On August 4, 2012, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “War in the Millennium?”
 
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Is life better for you now than it was last year? Have you personally made improvements in any areas that have held you back?

Jesus Christ said, “‘…I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly’” (John 10:10). Is that even possible today? When we consider the frightening state of humanity, isn’t it simply a matter of just hanging on to what we have—much less to be really challenging ourselves to take on problems that will, after all, best be resolved when we are changed into Spirit?

This is, unfortunately, the kind of spiritual malaise that has settled into the lives of many members of the household of God—people who were once zealous, fired up for the Work of God and striving to overcome sin through greater and greater commitment by obedience to God!

Growth is spoken of in reference to the Church of God, and that has to do with a responsibility placed on each one of us. Consider what Paul wrote in the Book of Ephesians (NASB version):

“‘but speaking [better: holding] the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love’” (Ephesians 4:15-16).

There are a couple of ways we can measure “growth in the body,” and one is found in another of Paul’s letters:

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified [margin: do not stand the test]” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Another determination for us to consider is our committed personal involvement in the Work of the Church of God—the Work Jesus Christ is overseeing as Head of the Church (compare Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18).

Lest we forget, our goal remains before us, and that is to become “‘…perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect’” (Matthew 5:48). Also, this is exactly the ultimate purpose Paul understood that his preaching was to focus on, and he expressed this when he said of Jesus Christ:

“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Colossians 1:28).

Take this to heart—we should all be growing, and even though there will be times when the passion of our calling grows a little cool, we must rebound and continue to “stir up the gift of God” advancing toward the perfection that can be ours!

Otherwise, we may just find ourselves stagnating, even declining and slipping back into the destructive society of our day—and the fate which awaits this age is, as the Bible quite pointedly warns, a dead end!

We begin with an insightful article in the New York Times about the rather weird Olympic Opening Ceremony in London, prompting us to reflect on God’s prophecies in the book of Hosea; continue with the horrible crime of female circumcision and Britain’s dubious role in this regard; and speak, in contrast, about Germany’s scandalous movement towards banning circumcision of young boys, and Satan’s role in all of these developments.

We continue with the agendas and flubs of our American leaders in politics and the media and the dubious roles the NRA leadership and gay activities are playing in this country. We warn of a coming global food crisis; address the terrible consequences of a military confrontation between Israel and Iran for the entire world, and conclude with a report on the outbreak of new fighting in Ethiopia.

Britain’s Weird Olympic Opening Ceremony

The New York Times wrote on July 28:

“With its hilariously quirky Olympic opening ceremony, a wild jumble of the celebratory and the fanciful; the conventional and the eccentric; and the frankly off-the-wall, Britain presented itself to the world Friday night as something it has often struggled to express even to itself: a nation secure in its own post-empire identity, whatever that actually is.

“The noisy, busy, witty, dizzying production somehow managed to feature… a suggestion that the Olympic rings were forged by British foundries during the Industrial Revolution… and… a zany bunch of dancing nurses and bouncing sick children on huge hospital beds.

“It was neither a nostalgic sweep through the past nor a bold vision of a brave new future. Rather, it was a sometimes slightly insane portrait of a country that has changed almost beyond measure since the last time it hosted the Games, in the grim postwar summer of 1948. Britain was so poor then that it housed its athletes in old army barracks, made them bring their own towels and erected no buildings for the Games. The Olympics cost less than £750,000, turned a small profit and made the nation proud that it had managed to rise to the occasion in the face of such adversity.

“There was that same sense of relief intermingled with self-satisfaction this time… Queen Elizabeth II was there… Looking mystified at times — the ceremony was pitched to a generation different from hers — she presided over a bevy of lesser royals and Prime Minister David Cameron.  The first lady, Michelle Obama, was in the audience to cheer on the United States athletes, who, it must be said, did a lot of cheering for themselves anyway during the athletes’ procession. And Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was there, too, although he was practically Public Enemy No. 1 around here after he appeared to question the British capacity for enthusiasm, something only Britons are allowed to do…

“As is the case (with) almost every Olympics, much of the speculation around it centered on how Britain could possibly surpass the previous summer host, China… But outdoing anyone else, particularly the new superpower China, was not the point for a country that can never hope to re-create the glory days of its empire… That the Olympics come at a time of deep economic malaise, with Britain teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession, the government cutting billions of dollars from public spending… made the scene a bit surreal, even defiant in the face of so much adversity.

“The crowd in the stadium sat in a bubble of excitement. In the wider park, volunteers have been behaving with an enthusiasm that seems bewilderingly un-British. But out in the rest of the country, critics have been questioning the expense, the ubiquitously heavy-handed security apparatus, and the rampant commercialism of the Games… The ceremony, too, reflected… deeply left-leaning sensibilities…”

The expense for the Games is certainly outlandish, but it must be remembered that when London was nominated for the Games eight years ago, the economy was going well and no thought about cost would have stopped the process. Now, in 2012, we have the Games with ridiculous costs that Britain can’t afford but to which it was committed in different economic times. What the article in the New York Times expresses in so many words is that Britain is in self-denial, apparently believing that it could regain its former glory. But catering to weird modern ungodly ideas won’t help. In fact, Ephraim is destined to fall totally and completely, and even what is left of its former glory will be taken away. This is what God prophesied in the book of Hosea, when referring to Ephraim or the modern UK: “Ephraim is a cake unturned… but he does not know it… the pride of Israel testifies to his face, But they do not return to the LORD their God, Nor seek Him for all this… Ephraim also is like a silly dove, without sense… Ephraim has made many altars for sin… I have written for him the great things of My law, But they were considered a strange thing…  As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird… Yes, woe to them when I depart from them…” (Hosea 7:8-11; 8:11-12; 9:11-12).

Opening Ceremony by a Socialist?

AFP wrote on July 28, 2012:

“A celebration of free healthcare, the trade union struggle, the battle for women’s rights and a fleeting lesbian kiss: the Olympics opening ceremony Friday did not shy away from weighty social issues. Unsurprisingly, the show devised by Oscar-winning British director Danny Boyle drew accusations from the British political right that it had strayed into ‘leftie’ issues… Alastair Campbell, former British Labour prime minister Tony Blair’s communications chief, [wrote] on Twitter: ‘Brilliant that we got a socialist to do the opening ceremony.’…

“The show bringing the curtain up on the London Olympics began with sections showing idyllic rural Britain being overtaken by the Industrial Revolution, before moving on to a 10-minute sequence celebrating the state-run National Health Service (NHS). Britain’s first televised lesbian kiss — from a 1993 episode of soap opera ‘Brookside’ — was shown in a fast-moving montage of film and TV clips. Later in the ceremony, dancers formed the shape of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge and other performers represented the struggle of trade union movements.”

The Telegraph wrote on July 29:

“The opening ceremony was a bit of a grab-bag, wasn’t it? I thought some of it was great, some was rather bad and quite a lot of it will mystify the foreign TV viewers (95 per cent of the audience) who it was supposed to dazzle… It was more political than I expected… Tonight marked perhaps its final transformation from a healthcare system into a religion… The idea of the Health Service as a beacon for the world is, bluntly, a national self-delusion. Most other Western European countries have better state healthcare systems – and healthier people – than we do…”

The Horror of Female Circumcision

The Guardian wrote on July 24:

“Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays – leaving brutal physical and emotional scars… Some will be taken abroad, others will be ‘cut’ or circumcised and sewn closed here in the UK by women already living here or who are flown in and brought to ‘cutting parties’ for a few girls at a time in a cost-saving exercise…

“The UK Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out FGM [female genital mutilation]… or to aid, abet or procure the service of another person. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, makes it against the law for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on UK permanent residents of any age and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. To date, no prosecutions have been made under UK legislation…

“FGM has no basis in Christianity, it has no basis in Islam [or Judaism]…

“Female genital mutilation, also known as cutting, is practised in 28 African countries. The prevalence rate ranges from 98% of girls in Somalia to 5% in Zaire. It also takes place among ethnic groups in the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand. Until the 1950s FGM was used in England and the US as a ‘treatment’ for lesbianism, masturbation, hysteria, epilepsy and other ‘female deviances’… No European country accepts the threat of FGM as a reason for asylum…”

This is so appalling, and of all places, this is being carried out in Britain without any law enforcement. It has been reported that Britain is the leading Western nation guilty of this outrage. The nations rule against what God does allow and then twist and pervert things in such degrading and sinful ways!!!  At the same time, we should be able to see how Satan is instigating this whole discussion on circumcision in general, including the prohibition of [biblically permitted] circumcision of young boys. See the next article.

The Ongoing Circumcision Debate

Der Spiegel Online wrote on July 27:

“A German court’s outlawing of the circumcision of boys — and the vociferous support it has received in the self-proclaimed enlightened media — confirms a tendency that has seen religion-bashing… rampant anti-religious prejudice and growing intolerance toward believers… But elsewhere in the world, people are shaking their heads over the fact that it’s the Germans, once again, who… are trying to make it impossible for Jews to remain in their country…

“The sharpness of the attacks [on circumcision] is only surpassed by the absurdity of the justifications. A procedure that is hardly more painful than a vaccination — something for which parents also don’t consult their child in advance — is now being expanded and revamped to form a strategy of cultural anthropology…

“Germany — despite the fact that it still has a large number of registered church members — hasn’t been a Christian country in a long time. Today, the fathers of the German constitution would no longer come together ‘before God and the people.’ But we are quick to overlook the fact that our secular nation… depends on conditions that it cannot in fact guarantee… In the name of reason alone (and common sense), there is no love, no beauty and perhaps even no God. For that, the heart must be open…

“The anti-religious rhetoric is no longer restricted to newspaper columns… We have eliminated almost all taboos in our society, and we tout this as a sign of great progress. But we need taboos. Child pornography is one of them, and denying the Holocaust is another. Both are punishable offences… What if we rejected blasphemy — that is, the foolish disparagement of God and faith — out of inner conviction and respect for others? This would be a genuine step forward.”

This could of course become a double-edged sword as well, because who is to define “blasphemy”? In times past, Satan was very busy influencing and inspiring zealous church leaders to excommunicate, label as “anathema” and accuse everyone as having committed blasphemy who denied the false concept of an ever-burning hell fire, torturing the wicked souls for all eternity, and the unbiblical concept of the Trinity. The same is true for the insistence that the weekly biblical Sabbath—as opposed to unbiblical Sunday—must still be kept today.

A Policy of Deception?

Fox News reported on July 24:

“The ancient Chinese practice of lingchi, the ‘Death of a Thousand Cuts,’ best describes the manner in which the Obama administration has systematically whittled away most immigration enforcement since taking office. Over time, the rule of law has been shredded not by a single act, but by many small cuts. A review of President Obama’s record reveals a jaw-dropping steady and stealthy dismantling of virtually every tool and resource used to identify and remove deportable aliens…

“Immediately after taking office, the Obama administration replaced effective worksite enforcement that targeted both employers and illegal workers with meaningless paper audits and modest fines… Failing to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable was an early, yet clear signal that the Obama administration intended to derail all enforcement…

“In 2011, Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director, John Morton, issued a series of internal directives instructing agency staff to focus their efforts exclusively on removing illegal aliens with criminal records…

“Obama told Americans that the border was secure and that that deportations were up. Both were deceptions. In official documents, DHS stated that only 44% of the border was under operational control. And while deportations had, in fact risen slightly, the increase had nothing to do with expanding enforcement by the Obama administration. A ‘pipeline’ of deportable cases was filled by vigorous enforcement during the last two years of the Bush administration. Those cases carried forward and Obama took credit in his first two years. Moreover, while deportations for violent criminal aliens had risen, all other deportations were down indicating that the Obama administration felt it could pick and choose which laws to enforce…

“From the beginning, President Obama knew that the public would reject amnesty legislation. However, he also knew he stood a good chance of getting it done through a strategy of piecemeal efforts, provided no one noticed. With an election looming and special interests demanding grandiose and immediate action, in June President Obama declared unilaterally that he was using executive power to implement the DREAM Act for an untold number illegal alien ‘kids’ who were brought here through ‘no fault of their own.’ During his DREAM Act speech, Obama failed to mention that his new edict allowed illegal aliens up to the age of 30 to qualify.

“Then, in an interview shortly thereafter with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, DHS Secretary Napolitano admitted that parents of illegal aliens applying for deferred action – illegal alien adults who most certainly did knowingly break the law – will not be subject to immigration enforcement… With that announcement, amnesty for illegal aliens tripled…

“Obama’s Death of a Thousand Cuts has virtually gutted our country’s immigration enforcement apparatus, but the record is clear and the public must hold this president accountable…”

But before Church members jump to premature conclusions and become political agitators for the presidential challenger, as being the “lesser of two evils,” be sure to read the next article.

Mitt Romney’s Flubs in Britain

Der Spiegel Online wrote on July 27:

“Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had been hoping to show off his foreign-policy credentials by traveling to Europe this week. Instead, he has committed one flub after another. The headlines have not been kind.

“Mitt Romney was hoping to start off his European tour with a bang: a meeting with conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron, the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games on Friday and a couple of lucrative fundraising events. The idea was to show the presumed Republican presidential candidate from his best side. After all, he himself successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah… Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for Romney to make the kind of negative headlines he had been hoping to avoid. And it has cast a dark cloud over his entire trip.

“It all began with an anonymous Romney ‘adviser’ and the special relationship between the US and Great Britain. ‘We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he (Romney) feels that the special relationship is special,’ the adviser told the British daily Telegraph. ‘The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.’

“Perhaps the comment hadn’t been adequately vetted. But the Telegraph teased it out for its readers. The remarks, the paper wrote, ‘may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity’ given that Obama’s father, after all, was neither white nor Anglo-Saxon. US Vice President Joe Biden reacted strongly by calling the comments ‘disturbing’ and saying the assertion was ‘beneath a presidential campaign.’ Obama adviser David Axelrod said that the comment on shared heritage was ‘stunningly offensive.’

“And Romney? The candidate has done his best to distance himself from the statements, saying he doesn’t know who the source is — and accusing Biden of reacting to quotes from an unnamed adviser in a ‘foreign newspaper.’

“That, though, was just the appetizer. Not long after his arrival in London, Romney joined Brian Williams from the US broadcaster NBC for an exclusive interview… he said: ‘There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.’

“As if that weren’t enough, Romney also seemed to take aim at the British people. ‘Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That is something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.’ Not surprisingly, the British press jumped on the comments. As did British leaders. During a rally to celebrate the end of the torch relay in Hyde Park, London Mayor Boris Johnson said to the gathered crowd: ‘There’s this guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we are ready.’ And Prime Minister Cameron also chided the Republican candidate. ‘We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world,’ he said. ‘Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.’

“Chagrined, Romney quickly did something that Americans have become used to from him: He flip-flopped. In comments to the press afterward, he conceded that it is ‘impossible for absolutely no mistakes to occur.’ And added that, once competition starts, ‘those are all overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes.’

“Still, Romney wasn’t quite done making headlines. It was, after all, a long day full of meetings with a variety of people, including Labour party head Ed Miliband, who Romney addressed as ‘Mr. Leader.’ And then there was another appointment. ‘I can only say that I appreciated the insights and perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here as well as the head of MI6 as we discussed Syria and the hope for a more peaceful future for that country,’ he said at a news conference. Oops. The meeting with MI6 head Sir John Sawers was supposed to remain secret. That, at least, had been the agreement beforehand.”

So, either way, this country is in big trouble, and ONLY the return of Jesus Christ and His godly and righteous government here on earth will experience and manifest real and better change!

CNN President Resigns

On July 27, 2012, Newsmax and Bloomberg News reported:

“CNN President Jim Walton, who presided over the once-dominant cable-news business… will resign after almost a decade in the job, saying the network needs ‘new thinking’… CNN is suffering through a ratings slump… CNN now ranks far behind News Corp.’s Fox News…

“Walton, 54, started at CNN in December 1981, one year after it was founded by billionaire Ted Turner. Walton helped build the nascent network into a dominant news organization, and CNN soon became a staple in many households. It was the only news company that broadcast live video feeds of the first Gulf War from inside Iraq.

“In recent years, the network struggled to find a formula that connected with viewers. It also made a major gaffe last month, reporting incorrectly that the U.S. Supreme Court found a central piece of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional…”

Maybe this would help: a little bit less left-wing propaganda and CNN’s definite agenda to get Mr. Obama re-elected, and much more objective reporting of the news.

Standing Up to the NRA

On July 26, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote the following insightful article on Bloomberg.com:

“It has been a week since the massacre in Aurora, Colorado. The two major U.S. presidential candidates spent the past week avoiding the subject of whether anything should be done to prevent such shootings from recurring. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, declared Wednesday that ‘changing the heart of the American people’ is our best hope to stop the carnage. President Barack Obama offered little more than support for his past positions, such as banning assault weapons. Very likely, both candidates will spend the next few months avoiding the issue altogether.

“The wise men of Washington tell us that candidates are silent on guns because to speak out is to incur the wrath of the National Rifle Association. But polls consistently show that gun owners, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support the common sense measures that mayors across the country have been trying to get Washington to pass for years.

“More than 700 mayors, from both political parties, have joined together to stop the flow of illegal guns into our communities. Mayors know all too well that the debate on the Second Amendment is over. The Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question is: What should those restrictions look like?

“Mayors and the NRA strongly agree that the federal government should enforce the laws already on the books. Federal law prohibits all felons — and those with a history of mental illness or drug abuse — from possessing guns. The NRA believes — rightly — that enforcing the law means prosecuting criminals to the fullest extent. In New York state, we have increased the mandatory minimum prison sentence for illegal possession of a loaded gun to 3 1/2 years, one of the toughest penalties in the country.

“But whether fighting illegal guns or drugs, we should seek not merely to make arrests, but to prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. That is why the federal government requires licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks to determine whether an individual is eligible to purchase a gun. Nonlicensed sellers, however, are not required to perform federal background checks, and as much as 40 percent of gun sales slip through this loophole. Criminals and the deranged can buy guns simply by logging on to the Internet or visiting a gun show — and they do, every day. Stopping them requires background checks for every gun sale, a change strongly supported by major law enforcement organizations, as well as gun owners and NRA members. But not the NRA’s leadership. The NRA is a $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying juggernaut, with much of its funding coming from gun manufacturers and merchandising. More than anything, the NRA is a marketing organization, and its flagship product is fear…

“There is one particular fear the NRA manufactures with great success: fear of electoral defeat. Romney has walked away from the assault-weapons ban he once supported, and in nearly four years, Obama has offered no legislation to rein in illegal guns…  Some Americans view smarter, tougher gun measures as a hopeless crusade. But political environments change, especially when strong leaders build coalitions and carve new paths through seemingly settled territory. There are conservative, pro-gun rights members of Congress who understand that more can be done to keep guns away from dangerous people.”

These accurate statements should wake up those up who are so fascinated with their love for guns that they can’t see the truth in this matter—including the dubious and terrible role which the NRA leadership has been playing all along.

Gay Rights Advocates Push the Envelope Even More

Newsmax wrote on July 26:

“Billy Graham [a strong advocate for traditional marriage] has thrown his support behind embattled Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy… Dan Cathy’s recent comments supporting the ‘biblical definition’ of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. ‘I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith,’ Graham said.

“‘I’ve known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It’s easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America. Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must always be measured by God’s word. I appreciate the Cathy family’s public support for God’s definition of marriage.’”

The actions of the “gay activists” and the mayors of Boston and Chicago are unconscionable. No wonder that God is deeply upset about the direction that our country is going.

Coming—Global Food Crisis?

Al Jazeera wrote on July 26:

“For weeks the US has been suffering its most extensive drought in half a century. And meteorologists expect the severe conditions to continue… the drought has expanded since the beginning of this year, particularly affecting the US heartland, known as the breadbasket of the country and the world.

“The US dominates the global corn market but the US Department of Agriculture has predicted a sharp drop in corn exports, with prices for corn and soybeans already hitting record highs. At least 87 per cent of all US corn and soybean crops are grown in drought-stricken regions. Corn is what is called a mega-crop used in the production of everything from meat to cereal to sugary drinks and fuel. As a result, rising prices have the potential to lead to another global food crisis…

“About 60 per cent of continental US is experiencing drought conditions. The US is the world’s largest corn producer, and provides up to 60 per cent of the world’s food aid. The price of corn has increased by 34 per cent in the last month. The US government says nearly 40 per cent of the corn crop is in poor condition… The US is ranked as the most food-secure nation in the world… Second is Denmark, followed by Norway… The least food-secure nations are in sub-Saharan Africa, with the DR Congo scoring most poorly with 70 per cent of household income there spent on food despite the country’s huge agricultural potential. Chad and Burundi suffer from similar circumstances.”

God prophecies that even the USA will be suffering from severe famine in the not-too-distant future.

Possible Strike on Iran?

The Associated Press wrote on July 29:

“An Israeli newspaper reported Sunday that the Obama administration’s top security official has briefed Israel on U.S. plans for a possible attack on Iran, seeking to reassure it that Washington is prepared to act militarily should diplomacy and sanctions fail to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program. A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential talks, said the article in the Haaretz daily was incorrect.

“Haaretz said National Security Adviser Tom Donilon laid out the plans before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a dinner at a visit to Israel earlier this month. It cited an unidentified senior American official as the source of its report, which came out as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was telling Israel he would back an Israeli military strike against Iran.

“The American official also said Donilon shared information on U.S. weapons that could be used for such an attack, and on the U.S. military’s ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities buried deep underground, the newspaper said. It cited another U.S. official involved in the talks with Israel as concluding that ‘the time for a military operation against Iran has not yet come.’

“The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential meeting, said, ‘Nothing in the article is correct. Donilon did not meet the prime minister for dinner, he did not meet him one-on-one, nor did he present operational plans to attack Iran.’ He had no information when asked if Donilon had discussed any kind of attack plans with any Israeli official. Haaretz said another Israeli official attended for part of the meeting.

“The U.S. Embassy had no immediate comment. Haaretz cited Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, as declining to comment on the confidential discussion between Netanyahu and Donilon…

“Israeli leaders have repeatedly said they would not contract out their country’s security to another nation. In Jerusalem on Sunday, a top Romney foreign policy adviser told reporters, ‘If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability (to build a nuclear weapon), the governor would respect that decision.’ Romney also thinks the option of a U.S. attack should also be on the table.”

Attack on Iran Could Devastate Global Economy

Newsmax reported on July 28:

“The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, has now stated publicly that Iran and its agents masterminded the recent terror attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Rogers stated flatly: ‘I believe there were certainly elements of Hezbollah [involved] and I believe it was under the direction of their masters in Iran.’ And former UN Ambassador John Bolton has urged Israel to retaliate directly against Iran for this barbaric attack. Such an attack, experts fear, could escalate quickly into a wider military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“Meanwhile, Iran is also ratcheting up its support for Syria’s Assad regime. ‘The Iranian people have an unchangeable stance on Syrians and will always stand by them,’ Iran’s Vice President Rahimi said this week.

“Iran appears to be on a collision course with Israel, the U.S. and other Western allies. The implications of a crisis in Iran are grave. Former U.S. National Security Adviser Brzezinski has warned that an attack on Iran could lead to a series of events that ‘devastate’ the global economy.”

A war in the Middle East, involving Israel and Iran, would indeed have terrible consequences for the entire world.

Fierce Fighting in Ethiopia

BBC wrote on July 28:

“Ethnic clashes in southern Ethiopia are reported to have left at least 18 people dead and 12 others injured. More than 20,000 people have crossed into Kenya to escape the fighting, the Kenyan Red Cross says.

“A spokesman told the BBC that people were continuing to cross the border although Ethiopian government forces had intervened to stop the fighting… Local reports speak of armed militias taking up positions in outlying villages on Wednesday, with the fighting spreading to Moyale town, on the Ethiopia-Kenya border, on Thursday.”

Keep your eye on Ethiopia!

In the Q&A in Update 234 of March 10, 2006, the question of the first two verses in 1 Corinthians was discussed, and the conclusion was that “1 Corinthians 11:1 can, and must be taken at face value: We are to follow Paul or any other servant of God ONLY to the extent that he follows Christ.”

In this Q&A, let us look specifically at the meaning of “imitate”. “Mimetes” (pronounced mim-ay-tace) is the Greek noun to be translated as “imitator” (see Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries). The Greek verb, which means “to mimic” or “to imitate”, is “mimeomai” (see Young’s Analytical Concordance).

Note the different translations of 1 Corinthians 11:1:

The Authorized Version (old King James Bible) says “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

The New King James states: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”

Moffatt says: “…copy me.”

The Living Bible says: “…and you shall follow my example, just as I follow Christ’s.”

The 20th Century New Testament says: “Imitate me, as I myself imitate Christ.”

The New English Bible says: “Follow my example as I follow Christ’s.”

Also, 1 Corinthians 4:16 states: “Therefore I urge you, imitate me”.   The word for “imitate” is again a translation of the Greek noun “mimetes”,  which is used altogether seven times in the New Testament. The Greek verb “mimeomai” is used four times.

And so, judging based on the different translations, the words “follow” and “imitate”, as well as “follower” and “imitator,” seem to be interchangeable – but are they?

The Dictionary definitions are as follows:

“Follow” is defined as, “go after as an admirer; strive after; aim at”.

“Imitate” is defined as, “mimic: try and get as close to the real thing as possible; impersonators”.

In 2 Timothy 2:14, we read; “Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers”.  Even though we are not to strive about words, translating words correctly with their full intent and meaning is important.

Therefore an imitator, by definition, gets as close to the original as possible.  And that must include fruits.

There are many so-called followers of Jesus Christ, but they want to do their own thing. They twist and turn when it comes to imitating Christ – as one UK celebrity once said that “he gave his heart to the Lord and he didn’t have to change anything!”   He would have considered himself to be a follower of Christ. But he certainly didn’t imitate Christ because he kept doing what he was doing before, and that certainly wasn’t keeping the Sabbath, the Holy Days and God’s Law.  However, we have to imitate Christ – we must get as close to Christ’s actions and Way of Life as we possibly can.

In Luke 4:16 we read of the time when, as the sub-heading states ”Jesus was rejected at Nazareth”:  “So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.”                   

Now if the world’s Christianity was mimicking Paul (who was himself a Sabbath keeper), they would be mimicking Christ who kept the Sabbath. Paul said to “imitate me as I imitate Christ”. However, most of Christ’s followers keep Sunday today and are therefore not mimicking or imitating His (and Paul’s) actions. They follow as they see it, but they don’t see the need to do precisely as Christ did.

Likewise, in John 7:37-38 we read of Jesus keeping the last day, that great day of the feast, speaking of the Last Great Day or the Eighth Day, immediately following the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles: “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.  He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”  

If we imitate Christ, we will keep the annual Feast Days, as He did—and as Paul did as well (For more information, please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days”). As we know, many “followers” ignore this and do what is right in their own sight. But imitators can’t.

It also precludes us from imitating a man – or men – whose fruits are not good. We should not ever follow such a man.  

Today, people, modern icons, personalities, politicians, pop stars, sportsmen and women and even church leaders can and do have a following—and many times, people even try to imitate their conduct and behavior–but breaking the first and second commandments can loom large in their lives if they are not careful.

But why did Paul say to imitate him as he imitated Christ? It is easier to imitate a physical example than just reading about it; examples are seen and then imitated.   A good impersonator will be difficult to tell from the real person if the imitation is very good.   And that’s how we should be in relation to the way we imitate Jesus Christ.   Examples are important and they can be good or bad.   So it was perhaps easier for the disciples of Paul’s day to imitate a physical example (Paul) than just reading or hearing about the great example of Jesus Christ, and that is probably why Paul said to imitate him as he imitated Christ.

But if any leader says, “follow me as I follow Christ”, and he is very deficient in some areas, it can be distracting and some can get mixed up.   Conduct – the fruits of a person’s life – is all part of doctrine.

We read in 1 Timothy 1:8-10:  “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”           

Here it describes actions, the way we behave, what we do, and it says, “if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”.   So conduct or behaviour is part of doctrine, and if therefore any person’s conduct or behaviour is unacceptable (like lying, stealing, committing adultery, being a drunkard, etc.), then he is going contrary to sound doctrine, and we shouldn’t try to imitate him. We should not even follow him. The true imitation of Christ can be lost in the poor example of a human being, with other human beings not being able to discern as they should.

So we need to know – and be sure – what Scripture says and imitate any leader only according to revealed Scriptural instruction and not even follow him, when he adds on any unbiblical unnecessary, unwanted, unwarranted or personal additions or baggage.

The Christian life, as revealed in the Bible, is one of overcoming and growing spiritually toward the goal of being spiritually mature like Christ. God expects us, as Spirit-begotten Christians, to be developing more and more of the very character of Christ as we learn to imitate His Way of Life.

To imitate means to get as close to the original as possible. It indicates being skin-tight. To follow is a much looser term and whilst it can be correct and necessary in many ways (compare Matthew 4:19; Mark 8:34; 1 Peter 2:21), the word “imitate” includes “following” Christ, but it is much more all-encompassing. To imitate is to do everything Christ did and wants us to do according to His perfect example. So this is not striving after words but making sure that we fully understand the difference and take to heart that the original meaning of the Greek word “mimetes” is to be an imitator of Christ. And that is much more critical than just being a “follower”.

That is why imitator is the correct translation of “mimites,” and this is vital. Otherwise, it could slightly lead us off track. We are not just to follow, but also to imitate–always with Christ and the written Word of God as our focus.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link

Norbert and Johanna Link are traveling to Colorado this week, and Mr. Link will be presenting the sermon in Fort Collins, Colorado, this coming Sabbath (August 4, 2012).

A new German sermon has been posted. This is part three of a series by Norbert Link on the subject of “hell.” The title is: “Gibt es eine Hoelle? Teil 3.”

A reminder for those wishing to attend the Feast of Tabernacles with us for 2012–please review details posted on our website under the “FEASTS” heading. Our locations for this year are Pismo Beach, California, and Deganwy, North Wales.

On July 28, 2012, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “My Servant.”
 
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

The mass murder in Colorado has shown again the incredible acts of senseless and demonic violence of which man is capable. Questions are asked as to whether gun control would have prevented a “mentally disturbed” man from carrying out his horrendous crimes; and whether the increase in violence, especially in movies and video games, has been responsible for raising indifferent and uncaring children and young adults who have become willing to strike out against their fellow man and a “socially unjust” society. These are clearly important questions to consider, and “political correctness” of leading politicians, “motivating” them not to be motivated to address these “hot potatoes,” sheds further gloomy clouds on the very dark age in which we are living.

Some asked the question as to why God lets these kinds of diabolical actions happen, and whether sin may have anything to do with them. This strikes closer to home. We must understand, once and for all, that this is NOT God’s world. Rather, it is Satan, the god of this present evil age, who is deceiving mankind to sin. He is THE destroyer, intent to do whatever he can to bring havoc and destruction on indifferent and “willfully ignorant” people who become easy targets for the evil prince of darkness and his wicked cohorts.

Our fascination with guns and violence will not contribute to the end of the misuse of guns and violent conduct—it will not create a better world. What is needed is a change of heart—how we think, and for what we stand. In the famous millennial passage of Isaiah 2:2-4, we read about a new world which will be so much different from what we are confronted with today. Satan will have no more influence over unsuspecting and gullible people. Instead, God’s law will be taught (verse 3). The consequence will be unparalleled in human history and truly earth-shaking: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.”

Their mind will be receptive to God’s way of life. God’s law will be in their heart (Isaiah 51:7). They will walk in God’s statutes and do them (Ezekiel 11:19-20). They will learn to live peaceably with their neighbor and with other nations. They will finally realize that committing violence against our fellow man will only bring destruction. Peter thought that he had to use his sword and strike the high priest’s servant Malchus to prevent the illegal arrest of Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. But Christ told him: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

Psalm 140:11 takes on quite a stern meaning when viewed in this context: “Let evil hunt the violent man to overthrow him.”

When God’s law of love rules in our heart—and love does no harm to our neighbor (Romans 13:10)—then we would not even think of using a gun or a knife against someone. We would not even think of resorting to violence against another human being.

God hates those who love violence (Psalm 12:5). And He tells us: “Violence shall no longer be heard in your land” (Isaiah 60:18).

We cannot change this violent world today, and as long as Satan rules and until Christ returns, violence, mass murders, senseless killings and universal wars will continue. But we are to come out of this world and make ourselves ready for the peaceful world tomorrow. Are we doing this?

The mass murder in one of Colorado’s theaters during a midnight showing of the new Batman movie has shocked and bewildered many, and answers for the unthinkable are being sought. We are giving you some samples of valid considerations, which all contribute, more or less, to understanding the nature of evil deeds, but do not solve the problem at hand. They do show, however, how dark this world has become. Please make sure to read the Editorial in this Update, and to view our new StandingWatch program, “No More Guns?”, and our half hour sermon on the topic, titled, “The Colorado Massacre.”

We also report on other frightening developments in the United States and Syria, and conclude with ongoing developments in Germany (and Europe) regarding the German court decision which criminalizes circumcision of young boys.

Weapons Acquired Legally in Colorado

BBC wrote on July 20:

“Residents [are] allowed to keep guns in homes, offices and vehicles, but [they] can only carry them in public with a permit. There are no limits to how many guns can be bought a month, and the state permits sale of automatic weapons. No waiting period [exists] for buying a handgun, both state and federal state law require criminal background checks. Since [the] 1998 Columbine massacre, 20 miles from [the] scene of Friday’s shooting, it has become easier to buy guns in [the] US–a national ban on assault weapons sale expired in 2004.”

The occasional claim that the murderer acquired some of the weapons illegally —especially an assault rifle— is absolutely false.

U.S. Gun Laws Make No Sense

The Washington Post wrote on July 20:

“As President Obama said in brief but eloquent remarks Friday, there is no rational explanation for the massacre that occurred in a Colorado movie theater early Friday. ‘Such violence, such evil, is senseless. It’s beyond reason,’ Mr. Obama said… There’s something else that is senseless, though, and that is America’s gun laws. The temptation is not to mention this fact. That’s true partly because… any mention of gun control is dismissed by gun-control opponents as an ‘exploitation’ of tragedy. But it’s true also because we’ve all been worn down by the futility and repetitiveness of the debate. A massacre occurs; advocates of gun control point out the folly of total permissiveness; the laws do not change; the issue disappears until the next massacre…

“There is no rational basis for allowing ordinary Americans to purchase assault rifles… The alleged shooter in Friday’s crime, which claimed at least 12 lives, came to the theater with two .40-caliber Glock handguns, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle. According to NBC News, ‘the weapons were legally bought from local stores of two national chains… beginning in May.’

“Yes, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own a gun, but it does not preclude reasonable regulation for public safety. Yes, mass killings occur in societies with stronger gun laws, but not with such regularity — and not against the backdrop of daily gun violence, both criminal and accidental, that distinguishes the United States.

“We don’t expect this massacre to lead to more sensible laws. We understand the politics. Still, it’s disappointing that the president doesn’t couple his words of comfort with some reminder of the common-sense regulation that could make such tragedies less common. The politics of guns will never shift if people are too cowed or dispirited even to join the argument. U.S. gun laws make no sense.”

Indeed, they don’t—and no civilized country outside the US shows any sympathy for our “American Wild-West” mentality.

Americans in Love With Their Guns

USA Today wrote on July 22:

“There are calls now for gun laws strict enough to stop incidents like these, just as there were after previous tragedies, but those demands will fade. The nation has had a long and acrimonious debate on guns and decided to allow individuals to own them, with reasonable limits. It’s a devil’s bargain that allows millions of law-abiding people to own and use guns responsibly, while accepting thousands of deliberate and accidental shootings a year, including the sort of perverse tragedy that occurred in Colorado.

“Gun control strict enough to stop every shooting is a fantasy. Americans are fiercely devoted to their right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has upheld that right. The notion that the authorities could somehow confiscate the millions of guns in private hands in the U.S. is a delusion. So is the idea that Americans would support a ban on private handguns — the latest Gallup poll shows that just 26 % of Americans favor that.

“But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be done. Americans do support bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, which have figured in mass shootings and were a part of this one. There’s no legitimate reason for the loophole that lets some people evade background checks when they buy guns at gun shows…”

As long as Americans continue with their love and adoration for and fascination with guns, “political correctness” will prevent meaningful changes, as the next article shows.

Political Considerations in an Election Year—Play It Safe

The Los Angeles Times wrote on July 20:

“President Obama and rival Mitt Romney issued similar statements Friday expressing shock and offering their condolences after the shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo. Absent was any discussion of gun control or ways to end gun violence… don’t count on a whole lot of substantive talk about guns or gun control between, say, next week and Nov. 6 — at least from the two main contestants for the White House. Few issues evoke as much emotion as the personal right to bear firearms, and Obama and Romney have their reasons to steer clear of any lengthy debate.

“It has become an article of faith among Democrats that Al Gore lost the White House in 2000… because of his support for gun control… the president has not signed a single piece of major gun-control legislation, nor has Congress given him the opportunity… White House spokesman Jay Carney notably mentioned 2nd Amendment rights…

“Romney… will certainly not do anything to agitate the 2nd Amendment crowd. As governor of Massachusetts, he backed an assault weapons ban and a waiting period to buy firearms; as a presidential candidate, he’s backpedaled from those heresies ever since.

“Reacting to the shootings, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a staunch advocate of gun control, virtually taunted the two presidential candidates to offer more than platitudes, however sincere or well-meaning they may be. ‘You know, soothing words are nice,’ he said on WOR radio, ‘but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.’…

“Avoiding politics may be the respectful thing to do as the nation grieves the dead and wounded in Colorado. Politically, it is also the safe thing to do.”

CNN added on July 20:

“Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, criticized Obama on Friday for steering clear of the issue in office. ‘President Obama has refused to even talk about guns… Unfortunately the president has shown a lack of leadership in standing up to the gun lobby’…

“Gun safety advocates have expressed disappointment with the president’s actions since taking office, particularly over his failure to fight for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. They pointed out Obama signed bills into law that allowed loaded weapons in some national parks and on Amtrak trains and the destruction of background check documents…”

That our leading politicians shy away from even addressing the issue of gun control for fear of their political survival is shameful and, as Piers Morgan stated correctly on CNN on July 19, “that can’t be right.” However, presumably due to pressure from the media, President Obama has now begun to speak openly about reducing gun crime. Note the next article.

President Obama to Reduce Gun Crime

Deutsche Welle reported on July 26:

“US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a cross-party deal on new measures to reduce gun crime across America… Obama pledged late on Wednesday to introduce ‘common sense’ measures to combat gun violence. He vowed to work with both political parties and religious groups to ensure that guns didn’t fall into the hands of criminals. ‘I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,’ he told the National Urban League Convention in New Orleans, referring to part of the US Constitution. ‘But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,’ he said…

“It was the first time Obama had commented on gun control since 12 people were shot dead in a midnight showing of the new Batman movie last Friday… Previous attempts to impose gun controls have been met, however, with fierce resistance from the powerful lobbying group the National Rifle Association and many Republican members of Congress. That makes the issue of gun control extremely decisive in an election year and Obama was careful not to make any specific law change proposals.

“On Wednesday his Republican opponent Mitt Romney voiced his opposition to changes to gun legislation. He argued that a tightening of rules wouldn’t have prevented the Colorado shooting. ‘I don’t happen to believe that America needs new gun laws,’ Romney said…”

It is not quite clear what President Obama is contemplating doing, as the Washington Times added on July 25:

“Progressives are pushing Mr. Obama, who campaigned four years ago on a platform of stricter gun control, to speak out on the subject and use the tragedy to impose stricter gun regulations. But the White House has been saying since the shooting last week that Mr. Obama has no plans to seek new gun legislation. The president used the speech to the Urban League to defend his own actions to date on gun control, as much as to call for tougher controls.”

In any event, it is highly unlikely that new gun laws will be passed, as the next article points out.

No Chance for Successful Ban on Assault Weapons

USA Today wrote on July 25, 2012

“Two bills circulating in Congress would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the 100-round drum used in Friday’s attack. But passage of those bills — or stiffer bans on assault weapons — are not likely in the near future… On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he would not use the shooting in Aurora, Colo., to push for any new gun laws, blaming the incident on ‘a deranged person’…”

Gun Sales Up

The New York Post wrote on July 25:

“Firearms sales are surging in the wake of the Colorado movie theater massacre as buyers express fears that anti-gun politicians may use the shootings to seek new restrictions on owning weapons.

“In Colorado, the site of Friday’s shooting that killed 12 and injured dozens of others, gun sales jumped in the three days that followed. The state approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — 25 percent more than the average Friday to Sunday period in 2012 and 43 percent more than the same interval the week prior…

“Day-to-day gun sales frequently fluctuate, but the numbers also look strong outside of Colorado, too. Seattle’s home county, King, saw nearly twice as many requests for concealed pistol licenses than the same timeframe a year ago. Florida recorded 2,386 background checks on Friday, up 14 percent from the week before. Oregon sales on Friday and Saturday were up 11 percent over the month prior. Four days of checks in California were up 10 percent month-to-month…

“Jay Wallace, who owns Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna, Ga., found that his sales on Saturday were up 300 percent from the same day a year ago — making it one of the best Saturdays his business has ever had…

“Some Democratic lawmakers in Congress cited the shooting as evidence of the need for tougher gun control laws — particularly a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Congress, however, hasn’t passed strict legislation in more than a decade, and leaders in Washington show no sign of bringing up such measures any time soon.”

Americans Unable of Honest Debate on Gun Laws?

BBC wrote on July 20:

“The shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has reignited the debate over gun rights in America. But, argues Rod Dreher, senior editor at The American Conservative, the arguments on both sides say little, and accomplish even less… America will have a national media fit over gun violence, as we always do, and then carry on as we always have. The pattern never fails… Both sides in the US gun debate are heavily committed to absolutist positions that make little sense.

“The anti-gun side holds to a dogmatic belief that stricter gun control would prevent these kinds of killings. Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Those laws did not stop Anders Breivik from killing last summer… People on the pro-gun side, however, tend to carry on like fire-breathing fundamentalists at a tent revival. They meet any proposal to restrict weaponry or ammunition, no matter how sensible, as an attempt to give a toehold to the devil…

“Liberals, for example, often defend grotesque violence in film and hip-hop music, denying that it has anything to do with gun crime, and claiming that tolerating it is the price one pays for First Amendment freedom of expression. Civil libertarians object to stop-and-frisk laws that get illegal weapons off the streets. For their part, conservatives idolise the Second Amendment guarantee of gun rights, but rarely consider what that liberty does to peaceable poor people trapped in inner cities ravaged by armed young thugs…

“Americans seem incapable of honest debate among ourselves about what our permissive gun laws do – and do not – have to do with the chronic bloodletting. If our ideological hardness keeps us from talking straight about gun violence, how can we ever make any real progress on reducing it?”

This article states an interesting point. Unbalanced radical viewpoints on either side will not help in solving the issue—especially when important aspects are being overlooked. Fortunately, the issues of “gun control” and the reasons for love of guns will be swiftly and correctly addressed in the Millennium.

Can We Learn from Australia?

CNN wrote on July 21:

“The shooting was senseless. And it makes us think once again about how we can address the horrific problem of gun violence in America. The first task is conceptual — can we figure out what will work? The second task is political — can plausible solutions be implemented legislatively?

“The conceptual problem is immensely difficult, especially in a society that is already as gun-saturated as America is today. The political problem borders on the impossible. Gun policy in this country is made by the National Rifle Association, and no serious effort at gun control can currently get past its veto. Even when legislation passed during the Clinton years in the form of the Brady bill, requiring background checks at the time of gun purchases, or the assault weapons ban, the NRA succeeded in injecting gaping loopholes into the laws…

“Consider what happened in Australia after a crazed gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.

“The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings. The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia. The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979–96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

“In 1996, then-Prime Minister John Howard stated that the ‘whole scheme is designed to reduce the number of guns in the community and make Australia a safer place to live.’ Of course, the Australian gun control law in 1997 enjoyed an extremely high level of public support and was not hampered by any domestic gun industry (since Australia did not have any). Such would not be the case in the United States where pro-gun political views and NRA power create a very different climate. In the wake of another tragic massacre of innocent lives, we should look carefully at the Australian experience to see if the American public will ever rise up as one against gun violence.”

Why can’t America do what Australia did? The answer lies in the mentality of most Americans. It would require a change of heart. As General Douglas MacArthur so pointedly put it in his famous speech of 1951:

“The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

Mitt Romney seemed to have somewhat echoed those sentiments. According to USA Today, he stated on July 25 that “changing the heart of the American people” might be what’s needed to end such violent acts. Also notice the next article.

We Have a Sin Problem

Newsmax wrote on July 22:

“Mike Huckabee, speaking on his Fox News show, said America doesn’t have a gun problem or crime problem but a ‘sin problem’ and that while the Aurora movie massacre was a horrible incident that deserves the media coverage it’s getting, other daily American tragedies such as mass abortion, suicides, and other murders should receive more attention.

“The former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate said… that the shooting ‘is impossible to understand except that we live in a world where there is evil. We simply don’t know why any person would reach deep enough into the forces of darkness to decide to kill innocent people simply watching a movie…’ Huckabee said killing a dozen people in a movie theater gets attention because it doesn’t happen every day ‘but one million innocent and unborn babies die in their mother’s wombs each year by elective abortions and we pay scant attention to that.’…

“‘Ultimately,’ Huckabee concluded, ‘we don’t have a crime problem or a gun problem – or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem. And since we ordered God out of our schools and communities, the military and public conversations, you know, we really shouldn’t act so surprised when all hell breaks loose.’”

True to an extent, but not completely. We have a sin problem, BECAUSE we have a crime problem, a gun problem and a violence problem. Crimes, violence and (misuse of) guns constitute sin. That our civilized world has become a terribly violent and therefore sinful place is also discussed in the next article. And, it puts much blame on inconsiderate parents, allowing their children to get more and more engaged in violent environments, being apparently oblivious to the ensuing dangers.

Violence on the Rise

On July 20, The Drudge Report linked to an article of The Telegraph, dated 26 July 2008, dealing with the previous Batman movie, The Dark Knight:

“Our attitude to violence is beyond a joke as [the] new Batman film, The Dark Knight, shows… The new Batman film reaches new levels of brutality, so why are we letting children watch it? Jenny McCartney looks at a society seduced by sadism.

“If I were 10 years old, would I be badgering my parents to take me to see the new Batman film, The Dark Knight? You bet I would… If I were the parent who relented and took a 10-year-old child to see The Dark Knight, would I be sorry? Once again, you bet I would…

“The Dark Knight… has been rated 12A by the British Board of Film Classification, which means that although the BBFC believes it is best suited to children aged 12 and over, any under-12 can see it provided he or she is accompanied by an adult. Cinemas are even holding parent-and-baby screenings…

[In the US, the movie The Dark Knight, as well as the sequel, The Dark Knight rises, received a PG 13 rating for intense sequence of violence and action, among others. Children at any age can watch those movies without being accompanied by an adult. PG-13 means parents are strongly cautioned about letting a child under 13 see the movie. It does not mean that a parent is required to attend the movie with a child if they’re under 13. So a child can go to a PG-13 alone at whatever age a parent may feel comfortable with. Just for reference, in the US, rated R means a parent or guardian is required to attend the movie with a child or teen under 17. NC-17 (aka Rated X) means no one under 17 is admitted, even if they have a parent with them.]

“In 2002, the BBFC took a stand on Spider-Man, a hugely hyped Hollywood release: it decided that it contained unsuitable levels of violence for under-12s, and therefore awarded it a ‘12’ certificate, meaning that under-12s should not be allowed into cinemas to see it. A public storm erupted; children and many parents were furious; and a number of councils announced their intention to defy the ban… Spider-Man now looks like Bambi when set next to The Dark Knight. Even since 2002, the public’s willingness to expose children to previously unthinkable levels of screen violence has soared…

“Britain appears to be gulping down entertainment values wholesale from a Hollywood intent upon mining the profit margin from barbarism. America, for all its manifold strengths, is still a country in which the population can [view] the sight of a bound man being torched to death as all-round family entertainment. Just as notable as the… violence in popular entertainment itself, however, is the rage directed at anyone who dares to question it…

“Is there a link between screen violence and actual violence? Fans of violent films will tell you – frequently in the most aggressive terms – that there is not. Yet we know that children are, to greater and lesser degrees, highly imitative of what they see… And we know that entertainment aimed at young people is becoming markedly more violent. My generation was terrified by the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; the current one is diverted with torture and agonising death…

“The poet WB Yeats once wrote, ‘In dreams begins responsibility’, yet Hollywood will never take responsibility for its most brutal dreams so long as the paying public still flocks to the theatre of cruelty.”

There can really be no reasonable denial of the undisputable fact that a relationship exists between watching violent movies and playing violent video games on the one hand, and becoming, in mind and sometimes in action, more and more violent towards our fellow man. When children grow up with violence, then in far too many cases, they will respond in kind when the opportunity presents itself.

Violence by Returning Soldiers

BBC wrote on July 24:

“One in eight soldiers has attacked someone after coming home from a combat deployment… Soldiers involved in direct combat were twice as likely as others to admit having hit someone at the end of the tour… A third of the victims were someone in the family – often a wife or girlfriend… This month an ex-soldier was jailed for shooting dead his landlady, just months after he had returned from serving in Afghanistan with the Territorial Army.”

An Addendum:
 
The Drudge Report asked on July 20: “What was a 6 Year Old Doing in Midnight Screening?”

A very good question!

Spying on US Citizens—“An Unholy Mess”

The Economist wrote on July 21:

“… in 1967… the court decided that fourth amendment protections extend anywhere a person has ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’. If police wanted to wiretap a phone, they now needed a warrant, just as they would if they wanted to search a person’s home. But the warrant requirement applies only to the actual conversation, not to the numbers dialled from a phone…

“In 2001 the Patriot Act allowed pen/traps to be served on internet-service providers (ISPs) as well, where they reveal e-mail senders and recipients, the size of each e-mail sent and received, the IP address with which a computer communicates and the sites visited while browsing the web. The standards for getting a pen/trap approved are far lower than for getting a wiretap. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was passed in 1986 and remains the main law governing access to electronic communication, requires police only to certify to a court that the information is relevant to an investigation. For a wiretap, police must show both probable cause and that ‘normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed’…

“In 2011 federal and state courts approved a total of 2,732 wiretaps; but government agencies made over 1.3m requests for data to mobile-phone companies. That figure includes wiretaps and pen/traps, but it also includes requests for stored text messages, device locations and tower dumps, which reveal the presence of everyone—suspects and not—within range of a particular mobile-phone tower at a particular time. Most of these requests require no warrants at all. Sometimes all it takes is a subpoena from a prosecutor.

“Internet companies have also seen a sharp rise in requests from law-enforcement agencies for information about their users… Among the things that Google is typically asked for are account information and location data… Web firms say that police tend to grab as much information as they can rather than targeting specific items relevant to a case…

“Among the many expansions of government snooping power contained in the Patriot Act after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, it became far easier for the FBI to issue national-security letters, which compel service providers to turn over vast amounts of data about the recipients of such letters without a court order. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on communications between Americans and people overseas without a probable-cause warrant. FISA investigations require an order from the FISA Court—which meets in secret, and in the 32 years from 1979 to 2011 rejected a grand total of 11 applications. They are subject to no other review…”

Western Military Intervention in Syria?

The Guardian wrote on July 24:

“Western military intervention in the Syrian crisis is ‘looking increasingly likely’ because the conflict is now in danger of provoking violence across the Arab world that could lead to cross-border invasions, a report has warned. The study, by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), finds fears that President Assad’s regime may turn to its stockpile of chemical weapons, or that these devices may be stolen in the chaos of the civil war. It says these concerns have intensified ‘the sense of imminent international conflict that is gripping the region’…

“The study says the stage is now set for a proxy contest, with Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon and Shia forces in Syria and Iraq being pitted against Sunni communities in the same countries, some of them supported by Saudi Arabia. ‘An arc of proxy confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia is likely to follow the fall of the Alawite elite in Syria… We are not moving towards intervention, but intervention is moving towards us. Events of recent days have created a step-change in the situation that will make a hands-off approach increasingly difficult to maintain.’

“The study rules out the likelihood of a full-scale invasion by the west, but suggests more limited action… Military support would then be needed to support any new government and to prevent the desire for retribution against the old order… With Assad’s family losing power and beset by defections in the lower ranks after last week’s assassinations of those in the highest ranks, the study suggests, Iran and Russia may be prepared to ‘attempt a controlled implosion, by working to replace President Assad with a favoured Sunni successor.’”

German Resolution on Circumcision – and Reactions

Der Spiegel wrote on July 20:

“Germany’s parliament approved a resolution on Thursday that called on Berlin to create legislation that would ensure that circumcision of boys remain[s] legal in the country. The move is intended to quiet international outrage over a recent German court ruling that criminalizes the tradition… The resolution is not legally binding…

“German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) welcomed the vote, saying it would be difficult for him to defend abroad any incursion into the religious right to circumcision. Günter Krings, a senior member of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party in parliament, said the vote sent a clear message that Germany would not make life unnecessarily complicated for Jews or Muslims living in the country…

“But not all were pleased by the decision, including the Federation of German Criminal Police (BDK). ‘Our constitution cannot be limited by a simple law, as parliament is currently trying to do in panic,’ BDK chief André Schulz told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper. ‘The freedom of parents to practice religion will… be limited by a child’s more important right to physical integrity.’

“Meanwhile, a group of child-protective organizations has also issued a petition calling for a two-year delay on any new law on circumcision so that the issue could be debated more intensely by experts. The groups include the BDK as well as Deutsche Kinderhilfe (German Children’s Aid) and the German Association of Physicians in Child and Adolescent Medicine. In the petition, they warn that a working group should be created before taking any legal steps that could permit the ‘serious and irreparable intrusion on the physical integrity of a child’…”

According to an article of Der Spiegel Online, dated July 22 (which only appeared in the German edition of the online publication), many voices have been heard by now warning against a “quick solution.” Prominent doctors and lawyers pleaded not to act too rashly, advocating to focus more on the welfare of the child. They state that the charge that Jewish life becomes impossible when circumcision is prohibited must be countered with the right of the Jewish child.

Also, articles of Jews writing against circumcision are being published (so in Sunday’s Frankfurter Allgemeine, dated July 22), with the obvious attempt to find more arguments for a prohibition. Note the next article.

According to an article of Der Spiegel Online, dated July 22 (which only appeared in the German edition of the online publication), many voices have been heard by now warning against a “quick solution.” Prominent doctors and lawyers pleaded not to act too rashly, advocating to focus more on the welfare of the child. They state that the charge that Jewish life becomes impossible when circumcision is prohibited must be countered with the right of the Jewish child.

Also, articles of Jews writing against circumcision are being published (so in Sunday’s Frankfurter Allgemeine, dated July 22), with the obvious attempt to find more arguments for a prohibition. Note the next article.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on July 22:

“A fierce debate over circumcision has been raging in Germany for weeks and has caught Chancellor Merkel’s government off guard. Berlin is now hoping to introduce a law regulating the practice, but it is a delicate issue due to the religious passions involved. It could take years before it is resolved… Children have a fundamental right to physical integrity. A circumcision is no minor operation, with the German Professional Association of Pediatricians calling it a ‘form of bodily injury.’ But the child’s right contrasts with those of parents, which include religious matters — and in this case a ritual that goes back thousands of years and, for Jews and Muslims, is a vital component of their faith.

“Balancing these fundamental rights is complicated. Furthermore, Justice Minister Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger is likewise concerned about the debate shifting in an unpleasant direction. Male circumcision isn’t the only religious practice based on ancient traditions. Polygamy is another such practice, as is the prohibition of blood transfusions among Jehovah’s Witnesses or the compulsory veiling of women in parts of the Islamic world. The question will arise as to why one practice is banned while the other is allowed…

“Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, a criminal law professor in the western city of Bochum, agrees with the Cologne court. He considers the removal of the foreskin for religious reasons to be a ‘violation of the fundamental right to physical integrity [and] a heartless trivialization of what is done to children through circumcision’…

“In other Western countries, the battle over circumcision has been raging for years. Other governments are having just as much trouble as Berlin with the complicated triangular relationship between parents, children and the state. Sweden is the only European country that expressly regulates circumcision. It applies strict requirements and only permits the practice in hospitals… The French, who are especially strict about the separation between church and state, remain pragmatically silent on the issue. In principle, the removal of a boy’s [foreskin] is considered assault, and consent of the parents only justifies the procedures in exceptional cases. But there are no accounts of criminal charges having been brought to date…

“Opponents of circumcision are now looking to Germany, where legal experts will have to find a solution. It will not be an easy operation. To begin with, it’s completely unclear which code of law should apply to the regulation of circumcision. The criminal code would be one option, but the problem with that is that the criminal code is only supposed to regulate criminal acts. Family law, which defines the rights of parents and children, is another option. Justice Minister Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has pointed out that the law on the religious education of children is also a possibility. A clear, legal solution, as the German Association of Judges demanded on Friday, will be difficult to find.

“The justice minister has appointed a task force of senior legal experts to address the complexities of the issue. The group, which includes the directors of the departments of civil law, criminal law and constitutional law at the Justice Ministry, will spend the summer brooding over how a law could neutralize the Cologne court’s decision. ‘The matter is more complicated than just inserting a simple little sentence somewhere, as some people envision,’ says the minister. ‘After this emotional debate, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the law will come before the Federal Constitutional Court. The judges there will have to determine whether they share the balancing of fundamental rights that we intend to make.’ This could take years.”

As can be seen, this question is not going to be solved any time soon, and in the meantime, as feared, other European countries begin to follow Germany’s lead, as the next articles show.

Circumcision Suspended in Switzerland and Austria

Haaretz wrote on July 23:
  
“Two Swiss hospitals announced last week that they would temporarily stop performing circumcisions. The announcements followed a recent ruling by a German court that the ritual is illegal, which sparked outrage among the Jewish and Muslim communities living in the country.

“On Thursday, the Zurich children’s hospital announced that it was temporarily halting circumcision operations. ‘We are in the process of evaluating the legal and ethical stance in Switzerland,’ said Marco Stuecheli, a spokesman for the hospital. Meanwhile, another children’s hospital, located in the city of St. Gallen in northeastern Switzerland, has also decided to reassess its policy on circumcision.”

The Guardian wrote on July 25:

“A group of Orthodox rabbis warned on Wednesday that the ancient Jewish practice of infant male circumcision could face further restrictions in Europe after some hospitals in Austria and Switzerland suspended the procedure by citing a German court ruling that it could amount to criminal bodily harm.

“Last month’s verdict by a regional court in Cologne… prompted angry protests from Jewish and Muslims groups, especially after the German Medical Association advised doctors not to perform unnecessary circumcisions until the legal situation was clarified…

“On Tuesday, the governor of Vorarlberg province in Austria told state-run hospitals to stop circumcisions except for health reasons until the legal situation was clarified. He said the German decision, which arose from the case of a child whose circumcision led to medical complications, was a ‘precedence-setting judgment.’

“‘Our fears that the court ruling in Cologne could have a knock-on effect across Europe are now being realised,’ said Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis… While Muslims commonly circumcise their sons at a young age, in Judaism the procedure must take place eight days after birth. According to religious law, an uncircumcised male is not considered fully part of the Jewish community, Goldschmidt said. ‘In order to change that, we would have to convene a supreme Jewish religious court, which has not convened for the last 2,000 years,’ he said.”

 

German Catholic Doctor Speaks Out Against Circumcision of Children

On July 26, Der Spiegel published an article by a German doctor, advocating against allowing circumcision of young children:

“Munich’s university hospital… stopped circumcising boys without medical indication back in 2001. Many renowned pediatric hospitals had taken similar steps even before the Cologne Regional Court recently declared religious circumcision of children illegal. The medical community has been debating the issue for almost a decade. It’s only thanks to the judges in Cologne that the matter has been brought to the attention of the public.

“One of the fundamental principles of medical ethics is that no one should be harmed. The oath formulated by Hippocrates (approx. 460-370 BC) and sworn by all doctors includes the following statement: ‘I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.’ Another key idea lies at the heart of all ethical behavior by medical personnel: ‘Primum nihil nocere,’ or ‘First, do no harm,’ a phrase coined by Scribonius Largus, a doctor at the court of the emperor Tiberius Claudius. The treatment of patients must be with their welfare in mind, and must therefore have priority over other interests, such as science, financial gain or profit.

“Medically unnecessary circumcision causes damage because it results in an irreversible loss of healthy bodily tissue… Medically, there is no evidence of advantages for boys. Therefore non-medically indicated circumcision is not in the child’s best interests… Doctors have to weigh potential risks and benefits. There are no medical benefits to circumcision on religious grounds. For this reason it’s all the more significant that it’s a serious surgical procedure fraught with risks and complications… circumcision causes boys undue suffering. This procedure must therefore be rejected from both a medical and an ethical perspective.

“As a devout Catholic, I have great respect for the concerns of religious communities. As a scientist, I feel discredited by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s comments about how the circumcision ruling makes Germany ‘a laughing stock.’ The Cologne Regional Court presented us with an opportunity to work together with the various religious communities to consider the rights of physical inviolability and religious freedom. Some Muslims have already shown a willingness to accept that boys be circumcised only when they are old enough to give their consent…”

As can be seen, the prohibition of circumcision of young boys in Germany and Europe has been and is being carefully planned. And so, this ungodly “debate” will continue, and the danger is steadily increasing that the free exercise of religious minorities will be violated and prohibited. The Bible has prophesied that this will happen more and more in Europe. For further information, please view our StandingWatch program and our sermon on circumcision, as well as our StandingWatch program on religious persecution.

Since the Word of God is consistent in its teaching (John 10:35) and stands forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:160; and 1 Peter 1:25), the instruction to both judge and not to judge is not a contradiction. Therefore, it is vital to understand the difference between the types of judgment that are appropriate and the types that are inappropriate. The Bible draws a distinction between righteous judgment and situations in which judgment is to be avoided. The Bible is clear in its instruction for Christians both to judge righteously and to abstain from judgment. How can we reconcile the difference? The answer is that not all judgment is the same. Reading closely in the Bible, we find that judgment requires context in order to determine if it is appropriate behavior.

Let us first examine situations in which judgment is inappropriate. In Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus Christ gives us a simple and concise instruction, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” Here, the plain statement to “judge not” is quite clear. We are not to pass judgment on others. However, Jesus doesn’t stop with that instruction, but provides a reason for not judging. It is for our own good that we do not judge others, so that we might “not be judged.” Reading further, we learn that it is really unfair judgment or condemnation that should not be performed. The judgment that we want to avoid for ourselves is that which is erroneous, overly harsh, unforgiving, and condemnatory.

The instruction to refrain from judgment – of the type that is unfair – is an instruction to be merciful. Jesus Christ emphasizes this point when making a similar statement in Luke 6:36-37, where we read, “Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned.” When we abstain from making judgments about others, we practice merciful behavior. Since our understanding of others is inherently imperfect and incomplete, our judgments are bound to be flawed. A flawed judgment with a lack of empathy is not the way we wish to be judged ourselves when we appear before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. This is the practice of forgiveness.

Even Jesus Christ was careful about when he judged. In John 3:17 we read that God the Father did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it. This too is an example of mercy. Jesus knew that the purpose of His appearance on Earth was to teach the gospel of the Kingdom of God, providing an opportunity for others to receive the gift of forgiveness. While He knew that all sinned, He abstained from condemning sinners at that point because they did not yet have the understanding of the truth.

He also was careful about what was in his jurisdiction of judgment. When asked to divide an inheritance between two brothers, He refused because it was not His position to make such judgment. Luke 12:14 states: “But He said to him, ‘Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?’”

In this context, please note our statements in our free booklet, “Should You Fight in War?”, specifically addressing the biblical reasons and principles enjoining us not to serve on a jury:

“A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s Kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, as presently, it is not God who rules this earth, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are challenged to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world. Christ, knowing that God’s Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), refused to judge a civil matter when He was asked to do so (Luke 12:14). Paul, likewise, prohibited judging those ‘who are outside’ the church (1 Corinthians 5:12).

“Further, man’s judgments are concerned with the letter of the law. In contrast, God looks on one’s heart, and is concerned with the spirit and intent of the law. Man’s laws usually do not take into account repentance, forgiveness of sins, and other spiritual factors in the way that God does (Acts 2:38). Jesus, in looking at the heart of the accused, refused to condemn a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus taught that true Christians must be willing to forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15).

“Another principle against participation in jury duty is that true Christians are to learn to judge according to the law of God as seasoned by judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23:23). They are also to render ‘righteous’ judgment (John 7:24). Presenting selective evidence, where facts may be suppressed for technical legal reasons as permitted in the courts, may not necessarily lead to Godly justice, mercy and truth, and to the rendering of a righteous judgment.”

Even though the example and instruction of Jesus teaches us to be merciful and refrain from judgment in many kinds of situations, and never to condemn another human being, we also find examples in the Bible where Jesus judged others quite strongly. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, and made vehement statements about the hypocritical teachings, motives and conduct of the scribes and Pharisees. So, what is the difference between this judgment that Jesus provides by example, and that which He rejects?

A significant difference relates to the kind of judgment made. The judgment that Jesus Christ committed was inspired by God; it was the kind that was fair and righteous, being in harmony with the perfect judgment of God the Father (John 5:30, John 8:16). As mentioned, John 7:24 clarifies the difference between right and wrong judgment: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” This teaching is absolutely consistent with the previous claims about judgment, which is to be avoided. When relying on appearances or hearsay, we are led to make unfair condemnatory judgments, based on an imperfect understanding.

We must never condemn others, but we can make righteous judgments about situations and conduct, analyzing and evaluating whether a certain behavior is in harmony with God’s Way of Life. To give a most recent example, the horrendous mass murder in a theater in Colorado should be judged as evil and must be condemned. However, we must refrain from condemning the murderer—this is not our task, but God’s. As it has been stated so many times before: We are to condemn the sin and sinful conduct, but not the sinner.

However, when we do make judgments, they must be righteous. Applying the same concept, if we judge righteously, we too will be judged by that righteous measure; with mercy, if we are merciful, with empathy, if we are empathetic, and with fairness, if we are fair.

This is not to say that when armed with an understanding of true Godly righteousness, we have an unconditional license to judge others. A very important element of judging righteously involves self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:31), so that we too do not become hypocritical. As Jesus instructs us in Luke 6:41-42, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” This reminds us that even righteous judgment requires the correct source of motivation.

With an attitude of humility and an understanding of God’s righteous truth, we are also to help each other who are converted Christians today. 1 Peter 4:17 informs us that “the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Since it is true that God is evaluating the behavior of a converted Christian right now, we need all the help we can get in correcting our paths when we may go astray. Because of this, converted Christians have a special responsibility to each other to help each other out.

Paul, in writing words of guidance to Timothy, provided clear direction to “not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26). Therefore, judgment made for the purpose of helping others advance and grow in their conversion is important. However, it is also important that any such judgment be made with humility, seeking the glory of God rather than our own.

Even though it is appropriate for us to use righteous judgment for the purpose of helping each other to grow, it is not appropriate to make judgments of condemnation regarding others, including non-believers. As mentioned above, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 states, “For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges…” The time will eventually come when the entire world will be judged by Jesus Christ, but it is not the responsibility of Christians today to judge or condemn others, including those who are not yet converted, condemning their behavior. “For He is coming to judge the earth. With righteousness He shall judge the world, And the peoples with equity” (Psalm 98:9).

When to judge the behavior of others and when not to judge others can be a difficult matter to discern. However, understanding the nature of righteous judgment and how it is best applied will guide the converted Christian in that activity.

Lead Writers: Eric Rank and Norbert Link

A new SW program, titled, “No more Guns,” was recorded this week and will also to be broadcast on radio, beginning Sunday, August 5th, 2012. Here is a summary of this program: The mass murder in Colorado has shown again the incredible acts of senseless and demonic violence of which man is capable. Questions are asked as to whether gun control would have prevented a “mentally disturbed” man from carrying out his horrendous crimes; and whether the increase in violence, especially in movies and video games, could be blamed for those actions. Our fascination with guns will not create a better world. What is needed is a change of mind and heart. “It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh” (General Douglas MacArthur in 1951).

Norbert Link’s new video-taped sermon, “What Does God Say About Circumcision?” has been posted on YouTube and our website, www.eternalgod.org.

Norbert Link’s video-recorded split sermon, “The Colorado Massacre,” has been posted on YouTube and on our website, www.eternalgod.org.

A new German sermon on the series on hell, titled “Gibt es eine Hoelle, Teil 2”, has been posted on the Web. 

Our new German booklet about tithing, titled, “Die Zahlung des Zehnten—Heute?,” has been posted on the German website, www.aufpostenstehen.de  (This is a translation of our English language version, “Tithing – Today?”).

The text for our newest English booklet, titled, “Middle Eastern and African Nations in Bible Prophecy,” has been sent to our Graphic Designer, Shelly Bruno, for finalization of the booklet.

The cut-off date for submissions of articles to our Feast newspaper is to be July 31, which will give Karen Myers a month to finalize the project, submit to the printers and have the newspapers ready for the Feast. Currently we have 30 submissions, and if we could receive another 10, it would make for a first class production. As this will probably be a one-off, it would be good if as many as possible could contribute. After all, this could well turn out to be a collector’s item, with high-quality paper and full-color pictures. Please submit your article(s) to Brian Gale.

A reminder for those wishing to attend the Feast of Tabernacles with us for 2012–please review details posted on our website under the “FEASTS” heading. Our locations for this year are Pismo Beach, California, and Deganwy, North Wales