The Opposite of Thinking!

By David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy, December 2012 Policy is more or less the opposite of thinking. It implies the development of a set of rules or guidelines that shape and direct actions. In fact, however, policy is designed to help keep people who aren’t actually policymakers from doing any thinking at all at critical moments. And it doesn’t take much more than a cursory look at how well things are going here on this little planet to reveal that foreign policymakers are not doing such a great job with all the thinking they are allegedly being paid to do. Take U.S. foreign policy. The biggest, most important idea it gave us in the past decade was “the war on terror.” This was just a terrible concept on every level, an ill-conceived misuse of resources in pursuit of an unachievable goal that did vastly more damage than good. And it came straight from America’s policy elites. It’s hardly an exception. There’s a whole pantheon of recent American ideas about the U.S. presence in the world that were seemingly created in a thought-deprived environment. The United States, for example, is still committed to spending more money on defense than the next 17 countries combined—even though the country is broke and the vast majority of those countries are either America’s allies or not a threat at all. Indeed, the notion that the United States needs to make defense spending its No. 1 national discretionary spending priority, ahead of things like investing in education, research, infrastructure, or other pursuits that actually make the country stronger, is a proven formula for national calamity. If you look at what the United States is spending that money on, the bad idea is revealed to be even worse than it appears. Quite apart from the waste that is such a substantial part of America’s self-destructive defense-spending spree (yes, it’s true: the U.S. military has more musicians in its bands than the State Department has diplomats), the U.S. national security budget is rife with redundancies and outmoded systems. For example, each branch of the service has its own air force, and now the CIA wants to expand its drone fleet to create yet another. (For that matter, the United States has more intelligence agencies than actual enemy nations.) And it won’t take too long into the next major world war to reveal how antiquated are the carrier battle groups around which much of U.S. naval power is built. Invading Iraq? Bad idea. Spending more than a decade fighting in Afghanistan? Ditto. Regularly violating other countries’ sovereign airspace with drone attacks? National security need or not, it’s hard to argue that the policy doesn’t violate the fundamental rules of an international system that America spent much of the 20th century trying to develop. War on drugs? A failure by any measure. And how’s that “reset” with Russia going? Or that campaign to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Efforts to bolster the international economic system following the 2008 financial crisis? Also a loser—today, there are more banks that are too big to fail, more dubious derivatives being created, and arguably more risk in the system than when the crisis started. As bad as these are, however, they are in many ways transcended in the bad-idea category by our failure to address the real big issues that confront us. Take the unrest in the Middle East, which is clearly due to the failure to create jobs and opportunity for the region’s millions of young people. Yet the world is unable to unite behind any major measures to make progress there. Or consider this: According to the United Nations, lack of access to clean water and water-borne diseases kill 5 million people a year, about 90 times the number who die in war annually. According to the U.N. Environment Program, spending just $20 million on low-cost water technologies could dramatically improve the lives of 100 million people—about what the war in Afghanistan cost in 2011 every 90 minutes. Then, of course, there’s global warming, where notwithstanding tidal waves of scientific evidence suggesting we are overcooking the planet and could displace hundreds of millions of people and destroy vital swaths of the environment, it is apparently a priority of exactly no one in an influential position in either U.S. political party. All the above may seem obvious to you. But if genius is the ability to recognize the obvious before anyone else, isn’t stupidity therefore the failure to do anything about the obvious even after everyone with a functioning brain has come to see it as readily apparent? The point is: Big challenges demand big ideas. New challenges demand new thinking. And right now, the big new challenges of our time—from the rise of new powers and the changing geopolitical landscape to shifting global resource demands—require a kind of thought they are clearly not getting. Instead, we have a policymaking apparatus that discourages creativity.

Read More

"Two And A Half Men" Star Calls Show "Filth"

CBSLA.com, November 27, 2012
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com)—“Two and a Half Men” star Angus T. Jones is under fire for criticizing the show—even going so far as to call it “filth”—in an online video where he professes his religious beliefs.

“Jake from ‘Two and a Half Men’ means nothing. He is a nonexistent character,” said the 19-year-old actor, in reference to the character he plays on the hit CBS program. “If you watch ‘Two and a Half Men,’ please stop watching ‘Two and a Half Men.’ I’m on ‘Two and a Half Men’ and I don’t want to be on it.”

Jones appears in the video seated next to televangelist Christopher Hudson, whose sermons appear in YouTube videos called “The Forerunner Chronicles.”

“Please stop filling your head with filth, please. People say it’s just entertainment…” Jones said.

His religious comments are consistent with an interview he gave on his 19th birthday last month, where sat down with Connie Jeffery at the Adventist Media Center in Simi Valley to talk about his newfound beliefs.

“I basically had the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…I felt like I was being hugged inside and out and…it was the best feeling ever,” Jones said.

Jones told Jeffery that he got into drugs when his parents divorced and was never very religious. Last year, when he was unsure if he would return to the show, he questioned his course and found God.

Read More

Your Weight Resting on Me

Your Weight Resting on Me

Encouragement during times of illness
By Jesus, speaking in prophecy

Download Audio (7.1MB)

When you’re sick, especially if you’ve been sick for a while, it’s easy to wonder whether you’ll ever be well again, if you will ever wake up without pain and discomfort.

Try to spend some time thinking of Me when you first wake up, and make an effort to praise Me. That’s not easy when you’re in pain, but as you do, you will feel My strength and grace upholding you. “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”1

I promise that I am right here with you. I will not make you walk one step without Me. I am ever-present. I am holding you. I will not suffer you to be tempted one fraction of a degree more than you are able to bear. You sometimes wonder how long you will be afflicted, and whether you’ll be able to bear it, but I want to encourage you that I will be with you constantly, upholding you along the way. The trying of your faith brings a purity of spirit, of life, and of love.2

These times when you feel you cannot walk on your own are the times when I carry you; they are special times. You might feel weak and like you should be able to stand on your own two feet, but I love the times when you let Me pick you up and carry you. During these times I cherish the feeling of all your weight resting on Me and the surrender of your spirit, knowing that you need Me so much. I hold you close and protect you.

You are safe within My arms, because I am your defense. When you place yourself in My hands, and lay the weights and worries down, and ask Me to carry you, I do. I take your burdens on My own shoulders, for I care for you. I soothe and comfort you; I strengthen and rejuvenate you.

I’m sorry that you are in such pain. Perhaps you agonize over this affliction and wonder why I don’t heal you right away. Afflictions are a part of life, and some things in your body just take time to change or be resolved. When your healing takes time, you can trust that I can see down the road from where you are now, and I know what you will become and gain through this experience. Even though it hurts Me to see you in discomfort, I can see what you cannot, and what you will gain through this time is priceless.

I do know, I do care, and I will bring about good. Just lie back and rest in My arms and let Me be your strength. Let Me give you surcease from your battles. Let Me soothe your spirit and bring reassurance to your heart.

With each day that passes, you become a more fine-tuned vessel—a vessel that I can use to reach others, save souls, soothe and encourage others who battle affliction or trials. As you let Me soften and deepen your spirit through this affliction, I will not withhold My grace from you. I’ve promised, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness.”3 Each day that you spend close to My bosom melds you more and more to Me.

During these times when you feel so weak, incapable, and in need of Me, I take over and fill you with My breath and Spirit. With every touch of My hand on your brow, I am imparting to you My love and My Spirit, so that you shine with the radiance of having been in My arms, resting in Me, and being filled with My love.

Reach out, My dear one, and extend your arms in love to encourage and love others who are weary, even if you feel lacking in strength yourself. As you reach out to others, your love cup will be filled with My love. This love will strengthen you and will give you a reason to keep fighting, to keep praising, and to not let the trials and tests of the earthly realm get you down.

I know how hard it is to rise above feelings of despair, and they can seem to be ever-present during times of illness. But, dear one, work with Me through your praises and determination to not give in to feelings of defeat. When you feel as if this affliction is too much to bear, do not despair. Be at peace in My everlasting arms, and I will comfort you. I will honor your wishes and prayers. I will be your everything.

*

Afflictions are one of the avenues through which I work in your heart and life. The reality is that though sickness is a part of the earth life, I work with you during your afflictions to bring about good in your life. All afflictions—whether they are minor, major, or life-threatening—can bring with them the mark of My Spirit working in your life. The difficulties and the tests are one way through which I can bring about a softening, an awakening, and the nurturing of a closer relationship with Me. No matter what has caused your affliction, it is always My desire to bring about good through it.

When you are afflicted, it is a wonderful opportunity to draw closer to Me. That’s the most important thing for you to think about and to focus on when you’re battling with ill health. Then, as you spend time with Me, if there are other things that I want to accomplish through it, or bless you with through it, you will see those benefits clearly and understand the good that is coming about as time goes by. I will make My ways known unto you.

Don’t focus too intently on the specific timetable for your healing; leave that in My hands. Please don’t worry or feel like a failure if you’re not healed quickly; it’s My desire that you focus instead on the beauties and blessings of your closer relationship with Me, and how your affliction is taking you deeper into Me, which is extremely worthwhile and something to cherish. I want to bless you with this perspective.

Published on Anchor November 2012. Read by Simon Peterson.
Music by Michael Dooley.


1 2 Corinthians 12:9.

2 1 Peter 1:7.

3 2 Corinthians 12:9.

Read More

Five Women of Christmas

By Peter

Download Audio (16.9MB)

The Christmas season is here, and Maria and I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. We pray that your Christmas will be very special and that you will be able to make other people’s Christmas very special as well.

Most of us know the story of the first Christmas pretty well, so in this set of four Christmas talks I’m not going to repeat it chronologically. Instead I’ll touch on some lesser-known points that you might find interesting and inspiring.

Before we begin, let’s put the two accounts of Jesus’ birth, as told in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, into context. Both Gospels—in fact, all the Gospels—were written decades after the events of Jesus’ life. So when the Gospel writers were writing about the birth of Christ, they already knew the outcome. They knew who He was, the miracles He’d done, about His death and resurrection, and the salvation He brought to humanity.

They were writing to preserve and pass on the events and words of the one who had died on the cross for the sins of others. In the decades after Jesus’ life the stories about Jesus, His sayings, parables, and His teachings were passed on orally from those who were with Him, who heard His words and absorbed His teaching. In time the eyewitnesses, those who knew Him personally, who had heard Him speak, who had followed Him, were dying off.

In order to preserve His teachings, the Gospel writers wrote what they had personally experienced, in the case of those who were apostles, or for Luke and Mark who hadn’t known Jesus personally, what they had heard from eyewitnesses, or what they had read from others who had written about Jesus. Luke, who was not one of the apostles, put it this way:



Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.[1]

The Gospel writers gathered all the information they could about the Lord, from many different sources, and wrote their books with the intent to teach about Jesus. They wrote in a manner that those living in the first century AD would understand, and they each had their “audiences,” those they were writing to. Matthew seemed to be writing to a Jewish audience and Luke to a Greek-speaking Hellenistic audience.

Their narratives of the birth of Jesus were written to express the wonderful thing that God had done in entering our world of humanity by becoming incarnate. They tell the story of the entrance of the only person who was both God and man, the only one who could save humanity.

Matthew, who was writing for a first-century Jewish-Christian audience, starts his story with a genealogy, a listing of some of Jesus’ ancestors beginning with Abraham, and including King David. His Jewish readers would be very familiar with the promises God made to Abraham thousands of years earlier, that through his offspring God would bless all nations of the earth. The Bible says:

In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.[2]

They would also expect to see David listed as one of Jesus’ ancestors, because the Messiah was to come from the lineage of David according to God’s promise to David:

And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.[3]

So Matthew included this genealogy to show that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham and that he was from the royal bloodline of King David, and therefore fulfilled the biblical expectations of the long-awaited Messiah.

The thing is, Matthew gives a bit of a twist in listing the ancestors. Unlike Luke’s genealogy—in fact, unlike most genealogies of the time—Matthew includes women in the lineup. And not just any women, but some scandalous women. The list includes Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Let’s take a quick look at their stories.

Tamar was a non-Hebrew woman, whose story is told in Genesis 38:1–30. She was first married to Er, the eldest son of Judah. Er died, leaving no children. It was the custom of the time that if a man died leaving no heir, his brother would marry the widow. (This is known as a Levirate marriage and is explained in Deuteronomy 25:5–10.) So according to custom Tamar married the second son, who also died leaving no children. Judah, Tamar’s father-in-law, said that his third son was too young to marry and that she should return to her father’s house until the younger son was old enough to marry her, so she did. But as the years passed, it became clear to Tamar that Judah was not going to let his third son marry her. It seems he was afraid that the third son might die as well if he married her.

So Tamar made a bold move. She heard her father-in-law was going to a certain village, so she dressed up as a prostitute, covered her face, and sat at the gate of the city. When Judah passed by he saw her and wanted to engage her services. He said the payment would be a goat, so she asked for his staff and his signet ring as an assurance that he would give her the goat, since he didn’t have the goat with him. He gave her the ring and staff, slept with her, but didn’t realize it was Tamar. When he returned home, he sent a servant to give the woman the goat, but the servant couldn’t find the “prostitute.”

Tamar was pregnant, and when Judah heard this news about his daughter-in-law, he was irate and demanded that she be burned. As she was being taken out to be killed, she sent a message to her father-in-law that said, “I am pregnant by the man who owns these. See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.” Judah realized he was the father and said, “She is more righteous than I am, because I didn't arrange for her to marry my son Shelah.” Tamar was a bold woman who was determined to uphold her legal rights, even if by unconventional means.

The second woman on the list was Rahab.[4] She was a prostitute in the city of Jericho. When two Israelite spies came into Jericho, she hid them and protected them from capture. She was a gentile (non-Jewish), but she believed that the God of Israel was the true God and confessed this when she said, “For the Lord your God is the supreme God of the heavens above and the earth below.”[5] Because of that, she risked her life to save the spies and joined the Jewish people, leaving behind her past life. She married according to Jewish custom and became one of Jesus’ ancestors.

Ruth, the third woman on the list, was also not Hebrew; she was from Moab. She married the son of Elimelech and Naomi, who had moved to Moab because there was famine in Israel. After some years her father-in-law died, and then later Ruth’s Hebrew husband also died. When her mother-in-law, Naomi, decided to return to Israel, Ruth, out of love and loyalty to her mother-in-law, went with her. They moved to Bethlehem. It was there that Ruth met and married Boaz, who was a relative of Naomi’s family. It’s a beautiful story.[6]

Ruth went out to the fields when Boaz’s workers were harvesting grain. The law stated that the poor could follow the harvesters and pick up the stalks of grain which the harvesters left behind.[7] This was called gleaning. Ruth was gleaning when Boaz first noticed her. He was a kind man and told her to keep gleaning the fields his harvesters were working, and he promised that they wouldn’t bother her. He also said she could drink their water and he invited her to eat with them. He also told his harvesters to deliberately leave some wheat behind for her sake.

At the end of the harvest time, Naomi instructed Ruth to freshen up and go to the place where they processed the harvest, but to not let Boaz see her. She gave further instructions which Ruth followed. Late at night, after everyone had gone to sleep, she snuck in to where Boaz was sleeping and uncovered his feet. She then lay down by his feet. In the night, with his feet cold, he woke up and saw Ruth there. Surprised, he asked who she was, and she explained that she was a relative. In essence, she was making it known that she was available for a Levirate marriage. He instructed her to stay for the night but to get up and leave early so no one would notice she had been there. He explained that there was someone who was a closer relative who was first in line to marry her, and that he would see if that person was interested in marrying her. After a bit of negotiating, he found out that the closer relative didn’t want to marry her, so Boaz married her and they had children together. She, a woman of Moab, who had faith and loyalty, became the great-grandmother of King David.

The last woman on the list is Bathsheba.[8] Matthew apparently wasn’t too keen on her, and avoids mentioning her name in the genealogy. He refers to her as “the wife of Uriah.” While Bathsheba was Jewish, her husband was of gentile descent; he was a Hittite. At a time when her husband, who was a soldier in David’s army, was away at war, Bathsheba took a bath in such a manner that she was in plain sight of the roof of King David’s palace. It’s quite possible that her house bordered the king’s palace and that she was only twenty or thirty feet away, thus giving David a clear view of her bathing. Considering the culture and how modest women were in Old Testament times, it raises the question: why was she bathing in view of the king’s roof while her husband was away?[9] It may have been perfectly innocent on her part, but in any case, her bath got David’s attention. He sent for her, they made love, and she got pregnant.

In order to cover things up, David ordered that Uriah be sent back to Jerusalem from the battlefront in the hopes that he would sleep with his wife, but he refused to go to his house while his fellow soldiers were at war. David went on to have Uriah killed. After Nathan the prophet confronted David for the murder of Uriah and the adultery with Bathsheba, David repented. He married Bathsheba, and though their child died, Bathsheba had a second child who was Solomon, who succeeded David as king of Israel.

Jesus’ genealogy includes four women who were outside of the norm. Three were not Jewish, and the one who was had a gentile husband. One was a prostitute and another pretended to be a prostitute. One committed adultery while another was bold enough to sleep at the feet of a man who wasn’t her husband. This is a cast of rather unconventional female ancestors.

The question is, why in the world did Matthew include them? Though it happened sometimes, it wasn’t common to include women in genealogies at all. In Luke’s version of Jesus’ genealogy, he doesn’t include any. What would it have meant for those who read Matthew’s Gospel in the first century? What would they have understood from it? From the genealogy in general they would have understood that Jesus was from the royal line of David, which was very important, since scripture said the Messiah would be of the house of David. They also would have definitely noticed the inclusion of the women’s names, and as Jews they would have been very familiar with who the women were, and with their unconventional stories.

There are a few things they could have understood:
That three of the four were not Jewish, and while Bathsheba was, she was married to a foreigner. The concept conveyed was that there were gentiles in the royal lineage and thus salvation through Jesus wasn’t only for the Jewish people but for gentiles as well. Matthew was bringing out the point, a point that the early Christian church understood at that time, that the Messiah’s mission was not just for the Jewish people but also for the gentiles. All were welcome in the kingdom of God.
Tamar fought for her rights under the law, yet her methods were questionable at best. Rahab was a prostitute. Bathsheba committed adultery. Ruth, on the other hand, while doing something bold and out of the ordinary, doesn’t seem to have done anything unrighteous. Both sinners and saints were in Jesus’ ancestry, just as sinners and saints are brought into the family of God through salvation.
The genealogy consists of both men and women, just as Jesus’ ministry reached out to and included both men and women. In the culture of the time, women were only lightly included in the religious rights of Judaism. In Jewish society they were held in very low esteem. What they were allowed to do in public was very limited. They had very few rights. Yet Jesus had both male and female followers, and some of the women traveled with Him and the disciples, which was highly unorthodox in that day. His teachings were geared to both sexes and He went out of His way to use both men and women as examples in His parables. This was an outstanding, and completely out of the ordinary, aspect of Jesus’ ministry.
Each of these women had something unusual and irregular about their unions, yet they were blessed of God and played a significant role in the lineage of Jesus. Similarly, Mary, Jesus’ mother, found herself in a highly unusual and irregular situation, which Matthew would go on to talk about in the next chapter of his Gospel.
These female ancestors of Jesus had boldness and courage. Tamar and Rahab took great risks, which could have cost them their lives. Ruth showed boldness and initiative. Bathsheba went on to become a good wife, wise counselor, and the queen mother. As a result of their initiative, daring, faith and courage, these women played an important and lasting role in salvation history. Mary likewise had great boldness and faith as she accepted God’s call to be the mother of God’s Son, even though it would seem scandalous and would hurt the man she loved. God not only used unexpected and seemingly scandalous situations within Christ’s lineage, but He called on Mary, a young woman in the midst of her engagement period, to risk her marriage, her reputation, and even potentially her life to be the last in line of the Lord’s genealogy. Matthew was making the point that, while in the eyes of man Mary’s pregnancy was a scandal, God was in it and He brought His Son into the world in an extraordinary manner.

Matthew starts the story of Jesus’ birth showing that He is not only of the royal line of David, but that He has come to bring redemption and hope to men and women, to Jews and gentiles, to the poor and oppressed, to those whose rights have been violated, to paupers and kings, to the saintly and sinners, to everyone.

Someone picking up the Bible today and reading Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel most likely wouldn’t get much from it. But when we as Christians understand the underlying message based on the historical context, we can be reminded of the foundational principle that God deeply loves everyone and everyone needs Him. God included women of questionable background in the ancestry of His Son. If He would include outright sinners along with the morally upright in the human lineage of His Son, then would it be so strange that He would offer salvation to all? Matthew was making the point that Jesus’ sacrificial death is for everyone. It doesn’t matter whether they’re male or female, holy or sinful. Nationality, race, or religion makes no difference. He doesn’t discriminate. Salvation is His gift for everyone. As Christians, He’s asked us to tell others about Him, to be ready, in season and out, to share Jesus with those He brings across our path, no matter who they are.

It’s the Christmas season, and this is a great time of year to give others the greatest gift of all—salvation through Jesus. There are surely those around you who need Him, so do what you can to help them connect with His wonderful, eternal, and all-encompassing love.
Bibliography

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008.

Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Green, Joel B., McKnight, Scot. Editors. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992.

Pentecost, Dwight J. The Words & Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Sheen, Fulton J. Life of Christ. New York: Doubleday, 1958.

Stein, Robert H. Jesus the Messiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.



[1] Luke 1:1–4 NLT.


[2] Genesis 22:18 ESV.


[3] 2 Samuel 7:16 ESV.


[4] Joshua 2:1–21.


[5] Joshua 2:11 NLT.


[6] The book of Ruth.


[7] Deuteronomy 24:19–22 NLT: When you are harvesting your crops and forget to bring in a bundle of grain from your field, don't go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigners, orphans, and widows. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all you do. When you beat the olives from your olive trees, don't go over the boughs twice. Leave the remaining olives for the foreigners, orphans, and widows. When you gather the grapes in your vineyard, don't glean the vines after they are picked. Leave the remaining grapes for the foreigners, orphans, and widows. Remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt. That is why I am giving you this command.


[8] 2 Samuel 11..


[9] Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, 40.



Copyright © 2012 The Family International

Read More

Paleoanthropologist Leakey Says Evolution Debate Nearing The End!

May 27, 2012 (I have this here because I want to make some comments of the faulty arguements presented) 

The debate over evolution will be a thing of the past within the next three decades, the son of archaeologists Louis Leakey and Mary Leakey has proclaimed.

In an interview with the Associated Press (AP), Richard Leakey, a 67-year-old, Kenyan-born Stony Brook University professor, paleoanthropologist, and avowed atheist, said that he believed scientific discoveries over the next 15 to 30 years will have reached the point that “even the skeptics” will be able to accept the theory put forth by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book Origin of Species.

“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges,” he said.

“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense,(Creation Scientist do not spread the idea that science is nonsense. The arguement is over empirical science which is done in the labratory and is testable and retestable for confirmation and historical science which is speculation about the past based on evolutionary presuppositions) how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?(New strains of disease do not prove bacteria to people evolution nor show bacteria to people evolution. The new strains are still viruses or bacteria and have not evolved into something new with more genetic information. They are merely variations of the same bacteria or virus with greater resistance to medicines and antibiotics because of a mutation which has given them better survival abilities.Dennis)” Leakey continued.

“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed.(Obviously life has changed because variation in kinds has taken place. That is why we have 1000´s of different type of dogs.But they are still dogs and do not prove bacteria to people evolution.Dennis) You can find explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any prominent scientist. All the fossils that have been collected establish lineages that even a fool could work up,” he added. “So the question is why, how does this happen?( they just assume that bacteria to people evolution has occurred, but assuming it does not make it so, even though it seems to be sufficient for the evolutionary scientist. Dennis) It’s not covered by Genesis. There’s no  God.”

According to the AP story, Leakey began hunting for fossils in the 1960s. In 1984, he and a team of colleagues discovered “Turkana Boy,” a nearly 1.6 million year old skeleton in 1984 that became “the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.”

He was appointed the head of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WMCD) — later the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) — in 1989, where he helped establish anti-poaching teams to protect elephants and other animals.(Because he is saving the animals we should accept his philosophy, seems to be the reasoning for making this point, though it has nothing to do with his science.Dennis)

Despite his own personal views on both religion and evolution, Leakey emphasized to the AP that he was not anti religious, saying, “If you tell me, well, people really need a faith … I understand that… I see no reason why you shouldn’t go through your life thinking if you’re a good citizen, you’ll get a better future in the afterlife.”(But obviously he considers this a weak position as he himself says, "There is no God." dennis)

Source: RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports
redOrbit (http://s.tt/1cOLJ)

Read More

Link to "Proof of Heaven!" A doctor´s experience with the afterlife.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

Read More

Israel Demands Our Support Because It Fights Its 'War Against Terrorists' in Our Name

By Robert Fisk, The Independent, Nov. 20, 2012
Enough is enough. Now we have even “National Infrastructure” Minister Uzi Landau talking about “collateral damage” and the justification for bombing Hamas’s broadcasting station. It could be used for transmitting military instructions, he said.

But wasn’t that exactly what our own beloved Lord Blair said after Nato bombed the Serb television station in Belgrade, when Nato, too, was blathering on about “collateral damage”?

We Westerners set the precedents in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq—trains, bridges, TV stations, wedding parties, blocks of civilian apartments, you name it—and now the Israelis can trot along behind and produce, whenever necessary, the same tired list of excuses we invented for Nato.

It’s odd, the way they all get away with it.

But is it all worth it? Was the murder by Israel of Hamas’s military leader Ahmed al-Jabari in fact not staged to provide an excuse to bomb all those new missiles that Hamas has acquired?

That wise old Israeli owl Uri Avneri—he is 89 years old—thinks this is just the trap that Hamas fell into by launching its preposterous “Gates of Hell” rocket attacks in revenge for Jabari’s death. The whole Operation “Pillar of Defence” was about destroying Hamas’s weapons—not about the largely ineffective missiles themselves.

Isn’t this why Israel gave its operation the name it did? For, despite our constant repetition of “Operation Pillar of Defence”, Israeli friends tell me that the correct Hebrew translation of this sick war is Operation Pillar of Cloud. Which makes a lot more sense. For this comes from the Book of Exodus (13:21)—“And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way.”

I wonder, indeed, if William Hague realised he was doing God’s work when he gave his support to this bloodletting?

Israel claims to hold the same values as the supposedly moral West. It says that it is fighting “terrorism” in our name as well as its own. It says it is fighting like us. It is playing by our Western rules. We are all Israelis now; that is what we are meant to say. Hamas is our enemy, as well as Israel’s. And so—for this is the effect—we too must be contaminated by the war crimes of Israel’s pilots. [But] Operation Pillar of Cloud must not be committed in our name.

Read More

Democrats and God

Ray Comfort Blog Post


The Democratic Party’s flip-flop and the resulting anger and confusion about whether or not to put reference to God into their platform, highlighted the great weakness in our political system. The Yes and No vote is reminiscent of another vote that was taken 2,000 years ago, which resulted in the one-man steering committee washing his hands of the whole process.

This is what happens when a nation abandons the Bible as its moral guide. It has no rudder in the stormy sea of human opinion, so it is driven by whatever wind blows the hardest. When the Bible is abandoned, the question is asked, “Is killing a child in the womb morally okay?” The answer comes from those who yell the loudest. The same applies with homosexuality and other moral issues. Abraham Lincoln once said, “Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government…” That becomes a weakness and not strength, when the Bible is left out of the equation.

The Scriptures are “a lamp to our feet and a light to out path.” When they are ignored we are left in moral darkness and we will soon forget the truth of the words “God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!” Thomas Jefferson said "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." I propose a small amendment to his words. They should read, "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Scriptures and treats the Constitution as though it was the Word of God."

This fiasco should also remind us of Lincoln’s, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.”

Read More

Faith Is a Must!

By Jesus, speaking in prophecy

Download Audio (8.6MB)

Faith is a cornerstone in your life. It’s your proclamation to Me and to others that I am God and that you have every confidence in Me.

You can sometimes take your faith for granted, or deduce that the best way to make up for a lack of faith is to work harder in the arm of the flesh. But if you want to experience the full power of faith in your life, then you have to take the time to strengthen it through My Word; that’s the secret.

There’s no substitute for faith. I’ve ordained faith to be that link between you and Me, the means by which you hold tightly to Me in every situation.

*

Faith is both the ballast in your life and the breath of My Spirit that pushes you forward. Faith brings confidence to your spirit; it’s your expression of trust in Me.

Faith, simply put, is a must in your life. It cannot be replaced by your own effort or by the efforts of others, because it’s the quiet assurance that, beyond what you know and what you can do, there are factors that ultimately remain in My control.

Faith believes that in all things, I remain in control of the outcome, and when you put your faith and trust in Me, then you open your life up to the blessings that result from faith—My presence and miracles filling your life.

*

There are countless experiences in life that you simply have to take by faith. There is no logical explanation for some of the challenges that you will face, and your best recourse will always be to hold on in faith—faith in Me, your Father and Protector.

Human nature conflicts with unreserved faith in Me. Action is important, but it doesn’t substitute for faith. It has to work in conjunction with faith, otherwise you’ll find yourself spinning in place or moving along very slowly. It’s the combination of faith plus effort that moves you forward.

So if you want to see progress and success, utilize your gift of faith as you set about doing what you can in the physical. Don’t neglect one in favor of the other. When you successfully merge faith and effort, you’ll find greater success, because it will be both Me and you working together, and we’re a powerful team.

*

My ability to provide and care for you is just as effective and powerful as it has always been. New challenges simply create new avenues for Me to work and perform and create.

I am the same yesterday, today, and forever. That means that what you could count on Me for in the past in the way of miracles, supply, care, provision, healing, or whatever it is that you needed, is all still available to you—and more! My power hasn’t dwindled.

My power is as active and alive as ever, and that power is activated by your faith. Invoke My power through using your faith. Put Me on the spot. Expect great things from Me, and you won’t be disappointed!

My power lives on, and I’m eager to use it for your benefit and for the success of the mission. Don’t limit what you can have access to by striving so hard in your own strength.

*

Faith is a declaration of your love for Me, because faith stems from our love. Don’t shortchange our love by limiting the employment of your faith. Shout it from the mountaintops. Exercise your faith in Me. Let others see that you trust Me, that you believe in Me. Let it be known that I am the God of your heart.

Let your faith shine brightly in this day and age. New circumstances shouldn’t lessen your faith. In fact, it’s a perfect opportunity to see your faith shine even brighter. The new opportunities create new ways for Me to work and to bring about good in your life.

A new endeavor is a step into the unknown. That’s when you must employ faith with determination. Don’t try to do it alone. Let Me be part of the adventure. Let Me prove to you how much better things will be when we launch into the new as a team—united as one in a demonstration of our love and passion for each other. Our love knows no boundaries, and it’s what will keep your faith buoyant as you launch into uncharted seas.

*

In all changes, there is one important thing to remember: I am the Lord; I change not.1 I will always be there for you, right by your side to answer your call, to uphold you, to supply for you when you’re in need, to heal you when you’re afflicted, and to provide solutions when you’re troubled.

*

There is one thing that you can be sure of, and that is My love for you, My desire to care for you, to supply for you, and to use you to be a witness for Me. Whenever you’re tempted to waver or to fear what lies ahead, I want you to focus on that. Nothing and no one can ever change My love for you.

*

When you feel uncertain about your future, cling all the more tightly to Me. I will give you the peace and reassurance that all is well and under My control. I know what I’m doing, and even though things may look a little unstable or confusing to you, it all makes perfect sense to Me.

I see the end result and the big picture. I’m creating a masterpiece, and you are an integral part of it. So yield to Me and you’ll find great happiness and fulfillment in playing your part to complete the masterpiece of My will.

*

You honor Me with your requests, and I love to honor you with the answers to them.

*

If there’s one thing that I want to settle in your heart and mind, it’s this: I am in control, and you can put your faith and trust fully in Me, because I know what I am doing.

You can be like the little girl who was not afraid of the dark because her father held her by the hand. She trusted in his love and care for her. You are My little child, and though things may seem rather dark right now and you’re unable to see the path ahead, you don’t need to be afraid, because I am holding your hand and I won’t let you stumble.

I am leading you aright. Just stay close and follow My lead. In time, the pathway will become light again, and you will see that I was true to My Word and I kept you on the right path all along.

*

I want to assist you, to be included in all that you do, because I will help things in your life to flow more smoothly and to go according to My plan.

Don’t feel that you have to do this alone, as I’m here and I want more than ever to be a part of your life and a part of your decisions and choices, so that I can bring you happiness, fulfillment, peace, and contentment.

*

Although most of your problems aren’t solved instantly, they will eventually be solved, and be solved more quickly if you keep looking to Me for My help.

I have promised strength for each day, grace for all trials, light for your way, rest after your labor, help from above, unfailing sympathy, and undying love.

Originally published February 2010. Updated and republished November 2012.
Read by Maria Fontaine.


1 Malachi 3:6.

Read More

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

www.lifesitenews.com

BY MATTHEW J. FRANCK

Tue Nov 20, 2012 14:36 EST

November 20, 2012 (thePublicDiscourse.com) - Yesterday on Public Discourse, I described the controversy that followed the publication of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. During a summer of unusual abuse, Regnerus remained largely silent but with his head unbowed. As autumn arrived, he found himself vindicated as an honest scientist by his university, with continued support from the journal editor who published his research.

In the November 2012 issue of Social Science Research, Regnerus has published a new article: “Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses.” He accepts “arguably the most reasonable criticism” of his original work, the use of the abbreviations “LM” (for lesbian mother) and “GF” (for gay father) to characterize the family situations experienced by his young adult subjects when they were children.

Mark Regnerus

Since the adjectives “lesbian” and “gay” could lead readers to infer something about these parents’ self-identified “orientation” (though in his original article Regnerus clearly dispelled this misapprehension), he now exchanges “LM” for “MLR” (mother who had a lesbian relationship) and “GF” for “FGR” (father who had a gay relationship), so that the adjectives “lesbian” and “gay” now describe the relationships, not the persons. Regnerus also pauses to note the extreme unlikelihood that his categories swept in any “one-night stand” relationships, since the NFSS interviews asked young adults about romantic relationships they would have observed as children.

Regnerus addresses at much greater length the more serious charge that he compared apples to oranges by placing a sample of “MLR” and “FGR” families with high incidence of instability next to his “IBF” cases of intact biological families (married heterosexual couples that stay together and raise their own offspring to maturity). His critics insisted that he should compare intact, long-term stable gay and lesbian couples with his “gold standard” IBF households.

On this point, Regnerus yields no ground to his critics whatsoever, but instead only strengthens his case that family instability is not a variable to be controlled for so that it falls out of the comparison; rather it is a “pathway” down which MLR and FGR families typically travel as a social reality.

To begin with, Regnerus notes, “if stability is a key asset for households with children, then it is sensible to use intact biological families in any comparative assessment.” But could Regnerus have produced a data set with a higher number of “stably-coupled” gay or lesbian households? He doubts it.

In his original article, he reported that an initially-screened population of 15,000 young adults aged 18-39 yielded a set of 163 who said their mothers had had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood. (There were only 73 who said this of their fathers.)

In his new article, Regnerus has re-sorted a dozen of the FGR cases into the MLR category (since in these cases the subjects reported that both parents had had same-sex relationships). Now focusing on his 175 subjects in the MLR category, he finds that fewer than half of them (85) ever lived with both their mother and her same-sex partner during their childhood.

But that low number tapers off dramatically when subjects report the length of the couple-headed period: “31 reported living with their mother’s partner for up to 1 year only. An additional 20 reported this relationship for up to 2 years, five for 3 years, and eight for 4 years.” He later adds that “only 19 spent at least five consecutive years together, and six cases spent 10 or more consecutive years together.”

How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000.

I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships.

Doggedly responding to his critics, however, Regnerus divides his MLR cases into two further categories, those in which children never lived with their mother’s same-sex partner (90 cases), and those in which they did for any length of time at all (85 cases), and takes another look at his outcome variables, while also slicing his other categories thinner, of divorce, remarriage, single parenthood, adoption, etc.

Unfortunately for his critics, it makes very little difference. On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”

But shouldn’t Regnerus have asked the parents of his subjects about their self-identified orientation? Maybe he was actually looking at the fallout of “mixed-orientation” relationships that disintegrated, or at the parenting of people who weren’t “really” gay or lesbian. But again his critics are substituting an imagined social ideal for a messy reality.

Regnerus had good reason to ask adult children about their parents’ behavior, not their orientation: because this is what the children would be able to observe and know about, and because sexual attraction and behavior are highly fluid phenomena, despite the myth of a fixed “orientation.”

As he soberly puts it, “there appear to be plenty of failed heterosexual unions in the data,” in which many of the children of mothers who had same-sex relationships “spend their early years with their biological mother and father” before those relationships occur. Regnerus’s findings do not obscure the realities of family and sexuality in our society; they illuminate them.

And of course he was right to interview the children rather than their parents, because the former could more accurately self-report their current life conditions. Yet the children had to be adults at the time of the study, for ethical reasons that forbid this kind of research being conducted with minors and because he wanted to know the “finished product,” as it were, of their upbringing.

So, could it be that Regnerus captured a snapshot of an outdated social phenomenon, given that his study concerned adults who had been raised when same-sex couples rarely raised children (some more than 20 years ago), and did so under more trying circumstances? Would children being raised by persons in same-sex relationships today show a different pattern? “Perhaps,” he says, “but hardly certain.” Multiple studies show that same-sex couples, particularly lesbians, divorce at higher rates where marriage is available to them, and stay together for shorter periods. If so, then again we could expect to find family instability—and the effects thereof—in the life outcomes of children.

As Regnerus concludes, “Perhaps in social reality there really are two ‘gold standards’ of family stability and context for children’s flourishing—a heterosexual stably-coupled household and the same among gay/lesbian households—but no population-based sample analysis is yet able to consistently confirm wide evidence of the latter.” What we can say at this point is that “the probability-based evidence that exists . . . suggests that the biologically-intact two-parent household remains an optimal setting for the long-term flourishing of children.” There is no other type of household of which that can be confidently said.

Further strengthening the case Regnerus has so ably made is a remarkably comprehensive review of what social science knows about the intersection of sexuality, family structure, and childrearing effects, by Professor Walter Schumm of Kansas State University, in the same issue of Social Science Research.

According to Schumm, we know that it makes more sense to regard “the concept of sexual orientation as ‘fluid’ rather than fixed at birth.” And it appears that sexual orientation is subject in the case of children to profound influence depending on family structure.

As Schumm notes, a number of studies “concur in observing significantly higher rates of same-sex behavior or identity among children of same-sex versus heterosexual parents.” (This finding was also evident in the NFSS results reported by Regnerus.) We know from other studies besides the NFSS that long-term stable lesbian and gay couples raising children are extremely rare, or at least that finding them is so difficult that statistical analyses are problematic.

We know that “many children from eventual gay or lesbian families have been born into heterosexual families.” We have reason to believe that “lesbian parents . . . have substantially higher rates of relationship instability than do heterosexual parents,” and that “given the apparent fluidity of sexual orientation in general, but especially for women, it may even be rare for parents to maintain a same-sex orientation for 18 years, much less remaining with the same partner for that time.” We know that “multiple primary caregiver transitions, presumably regardless of the sexual orientation of parents, are stressful for children and increase the risk of poor child outcomes.” Is it any wonder, then, that the New Family Structures Study yielded the results it did?

Overall, Schumm concludes, Regnerus conducted eminently defensible scientific research, making decisions about research design and analysis “within the ball park of what other credible and distinguished researchers have been doing within the past decade.”

We should conclude that where accusations of an ideological axe to grind are concerned, they should not be directed at Regnerus, but at his critics in the academy and his self-appointed inquisitors in the blogosphere. With the latest issue of Social Science Research, Regnerus can consider himself fully vindicated as a scholar.

The controversy over same-sex marriage, and over the place of social science findings in debating the question, will doubtless continue. But Regnerus’s contribution has complicated a set of breezy assumptions too widely held: that children raised in these new family structures suffer no disadvantages whatsoever, and that stable, long-term same-sex-parent families can even be found in significant numbers. In so doing, Regnerus has moved our national conversation on the family forward, in a positive direction, with greater awareness of what is at stake in the public policy choices we make.

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

Read More