons, but we cannot always find them—and even knowing the reasons does not always help in making things better.

Putting the past behind us

I am greatly encouraged when I read the statement Paul was inspired to write in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” The word “were” is vital in this sentence. Almighty God is able to erase and remove every painful fear that has been etched into our minds. He is able to heal us completely. He does not turn from those who are suffering, but His love leads us to have faith and trust in His forgiveness—and to leave the past behind us. We may not lose every painful memory or developed phobia, but He eases our load.
We all know through experience those fighting alcoholism must abstain from drinking any alcoholic beverages. They fight this battle on a day by day basis. It is a battle of the mind and certainly is not easy. I have come to realize how difficult it is for people who smoke to drop the habit. There are still far, far more difficult habits, emotions and actions that we may have to fight with. All of the categories Paul listed as not being allowed into the kingdom of God are present in our society. The word “were” indicates that a person is no longer in the grip of that “category.” It does not mean the battle against the mind and or the emotions is over—it only means that the person no longer fornicates, worships idols, commits adultery, etc. He or she has this under control.
In some extreme cases a person may have to live alone and avoid any situation compromising his struggle. Jesus made a strong point as to the value of our struggles when he said, “if your eye makes you sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into [Gehenna] fire” (Mark 9:47). C.S. Lewis wrote, “You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind.” Naturally, we know it is not the eye that makes us offend—it is our mind and our mindset.
It is that which may be deep within our minds and provides the thrust in certain directions. Mark does not mean to remove an eye—his words basically tell us to take whatever steps needed in order not to sin. We are not to remain in the categories to which the kingdom of God is barred. We cannot stay in them. We may have to fight the good fight every day—but it is worth it a thousand times over.

Changing the inner man

The battle or struggle is not going to be easy—but then the goal is worth far more than any effort we may need to expend. Added to our effort, God offers strength and help through His Holy Spirit. He does not do the work for us, but He is there to give us rest, direction and encouragement. What is being changed is the “inner man”—that which makes you the person you are. All of us—every human being who plans to enter into the kingdom of God one day needs to change anything and everything contrary to God. We need to “walk in newness of life” as we accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That path is not easy for anyone, but you will have plenty of company.
After many trying times for David, at one point, he is overcome by the realization that things will turn out all right. Why? Because of God’s love for him. Psalm 103 expresses his deep feelings at understanding the depth of God’s forgiveness, patience and mercy.
There is one important point that we need to know. We need to want to change the habits or mindset that hurts us so and which confronts God. God gives us choices and He gives us help, but we need to want to change and we need to determine (with His help) to do whatever is needed. We need to learn about ourselves and seek the steps leading to freedom. Every one of us needs God in our lives and every one of us needs to conform our minds into the mind of Christ. We need a new mindset on which to set our minds. That focus ought to be on the kingdom of God. Make that real in your life.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Add to my study list

One of the hottest issues before the U.S. Congress is the so-called partial birth abortion bill, previously vetoed by the President. Congress voted to override the veto and sent the measure to the Senate where the final outcome is uncertain. What is certain is that the overall issue of abortion with its numerous debating points is going to be one of the hottest ones before the American electorate in the imminent and subsequent elections.
Dominating the headlines and capturing the imaginations of thousands is the ongoing FBI manhunt in North Carolina for fugitive Eric Rudolph. Rudolph-a virtual folk hero to some and the embodiment of evil to others-is accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic in January of this year, killing a policeman and injuring a nurse.
Reaction to the Rudolph case demonstrates how sharply split the country-including its churches-is on the subject of abortion. “The search for an abortion clinic bombing suspect…has created a moral dilemma for local clergy who feel a mixture of support and disdain for fugitive Eric Rudolph. At least one religious leader said he would understand if someone helped the 31-year-old survivalist elude authorities” (© 1998 The Associated Press ).
In July, other extremists dumped butyric acid at three clinics in Houston where abortions are performed. This “terrorism in the name of morality” mimics similar attacks on abortion clinics in Florida and Louisiana earlier this year.
An egregious act committed at a Phoenix abortion clinic in late July fueled the already complex controversy as Dr. John Biskind attempted to abort a fetus that was 37 weeks along-nearly full term. The baby was delivered alive, but with skull fractures and lacerations.

A New Component-Untouched by Federal or State Laws

Pro-life and pro-choice arguments have gone beyond the political arena into that of private health care. Numerous mergers and affiliations between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals have taken place in the United States in recent years, resulting in the Catholic health care system being responsible for 16 percent of all hospital admissions annually ( RCRC Publications,© 1996 the Coalition, “Merge With Care”).
Private health care facilities are untouched by federal or state laws on public policy about abortion. Free to set their own policies regarding reproductive health care, the Catholic facilities uphold Catholic principles for their hospitals and beyond. “Directives for Catholic healthcare personnel are frequently imposed even beyond hospital walls, at clinics, auxiliary facilities, and even private practice offices” (ibid.).
What lies ahead? “In the next two or three years, thousands of hospitals-run by communities as well as various religious organizations-will affiliate with Catholic facilities and consolidate services in an effort to provide more cost-effective health care.” So this new component in the abortion debate will only grow.
This trend has alarmed pro-choice lobbyists and community activist groups such as “The Coalition” quoted above in an attempt to counteract it.

Chinese Émigré's Testimony Fuels Flames

Thirty-seven-year-old Xiaoduan Gao fled China in fear of undergoing forced sterilization for secretly adopting an abandoned young boy-an act that violates China's one-child rule. Her interview on ABC World News Tonight with Brian Ross added passion to the ongoing debate.
Mrs. Goa, herself the former director of a so-called planned birth center in China, shocked ABC's viewers by confirming interviewer Ross' statement that she, “has now come forward to say…that women who defy the country's one child per family policy routinely face sterilizations and forced abortions-including women as much as nine months pregnant” (© 1998 ABC NEWS and Starwave Corporation).
Horrifying as it is to contemplate, Mrs. Gao said, “The child can still be alive when he comes out of his mother's womb and as soon as the child cries, the doctor will give it another injection and the child will die” (ibid.).
Mrs. Gao's gripping testimony brings pathos to perhaps otherwise dry statistics released this summer from Atlanta's Center for Disease Control. Legal-induced abortions in the United States for 1995 totaled 1,210,883 (© 1998 American Medical Association).
Work with those numbers and add some humanity to them! They represent 1,210,883 mothers and 1,210,883 fathers. Some will immediately argue that many fathers are neither in the picture nor part of the decision making to abort. That's worth further comment later in this article. But arguably, at least one other concerned person-mother, father or friend of the pregnant woman-is affected by the decision to abort those 1,210,883 pregnancies. That's a minimum of 2,421,766 lives that are touched in a powerful way by physiological and spiritual forces.
Inevitably brought into the debate are the unnamed and unseen, those 1,210,883 that are never born. This is a controversy not easily put to rest.

Everyone Has “Rights” But Who Has Responsibility?

Women's rights enter the controversy. Is abortion a choice that only the pregnant woman can and should make? A modern dictionary defines abort as “to bring forth a fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable; miscarry” ( Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary , © 1996 by Random House Value Publishing, Inc.). So the disputants of one side point out that a uterus is the unique property and concern of the pregnant woman and therefore the decision to abort is solely hers to make.
Without argument, there are truly tragic and extreme cases, but abortion is not the only alternative. A bumper sticker on the issue reads “If it's not a choice, it's called a child. ” How tragic that there are many couples-unable to have children-anxious to adopt at the same time as others are aborting their children. Free counseling programs exist in most communities to provide encouragement and information to the pregnant woman who wants to take responsibility for her child, not take its life.
Debaters argue with equal passion for the rights of the unborn. Do “fetuses” have rights that are being overlooked? (Why is it, do you suppose, that the progenitor of the unborn is called “the father” and the one whose body carries the unborn is called “the mother” but there seems to be so much debate over whether the unborn is actually a child? Hmm.)
Then there's the argument over father's rights? Do they have any say in the decision to abort? What about societal or community rights? Should the community at large determine whether or not abortions can be performed? And the arguing goes on and on.

Reframe the Discussion

It is a mistake to debate the issue of abortion in isolation. The broader question is, “How did our society become saddled with this controversy?” A sweeping prophecy in 2 Timothy 3:1-7 speaks to those wider concerns. They include rejection of moral values, rejection of the traditional family, a lack of good judgment, an addiction to pleasure seeking, selfishness and a failure to take personal responsibility.
The abortion issue has much to do with one taking responsibility for his/her actions. Argument about abortion is often buttressed with and bogs down in examples of extreme or rare scenarios. Let's take the debate back to before pregnancy occurs. Many decisions are made-some deliberately, some under pressure, and some by making no calculated choice to do anything other than let nature take its course. The decision to spend time with one of the opposite sex, often including the decision to drink alcoholic beverages and to use other drugs, the decision to touch and to allow touching in intimate ways, the decision to be “sexually active” are among them.
Consider further the decision to be “sexually active.” Unmarried people make a decision to act contrary to the laws of God by deciding to engage in sex outside of marriage. And then seek to free themselves from the unwanted consequences-the men by shuffling away, the women by bringing “forth the fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable.”
When human desires are given free reign, there are undesirable consequences. Jesus put it this way: “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within…proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications…. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23). Human nature, left unchecked, will spawn the precise societal crises that exist at the heart of the abortion issue.
Note how many of “the works of the flesh”—human nature—are often part of the circumstances that lead to an unwanted pregnancy. “Now the works of the flesh are evident…adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness…drunkenness… and the like” (Galatians 5:19—21).

Existing Laws Already Cover the Abortion Issues

Where are the answers to the screaming questions surrounding abortion? Is violence in the name of morality the answer? In their passion against abortion some religious people have participated in terrorizing abortion clinics and medical personnel involved in performing abortions. To murder for the sake of stopping murder is inexcusable. “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10-11).
Is lobbying for more or better-defined legislation the answer? Two clear laws that govern the abortion issue are already on “the Books”—you shall not murder and you shall not commit adultery! An incalculable positive change would sweep through society if people stopped choosing violence to force and enforce their opinions, if they started living sexually responsible lives. There must be a fundamental commitment to morality, to the Ten Commandments.
Moral living is, “summed up in this saying…'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10).
Perhaps if all concerned-the “sexually active” men and women, the pregnant women considering abortion and the society at large-answered one simple question, the answers to the tougher ones would fall in place. The simple one is “Who is my neighbor?” WNP

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

by Mario Seiglie 103 comments Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Add to my study list

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn’t believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly “evolved” or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.
What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !
In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the “molecules to man” theory—we’ll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.
I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.
As one source states: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.
If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now “evolving” into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
In Darwin’s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.
Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.
You’ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?
Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it’s only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.
One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?
Again, you need more “faith” to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.
Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn’t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator’s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Election Year Religion

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Election Year Religion

Posted on Apr 03, 2000 by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Add to my study list

Religion is big news in the U.S. presidential primary! So, are more U.S. citizens thinking of God? Not exactly. But they are hearing fiery campaign rhetoric about specific religions, religious leaders and political issues that are framed in religious terms.

Religion moved from a backdrop issue to center stage when the delegate selection contest for the presidential nomination moved into South Carolina, Michigan and Virginia in February. Senator John McCain lashed out at men he identified as leaders of “the religious right.” Several sections of the country appeared poised to split into sectarian bickering in the primaries.

Last year, in a somewhat crass—albeit honest—declaration, senior policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Elaine Kamarck, told The Boston Globe, “The Democratic Party is going to take back God this time” (“Gore Includes Religion in Agenda,” 1999, AP, emphasis added throughout). She was referring to her candidate's “religious strategy” in the 2000 presidential race.

While Mr. Gore's principal spokesman attempted to distance himself and his boss from such a blatantly political approach to religion (“I don't think God is partisan”), campaign speeches from all candidates ring with a variety of uncharacteristic references to religion.

Mr. Gore regularly refers to his “faith tradition.” (Few people know that he actually studied at Vanderbilt's divinity school as a young man.) In stark contrast to typical Democratic Party tradition, Mr. Gore has called for “a new partnership between church and state.”

The vice president opposes organized prayer in public schools during the school day and also opposes using public dollars to send children to parochial schools. What, then, has changed? What he appears to promise is an open ear to the influence of the religious lobby. “If you elect me president,” he said before a Salvation Army audience, “the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policy set forth in my administration.”

“The moment has come,” said Gore, “for Washington to catch up with a rest of America… Americans profoundly, rightly believe that politics and morality are deeply interrelated.”

He is certainly right about the popularity of religion in the United States. According to a recent survey of nearly 6,000 Americans, religion plays an important part in the lives of a majority. “Quite simply, God is back,” said Ira Matathia, CEO of the group that conducted the survey (“'Trendsetters' Turning to Religion” 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc.).

“Faith-based” is the phrase of choice

Throughout the primary season presidential candidates have openly referred to their personal faith and offered promises of support for “faith-based organizations”—the generic phrase most candidates as well as reporters seem to prefer.

From the beginning of his run for the presidency, Texas Governor George W. Bush has listed among his campaign goals: “Draw a moral line” and get “faith-based organizations” such as churches involved in easing social problems. Governor Bush has long been an advocate of school prayer and public funds for religious education. He makes no secret of his desire to garner the support of the so-called “religious right” in the presidential campaign. His success in securing this allegiance prompted Senator McCain to launch a sharp attack on the governor's character in order to secure the support of northern Catholics in what the media portrayed at the time as the beginning of a sectarian war. It appears that it was more of “a tug of war”—for delegates.

In the Democrats' nomination process, both former Senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Gore eagerly courted the endorsements of liberal ministers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

“Election year religion” has spilled from the presidential campaign into a high-profile senatorial election in New York.

In early February, New York senatorial candidates Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani scrapped over religion, trading accusations about the other making religion an issue in their race, at the same time as both claim to be “people of faith.” Mrs. Clinton is a former Sunday school teacher who was raised in a devout Methodist family. Mayor Giuliani supports Governor Bush's proposals to promote the work of faith-based charities [that phrase again] and says that teachers should be able to post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.

Another presidential candidate—in the Russian presidential election—recently proclaimed religious roots! Vladimir Putin said that he had been secretly baptized during the years of Communist domination. His declaration was met with skepticism, and is thought to be an attempt to soften his somewhat harsh image as the former head of the KGB.

Some fear talk is sincere—others fear it is not

Not to diminish or impugn the sincerity of any of the presidential candidates, but all of the sudden open talk about religion in the context of the upcoming election sounds more like politics as usual than a resurgence of genuine “in God we trust.” Does all this talk of “faith-based” things portend a significant change in the United States (or Russia)? Or will it live only as long as the campaign?

Associated Press writer Sandra Sobieraj offers a blunt analysis: “For Gore, the political benefit of religious talk is twofold: it sneaks some ground out from under Republicans who have long dominated the morals debate; and, less overtly, may serve to disassociate him from [President] Clinton's personal scandals” (“Gore Includes Religion in Agenda”).

Such overt embracing of religion by politicians has shocked organizations that are dedicated to the separation of church and state. It is indeed confusing in a country that bans religion from its classrooms. Last summer, a New Jersey first grader made national headlines when his teacher, citing First Amendment concerns, wouldn't let him read a story from the Bible to his classmates. A legal battle is currently underway in northern California where the Oroville Union High School barred the valedictorian of the class of 1999 from mentioning God in his valedictory.

It is a well-publicized conundrum that survivors of violence-victimized Columbine High School flocked to neighborhood churches for consolation and comfort—at the same time that federal law mandates that public schools maintains a sharp separation between religion and education.

Dropping God's name to get elected

Has the nation made a 180-degree turn to the things of God? Will U.S. leaders actually lead the nation's citizenry, by example and by policy, to return to God? Time will tell. For the present, what all have said thus far is a continuation of “politically-correct-speak” voicing support for concepts that are known to have wide appeal with the electorate. That's done, of course, for the sake of winning votes.

This article is not intended to be either anti or pro any political candidate or party, for the United Church of God, which sponsors this magazine, is nonpolitical. Our interest is much deeper than sampling the voter appeal of religion. Turning to God is profoundly more than providing support for the social programs of “faith-based organizations.” Quoting the God that many politicians seemingly want to publicly embrace, “What right have you to declare My statutes, or take My covenant in your mouth, seeing you hate instruction and cast My words behind you?” (Psalms 50:16-17.) It is one thing to want to be photographed with God, so to speak, and quite another to actually do what God says.

Warning of the prevailing self-absorption of people of the last days of human history, the apostle Paul prophesied that societies would be dominated by men and women fettered by obvious indulgences. “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…” (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

Who could fail to see the shortcomings of such immoral character? How true are the cries of the candidates for a need to “reset America's moral compass,” for its present compass setting is leading the country to certain shipwreck! Where are the leaders who are genuinely guided and live by godly principles instead of by the hedonistic forces listed in the above paragraph?

True faith is not a political issue

The above list of potential causes of corruption goes on to mention religion. Or, in keeping with the trends, maybe we should call it “faith-based corruption.” Paul spoke of people motivated only by self-interest who have “…a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5). The power of God is able to transform lives if people honestly learn what God expects of them, stop doing what God forbids and literally behave as He intends they should.

Unless or until leaders actually embrace the words of God, they only flirt with the illusion of morality. If talk of “faith-based” this or that is only politics as usual, it is cruel talk indeed—so much “faith-based baby kissing.” If the campaign rhetoric produces nothing of substance, the speeches will be clouds without water in a moral drought. Rather than follow those who voice such talk, Paul advises “…from such people turn away!”

Eugene McCarthy once observed that only two kinds of religion are tolerated in Washington: “vague beliefs strongly affirmed and strong beliefs vaguely expressed” (“Finding God” by Kenneth Woodward and Martha Brant, Newsweek, February 7, 2000, page 1).

How far beyond the Washington beltway might this philosophy apply? When it comes to soliciting votes, we suspect it applies the world around.

Calling upon the name of God is not a political ploy to be manipulated as merely another in an endless list of strategies to secure one's election to office. It's for men and women who believe God and will live by His words, regardless of the popularity of those words with the masses.

Sources: The Christian Science Monitor; Nando Media; News America Digital Publishing, Inc.; AP; Agence France-Presse; Reuters; Electronic Telegraph; Newsweek.

Friday, July 17, 2015

The Koran and Conquest A Look at Islamic Theology

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

The Koran and Conquest

A Look at Islamic Theology

by Eric Snow 3 comments Estimated reading time: 15 minutes

Add to my study list

The Koran and Conquest: A Look at Islamic Theology

Is Islam really a peaceful religion, as we are often told?
When the 9/11 hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 3,000 Americans and citizens of other countries, did they violate their own faith's teachings?
When Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up, as hundreds have done in recent years, what motivates them? What reward do they expect now or in the afterlife?
The answers to these questions are crucial if we are to understand what is really going on in the world around us. Otherwise we risk burying our heads in the sand and remaining blind to danger.
Let's begin with a simple question: Could the actions of Muslim terrorist groups have developed logically from their faith's time-honored theology?
Do the traditional interpretations of the Islamic faith's sources of authority—its holy book the Koran (Qur'an), the Hadith (collections of the acts and sayings of Muhammad) and Sharia law—promote violence and war against non-Muslims (infidels)?
The “Arab Spring” has cleared from the world's stage several long-time secular nationalist Arab dictators, with Islamic religious groups lining up to grab a share of power. Further, many Muslims, not least among them Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe in the imminent arrival of an Islamic messiah known as the Mahdi, or “Guided One,” who will establish Islam as the world's dominant religion.
So it's a good time to carefully examine the theological underpinnings of Islam that are behind so many of today's conflicts and that could lead to the biblically prophesied end-time clash between the Middle Eastern Arab countries and the West.

Why is Islam so different?

In the last century, political groups seeking independence from the Western colonial powers or wishing to impose communist ideology on their nations were the main sources of terrorism. But with almost all former colonies having gained independence, and with the fall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations discrediting communism, what is today's largest source of terrorism?
What do an overwhelming majority of terror attacks in recent years have in common? The perpetrators are Muslim. Why? Certainly many Muslims are peaceful. Not all advocate violence or terrorism. But there is evidently something about Islamic teachings or the conditions of Muslim lands and communities that provoke far more Muslims, proportionately, to resort to violence than equally poor, mistreated and uneducated people of other faiths.
So is it poverty, lack of education, lack of political freedom or lack of opportunity that explains Islamic terrorism? A desire for national independence or a history of suffering under imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups presently kill far more people for political and religious reasons than non-Muslims who've suffered similarly.

Are poverty and lack of education the cause?

According to an article in the British newsmagazine The Economist, a conference in Ireland brought together dozens of former terrorists and political revolutionaries to try to uncover the roots of violent extremism.
Such factors as child abuse, alcoholism, “lonely teenage years,” the desire to belong, and personal identity crises were used to explain why the participants became terrorists. But as the article acknowledged, “For some, most notably those who had been involved in Islamist groups, ideology played an important and complex role” (“Violent Extremists: Of Skinheads and Jihadists,” July 2, 2011, p. 51).
Young people may become alienated for many reasons, but why do disaffected Muslims, including second-generation ones born in Europe in circumstances considerably more privileged than their parents, generally commit its worst recent terrorist attacks?
People's levels of poverty and education correlate poorly with people's choice to become terrorists, explain Alan Kreuger and Jitna Maleckova in their Journal of Economic Perspectives article “Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” (Fall 2003, pp. 119-144).
They found that no significant correlation appears between the amount of terrorism and the average levels of either education or national GDP per capita figures (adjusted for the level of civil liberties). Likewise, Claude Berrebi's 2007 study of 285 Palestinian terrorists discovered that they had better educations and came from less poor families.
For example, Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups blame America's interventions in the Middle East and/or Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for provoking the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. However, the United States has intervened in Latin America much more and over a longer time, yet has provoked very little terrorism from there compared to the Middle East.
Likewise, China's Communist rulers worry far less about Buddhist Tibetans attacking Beijing than Russia's leaders fear Muslim Chechens striking Moscow (as has happened repeatedly). A desire for national independence, political oppression and/or a history of imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups have killed far more people than non-Muslims in similar circumstances.
Since such non-ideological, sociological factors can't account for grossly disproportionate Muslim terrorism, let's look for other explanations.
To understand the mindset behind such actions, secularly minded people need to overcome a skeptical tendency to believe religion never really influences anybody's actions. The fact is, it has and does. History shows that Islamic theology has and will stir up far more religious wars and terrorist actions proportionately than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or other religious belief systems.

Some Koranic verses abrogate other verses

Those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace commonly cite verses from the Koran such as Sura 2:256, “There shall be no compulsion in religion,” and Sura 4:90, “Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, [Allah] bids you not to harm them” (Dawood translation throughout).
However, few admit that, because many verses in the Koran contradict other verses, Islamist leaders long ago formulated the principle of naskh, or “abrogation,” which teaches that Allah's later revelations override His earlier ones.
This is even spelled out in Sura 2:106, which says, “If We [Allah] abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better verse or one similar. Do you not know that [Allah] has power over all things?”
Muslims believe Allah revealed the Koran to Muhammad over a span of 22 years. Interestingly, almost all of the peaceful, tolerant verses appear in the earlier “Meccan” suras (chapters) of the Koran, but the verses promoting violence and holy war emerge in the later “Medinan” suras.
Naskh isn't some esoteric theory with no practical consequences. Two years before killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Muslim U.S. Army Major Nidal Malak Hasan cited this principle in relation to jihad in a presentation explaining Islam that he gave at Walter Reed Hospital.
What are the historical origins of naskh? Muhammad began his religious career in Mecca as a preacher against considerable opposition. But after fleeing to Medina, he became a military commander leading his followers in battle against unbelieving Arabs.
Correspondingly, as his circumstances changed, so too did the supposed revelations of Allah. When he was in the distinct minority in Mecca and trying to establish his new religion, his revelations advocated peace and cooperation with others. But in Medina, as he gained a large following and military and political power, a very different message appeared in his revelations.

What the Koran clearly states

According to the notorious “verse of the sword” (Sura 9:5), Muhammad was told, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them”—unless they convert.
Some argue that this is no different from the biblical command to the Israelites to kill the idolatrous Canaanites when they entered the Promised Land. But there are big differences. Whereas the command to Joshua was limited in time and circumstances, the Koran places no similar boundaries on Muslims to wage war against unbelievers.
According to Sura 9:29, Muslims are to “fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., the Bible] were given as they believe in neither [Allah] nor the Last Day… until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”
This, in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists, justifies permanent war against non-Muslims until the entire world is under Islamic rule.
They also cite Sura 8:39, in which, after winning a crucial battle, Muhammad received instruction that permanently authorizes holy wars to spread Islam: “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and [Allah's] religion [Islam] reigns supreme.”
According to the Koran, Allah gives Muslims a spiritual incentive for joining in jihad, or holy war: too: “Fight for the cause of [Allah]; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them” (Sura 4:74). The reward of those who die in jihad, in Islamic teaching, is to immediately go to Paradise.
Elsewhere the Koran authorizes violent war against unbelievers (see “Does the Koran Promote Peace and Cooperation?”). No clear pacifist verses appear that temper or overrule its warlike teachings. By contrast, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ told His followers to turn the cheek to those who would strike them (Matthew 5:39) and to love and pray for their enemies (verse 44).
After Peter tried to defend Him by attacking someone in a group trying to arrest Him, Jesus responded, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
While on trial for His life before the Roman governor, Jesus explained that His servants would fight only if His Kingdom were part of this present world (John 18:36). Since it wasn't, they didn't.
Even in the Old Testament, Israel's armies sometimes miraculously won battles without any physical violence. For example, in one night, an angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians besieging Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:8, 21; Isaiah 37:36) after righteous King Hezekiah prayed for deliverance.

Following Muhammad's example

Serious Muslims aspire to follow the personal example of Muhammad, whom they regard as the perfect example to emulate. According to his early biographer Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took part in 27 raids and battles. If he literally waged war to promote Islam, wouldn't that encourage his followers to do the same?
The most reliable reports among the Hadith and the early legal rulings that compose the core of Sharia law clearly endorse holy wars as well. For example, in one tradition, when asked what was the best good deed a person could do besides becoming a Muslim, Muhammad replied, “To participate in jihad”—holy war.
In another report Muhammad proclaimed, “Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
According to one particularly important Hadith story, Muhammad told Muslims to ask their enemies before starting hostilities to convert to Islam, to surrender to Islamic rule, or to go to war. Restated in one form or another, this standard three-way offer repeatedly reappears historically in Muslims' conflicts with nonbelievers.

Later Islamic rulings enshrined jihad

The teachings of the Koran and Hadith about jihad aren't ancient dead letters. They remain a live issue because they were codified and frozen into place centuries ago.
Why is it so hard to reform Islamic teachings about jihad? Sunni Muslims, who are in the great majority, uphold the legal theory that open inquiry into the Koran's interpretation ended in the ninth century. Thus, freely interpreting and inquiring into the meaning of the Koran and Hadith to form basic new legal rulings is no longer allowed. As a result, the early medieval jurists' rulings about Allah's will are not to be reconsidered and overturned, including those about jihad.
The four main Muslim legal schools clearly endorse literal jihad. For example, the jurist Al-Qayrawani (who died in A.D. 996) declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution … It is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before inviting the latter to embrace the religion of Allah … They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Because orthodox Islam is very legalistic, what these jurists wrote centuries ago still serves as living legal authority for mainstream Muslims. The teachings about jihad of Ibn Taymiyya, who died in 1328, still resonate today as Osama bin Laden and other jihadists fondly quoted him.

What about modern Koranic interpretations

To illustrate how traditional Muslim teachings are applied in today's world, consider the beliefs of Sayyid Qutb (1906-66). He was the chief ideologist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan Al-Banna, this Islamist organization is the world's most influential Muslim group.
Its power and political organization far surpasses any other non-governmental group in Egypt. It boasts chapters in more than 100 countries and an estimated 600,000 members. Since the Arab Spring and the revolution in Egypt has greatly increased the Brotherhood's influence, we should be sure we understand the beliefs of one of its most important past leaders.
According to Qutb in his seminal work Milestones, Islam has an affirmative duty to impose Sharia law on the whole world: “Other societies do not give [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems”(2005, p. 48, emphasis added).
He went on to explain that the Islamic community “has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the divine system on earth.”
According to Qutb, Muslims who teach that jihad should only be defensive wars mistakenly ignore the progressive revelation of Allah's will in the Koran: “This is because they regard every verse of the Qur'an as if it were the final principle of this religion” (ibid.). Thus for Qutb, the principle of naskh, or abrogation, for Koranic interpretation allows for aggressive jihads.

Could we see a return of the caliphate?

What about the Islamist teaching that Muslims should have a supranational spiritual leader, or caliph, to lead all Muslims worldwide? The father of modern secular Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, formally abolished the caliphate in 1924 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.
So is the idea obsolete? Dr. Douglas McLeod's political research and polling team found that majorities in Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia and Pakistan favor reestablishing the caliphate!
As the Arab Spring produces a power vacuum, with the old secular nationalist dictators pushed aside, the mosque emerges as the most important source of social organization in Arab Muslim countries.
Most importantly, their people's sense of national identity and patriotism is weak compared to their religious and tribal affiliations. Furthermore, even as a small but intensely committed political minority, radical Islamists could take over governments weakened by recent revolutions.
After all, few Russians were Bolsheviks in 1917, but the October Revolution ultimately gave them full control of their war-ravaged nation. Although the Muslim Brotherhood's 1982 Syrian revolt was ruthlessly suppressed, the group could use violence in the future again, and succeed.
For this reason and because Islamists can publicly intimidate the majority of sincere conservative Muslims as “bad Muslims” when they disagree with their policies, public opinion polls in Muslim countries that show Islamist parties lack popularity should not be reassuring.
Further, in the present unsettled conditions of Middle Eastern politics, Islamist parties could easily win elections, much as Hamas did in the Palestinian territories (2006) and the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) did in Algeria (1991).
Although the brief merger of Egypt and Syria as the United Arab Republic more than 50 years ago (1958-61) proved abortive, a future dynamic leader calling himself the caliph and/or the mahdi could succeed in doing what the Arab nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser failed to do.

Does this play into end-time events?

The biblical prophet Daniel tells us that “at the time of the end” a leader will arise, apparently from the heart of the Muslim world, called “the king of the South.” He will launch an attack of some sort against a new European-centered geopolitical superpower (Daniel 11:40).
Given the historical background described above, it's not much of a stretch of imagination to think that either a new Muslim caliph or a new Muslim messiah would see it as his duty to expand Islam into Europe by force, or jihad. For decades now, much of the Muslim world, both Sunni and Shiite, has heard such preaching about imminent end-time events, including the coming of an Islamic messiah. And they've long desired to expand Islam into Europe—and indeed, this is a major factor in current Muslim immigration into Europe.
In the years to come, the Bible prophesies that this longtime clash of civilizations between a traditionally Christian Europe and the Islamic Arab world will reach an earth-shaking climax. After the king of the South (i.e., quite possibly a mahdi or caliph to come) attacks, the leader of the new European-centered superpower, called “the king of the North” (and in Revelation “the Beast”) will strike back “like a whirlwind … he shall enter the [Arab] countries [of North Africa], overwhelm them, and pass through” (Daniel 11:40).
The future dictator of a united Europe will successfully invade both Israel and Egypt (verses 41-42; compare Revelation 11:1-2; Luke 21:24).
Being now forewarned by this knowledge of how Islamic theology will likely impact the world's future, what should we do?
First, we must stay alert to world news reports as Europe and the Arab worlds both become more politically unified and increasingly authoritarian as well. The high hopes of the Arab Spring for creating Western-style democracy in the Middle East will ultimately be dashed.
Since the only source of spiritual and even physical protection in the times of deep trouble to come is our great God, we need to prepare ourselves spiritually by turning our lives over to Him through repentance and faith in His Son Jesus Christ, remembering His warning to us in Matthew 24:44: “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

Friday, July 31, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Killing the unborn is big business

Overlooking infanticide

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Friday, July 24, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Putting the past behind us

Changing the inner man

Further reading

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Login or Create an Account

A New Component-Untouched by Federal or State Laws

Chinese Émigré's Testimony Fuels Flames

Everyone Has “Rights” But Who Has Responsibility?

Reframe the Discussion

Existing Laws Already Cover the Abortion Issues

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Login or Create an Account

F for Fossils

A for Assumption

L for Life

S for Symbiosis

E for Engineering

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Friday, July 17, 2015

The Koran and Conquest

A Look at Islamic Theology

Login or Create an Account

Why is Islam so different?

Are poverty and lack of education the cause?

Some Koranic verses abrogate other verses

What the Koran clearly states

Following Muhammad's example

Later Islamic rulings enshrined jihad

What about modern Koranic interpretations

Could we see a return of the caliphate?

Does this play into end-time events?

My Blog List

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

My Blog List

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me