On February 17, 2007, Brian Gale will give the sermon, titled, “A Question of Balance.”

Norbert Link will use the sermonette and announcements time to report on the annual conference and the memorial service for Mr. Pope.

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Personally, I believe that we are experiencing global warming. I also feel that it is man-made, at least to a large extent. Certain prophecies seem to confirm to me some of the very same consequences, which are described by proponents of global warming. For instance, Luke 21:25 speaks of a time, just prior to Christ’s return,  when there will be “on earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring…” It appears to me that man-made global warming may just be another aspect of God’s prophetic warning in Revelation 11:18, reporting about God’s intervention in human affairs to “destroy those who destroy the earth.”

Not everyone agrees with the concept of man-made global warming. I have friends who believe otherwise. And they may be right. This does not diminish or destroy our friendship. At worst, we agree to disagree. After all, not all scientists are in universal agreement that we are experiencing man-made global warming. It is shocking, however, how political this “hot debate” has become in the media and amongst scientists and governments.

Reports have been filed about alleged past political pressure from the Bush Administration on scientists believing that global warming is man-made, as well as recent political pressure from the state of Oregon on the state’s Climatologist who believes that man does not cause global warming.

Germany’s “Die Welt,” wrote that those scientists who disagree with the concept of man-made global warming are labeled or “libeled” as “deniers”–a highly explosive term, especially in Germany, where Holocaust deniers are committing a crime. And so, in a recent article in the Boston Globe, it was stated that “we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

On the worldwide political scene, European nations are seriously considering to police and punish certain countries–most and foremost the USA–which have not signed the Kyoto climate protocol; perhaps by enforcing a “carbon tax.”

The global warming confrontation amongst governments, politicians and scientists will continue, and more and more pressure will be placed on those who dare to have a “different” viewpoint, which might be “politically incorrect.” But political correctness does not define right and wrong.

Christians who are concentrating on following the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, must be careful how they conduct themselves in the light of this “hot debate.” They must not be in any way emotionally influenced by political tactics stemming from the wisdom of this world–whether the respective positions are “pro” or “con” man-made global warming. If someone differs from you on this matter, so be it. God has called us to peace (1 Corinthians 7:15)–not to useless hot debates about inconsequential matters, which you and I cannot change, anyway, on a global scale.

Germany’s “Die Zeit” wrote that, due to inconsistent scientific “findings” of the past, “no one is sure anymore what to believe, when it comes to climate change.” This may be so. And God will show us in His due time, what He knew all along. In the meantime, let His true followers keep themselves unspotted from the world (James 1:27), while concentrating on being about their Father’s business (compare Luke 2:49; Matthew 28:19-20).

Middle East In Worst Condition Ever

On February 9, Der Spiegel Online published an interview with Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, discussing the escalating developments between the USA and Iran, and the volatile situation in the Middle East. ElBaradei stated the following:

“… I personally believe that in a situation like the one you have in the Middle East today, where it’s like a ball of fire, you have to be very cautious. We cannot afford to add oil to that fire. The more we have confrontation, the more the Middle East will become militant and angry… We should not ride a train wreck. The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen… It’s regrettable that Iran restricted the number of inspectors and we wrote to them and asked them to reconsider. It restricts our flexibility. I hope the Iranians will understand that the more transparency there, the better it will be for them.

“But I can also say that there are over 100 designated inspectors accepted by the Iranians. So we have enough people to do the job. We were just in Natanz and will soon go again… The Iranians themselves said that they want to install 3,000 centrifuges and are now moving forward in installing them… How long it will take to install and operate them will be part of my report to the IAEA Board of Governors on Feb. 21. So the window of opportunity for a time-out is very narrow. If my report is negative in the absence of any movement on the part of Iran then the Security Council will work for more sanctions. That would mean a further escalation that will become more and more difficult to scale back.”

On February 9, Der Stern Online published an interview with retired U.S. four-star general Wesley Clark. In the interview, Clark said, “I fear it will come to a military confrontation with Iran. This would lead to catastrophic results, for the region and for us.”

Accused Putin Becomes Accuser

In what must be seen as a “further worsening” of the relationship between Washington and Moscow, Russia’s highly controversial leader, Vladimir Putin, launched an unparalleled attack against the United States in a speech at a security conference in Germany. Putin has come under increased scrutiny for his perceived authoritarian conduct of brutally suppressing any resistance to his policies which are apparently aimed at the re-establishment of Russian dictatorship.

AFP filed this report on February 9:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched a full-frontal attack on the United States, saying it had broken from international law and made the world a more dangerous place. Putin’s denunciation of US policy, made at a high-level security conference in Munich, prompted dismay among senior officials and politicians from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation…

“The United States had disastrously ‘overstepped’ its borders… ‘in all spheres — economic, political and humanitarian and has imposed itself on other states,’ Putin said… What he called a ‘uni-polar’ world dominated by the United States, ‘means in practice one thing: one centre of power, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making, a world of one master, one sovereign,’… Such a situation ‘is extremely dangerous. No one feels secure because no one can hide behind international law,’ Putin said. He added that US dominance was ‘ruinous, not only for those inside the system but for the sovereign himself because it destroys him from within. It has nothing in common with democracy.’

“In a direct reference to US military policy, Putin said ‘local and regional wars didn’t get fewer. The number of people who died didn’t get less, but increased…. We see no kind of restraint, a hyper-inflated use of force.’ The United States, he said, had gone ‘from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them.’

“Putin also rejected US criticism that under his watch, Russia has back-tracked on democracy… The speech marked a further worsening of relations between Moscow and Washington under Putin… The head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, said the world was seeing an ‘increasingly uni-polar government in Russia, where competing centres of influence are being forced to toe the party line.'”

The Associated Press pointed out that “The Russian leader also voiced concern about U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe — likely in Poland and the Czech Republic — and the expansion of NATO as possible challenges to Russia.”

The EUObserver added on February 12:

“Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s tough speech in Germany this weekend is a wake-up call to the harsh realities in EU-Russia relations, early reactions from European politicians say… Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt told Reuters: ‘we should take [Putin] at his word. This was the real Russia of now and possibly in four or five years time it could go further in this direction.’… Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg thanked the Russian leader ironically, saying that he had vindicated NATO’s decision to take in members from the former Soviet east over the past decade. Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves also urged the EU to think twice about future relations with ‘a country that considers democracy on its borders as a threat, or despotism inside its borders as a source of stability.'”

On February 12, Der Spiegel Online reported about German reactions to Putin’s provocative speech:

“The business daily Handelsblatt argues: ‘It’s dangerous and frustrating that the two nuclear superpowers have lapsed into a calculated simulation of the Cold War.’… The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘… Russia is demanding a front-row seat once again and with its nuclear weapons, its size and its wealth in oil and gas, there are powerful arguments in its favor. The US with its disastrous Iraq adventure provides another argument. Because (the war) has damaged Western credibility, it has provided Putin with the opportunity to give a powerful voice to the growing number of countries and people who doubt the wisdom of the West’s policies. The Russian President has laid his cards on the table. Europe and America now know Russia’s position… There is a lot to be said for not only listening to Russia’s voice but for taking it seriously.'”

The Bible confirms that we ought to listen to “Russia’s voice” and take it “seriously”–but for reasons which are unknown and unrecognized by most people. To learn more about Russia’s future role, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

Putin’s Mideast Tour

The Associated Press reported on February 12:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to find quick success on a historic Mideast tour that saw the leader of energy-rich Russia forging oil diplomacy in Saudi Arabia and backing a natural gas cartel Monday with neighboring Qatar. Putin’s Middle East tour comes as Washington’s stature in the Gulf is slipping and Arab monarchies are busy boosting ties outside the region, particularly in Asia. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have welcomed Putin despite being traditional U.S. allies…

“European Union leaders have said they would stand against any effort by Russia to create a gas cartel, fearing energy prices — and Russia’s political clout — could rise dramatically as a result. Europe gets 44 percent of its natural gas imports from Russia… ‘Russia and Saudi Arabia are the world’s leading energy producers and exporters and here it is easy for us to find common ground,’ Putin said in remarks in Saudi Arabia broadcast on Russian state television. Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia, represents a potential ally with considerable political strength as a member of the U.N. Security Council and the so-called Quartet of Middle East peace mediators…

“Earlier Monday, Putin met with about 200 Saudi and Russian businessmen eager to expand ties. Saudi Arabian firms have been seeking deals in countries other than the United States because of the difficulty in getting visas following the Sept. 11 attacks. The hijackings were carried out by 19 Arabs, including 15 Saudis.”

AFP added on February 13:

“Putin paid tribute to ‘the good relations between Russia and Jordan’ and said he noted ‘an increased interest in Russia on the part of our Arab partners’ during his tour. The visits have opened the way for ‘big possibilities for Russia,’ he said. ‘For Russia the Middle East is strategically important.”

A Friendlier US Defense Secretary

AFP reported on February 13:

“US Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew home from a mission to gain support for a military counter-offensive in Afghanistan that produced little concrete but set a friendlier tone with US allies… He won no public promises of new troops and equipment from European allies, or a sea change in Pakistani policies that have allowed the Taliban to take root in its tribal areas near the Afghan border…

“[He] candidly made amends at each stop for past US errors. He told reporters in Islamabad his last visit to Pakistan was in connection with a decade-long struggle against Soviet occupation by Afghan mujaheddin fighters, which the United States backed along with Pakistan… ‘After the Soviets left, the United States made a mistake,’ he said. ‘We neglected Afghanistan and extremism took control of that country. The United States paid a price for that on September 11, 2001. We are here for the long haul.’

“In Germany, he acknowledged that Guantanamo and the prisoner abuse scandals in Iraq had damaged America’s reputation, and explicitly repudiated Donald Rumsfeld’s division of Europe into ‘new’ and ‘old’ depending on whether a country supported the US invasion of Iraq. ‘All of these characterizations belong to the past,’ he said… When Putin stunned an audience of defense and foreign policy heavyweights in Munich with a stinging attack on US global leadership, Gates used a disarmingly light touch to defuse it.”

In fact, Gates compared himself with Putin, pointing out that both had been trained as spies and were therefore known to be blunt. However, Gates added with a smile that he–contrary to Putin–had gone through a process of re-education.

Deal With North Korea Breakthrough or Disaster?

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 14:

“Negotiators in Peking as well as Washington hailed it as a breakthrough: North Korea will phase out its nuclear program. But to many critics — including George W. Bush’s own political allies — the deal looks like a concession. A day after the initial optimism surrounding the agreement with North Korea… many analysts, including a number of US conservative allies of US President George W. Bush, are waking up with second thoughts.

“The deal, struck on Tuesday as part of the six-party talks in Beijing [between North Korea, the US, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan], calls for massive oil and energy deliveries to North Korea in exchange for the mothballing of the country’s nuclear facilities. In addition to humanitarian and economic assistance, the aid amounts to some $400 million, according to reports in the US media.

“The dream of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, however, is still a long way off. Pyongyang will hold on to the nuclear arsenal it has already built — which is why some criticize the deal as a concession to North Korea, for very little in return.

“Former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, was one of the critics. ‘It’s a bad, disappointing deal and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart,’ Bolton said. ‘The only reason they were back at the negotiating table was because of the pressure we put on them through financial sanctions. Now we’re about to release that pressure.’ Bush advisor Mike Green also expressed doubt about the deal. ‘We won’t really know if the North Koreans have changed their basic stance and are really serious about giving up their nuclear program,’ he said, until it’s clear what they plan to do with their plutonium stockpile.

“In the agreement’s first phase, Pyongyang will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil when it shuts down its nuclear power station in Yongbyon — which is set to happen in the next two months — under the supervision of international inspectors. A further 950,000 tons will follow once the station, about 62 miles from the capital Pyongyang, is disassembled… the international community seems to be grudgingly accepting North Korea into the nuclear weapons club following the country’s Oct. 9, 2006 test…”

AFP reported on February 14:

“US President George W. Bush rejected criticism of a breakthrough nuclear deal with North Korea… Speaking at a White House press conference, the US leader said the agreement aimed at halting North Korea’s nuclear weapons was a ‘good first step’ but added ‘there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement become a reality.’ Bush defended the deal against critics, including from his key conservative base, who said that offering aid and other guarantees to North Korea in return for disbanding its nuclear network was rewarding ‘bad behavior’ and a sign of US weakness…

“Among the agreement’s vocal critics was Washington’s former UN envoy, John Bolton, who called it ‘a very bad deal’ that shows US weakness at a time when Washington was challenging Iran over its controversial nuclear program. It also ‘undercuts’ UN sanctions resolutions against North Korea, Bolton said. But Bush rejected his criticism, saying ‘I strongly disagree, strongly disagree with his assessment.'”

Bad News for Great Britain

AFP reported on February 14:

“Britain’s youngsters had the worst relationships with their family and peers, suffered more from poverty and indulged in more ‘binge drinking’ and hazardous sex than children in other wealthy nations, said [a UNICEF] report. The United States placed 20 and Britain 21 on the list. Britain came in last for two of the main six areas studied by UNICEF: relationships, especially with their peers; and risky behaviour such as sex, drink and drugs… More broadly, Britain joined the United States and Sweden in having the highest proportion of children living in single-parent families, while Italy, Greece and Spain had the lowest… Almost a third of British youngsters aged 11, 13 and 15 reported being drunk on two or more occasions…”

Our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America,” explains WHY we are confronted with such terrible developments in the British and American societies. In addition, you might also want to read our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families,” explaining that our children don’t HAVE to grow up like those as described in the UNICEF report.

This passage of Scripture has indeed puzzled many people. Proverbs 26:4 reads: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.” Verse 5 adds: “Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

When trying to understand these two verses, we need to realize that the Bible does not contradict itself. God’s entire Word is truth, as Christ said in John 17:17: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” This is a strong statement of Jesus’ confidence in the truth of the entirety of Scripture. Christ also said in John 10:35: “the Scripture cannot be broken…” There are no contradictions in God’s Word–no passage of Scripture “breaks” or contradicts another passage. Jesus’ response made the truth of His argument rest on the absolute trustworthiness of all Scripture.

Rather than being contradictory, the two statements in Proverbs 26:4, 5, complement each other. The last part of each statement shows the sets of circumstances or scenarios under which each of the two statements is to be applied. In every case, before deciding whether or not to answer, we need to consider the questioner’s motives–where the questioner is coming from–the content of his question, and his attitude!

Proverbs 26:4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, lest we be like him. In this situation, the fool is not there seeking to learn anything. He is just argumentative, wanting to quarrel and debate. To answer the fool’s specific allegation or even accusation would end up in a meaningless discussion. In such a case, both parties would end up being foolish or behaving foolishly. Luke 20:1-8 gives us one example. When Christ was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the Pharisees confronted Christ and asked Him: “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” (compare verse 2). Christ understood the wrong motives and intentions of the Pharisees. He did not answer their question. Rather, He asked them a question that He knew was impossible for them to answer without condemning themselves (compare verses 3 and 4). As Christ expected, the Pharisees refused to answer the question. As a consequence, Christ stated that He would not answer their question either, and the discussion ended (compare verses 7 and 8).

On the other hand, Proverbs 26:5 tells us that there are selective times when we are to answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

This approach is well illustrated by Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, in his second letter to the Corinthian Church. Certain men at Corinth falsely pretended to be apostles of Christ. In order to protect the Church and not to give the impression of approving their claim through silence, Paul had to speak up. Therefore, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:23: “Are they ministers of Christ?–I speak as a fool–I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often.” Paul answered these false apostles’ claims, by showing, in a “foolish way,” who was really an apostle of Jesus Christ, so that they would not appear wise to themselves and to others in the Church, thereby causing great damage.

Another example can be found in Job 2:9, 10: “Then [Job’s] wife said to him, ‘Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!’ But he said to her, ‘You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” In this case the expressed folly is answered with reproof, as well as with a brief statement of the true facts and circumstances, exposing it in the manner deserved.

In conclusion, the two passages in Proverbs 26:4,5, do not contradict each other, but taken together, they explain different methods of handling the questions and statements of foolish people. In verse 4, we are told not to answer a fool, “…Lest you also be like him.” We are admonished to avoid a pointless argument, wasting fruitless time and energy on foolishness, and to avoid responding approvingly by like folly. However, in verse 5, we are told to answer a fool, “… Lest he be wise in his own eyes.” There is a time when we cannot give tacit approval by silence. There is a selective time to stand up, and not close our eyes to damage. We need godly wisdom to know just when and how to apply these principles, and this wisdom comes from God. James 1:5 tells us: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

Lead Writer: Bill Grams

We would like to thank everyone for their prayers for a successful conference in San Diego, as well as a meaningful memorial service for Edwin Pope. We are preparing a member letter which will report more fully about important decisions made during the conference, enabling us to further our two-fold commission to preach the gospel and to feed the flock. The member letter will be sent out next week, together with a hard copy of our new booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days.”

On February 10, 2007, Rene Messier from Canada and Brian Gale from Great Britain will give split sermons in San Diego.

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Public opinion is something that matters very much to the political parties–so much so that they are very good at finding out what the people want and then feeding that desire. One encyclopedia defines public opinion as the aggregate–the sum total–of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population. Gone seem to be convicted politicians who stand for what they believe.

Influence is one of the outcomes of being in power. There has been so much manipulation in so many areas over a sustained period of time that those things that our fathers and forefathers thought were wrong are now accepted practice. For example, in Great Britain and many other parts in the world, the homosexual lobby has made such inroads on public opinion that the law is now on their side, and one can be prosecuted for quoting what God has to say on the matter. Abortion was abhorrent not all that long ago, but now is accepted practice. Foul and abusive language is commonplace in television programs, and now very few even bat an eyelid. The list continues. Public opinion has been so manipulated that standards of yesteryear are now thought of as old fashioned and that society has “moved on.”

Has this rubbed off on the people of God? I would think that the answer must be yes to one degree or another. We don’t live in a vacuum–and we have to live in this wayward society of ours. Someone once said that fashions may change but standards do not. Godly standards do NOT change although there are those who try to explain them away. God is very specific on this matter. Malachi 3:6 says: “For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” Hebrews 13:8 explains: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” James 1:17 adds that “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”

The great God of the universe is constant in everything. He doesn’t change with public opinion as people try and bend Him into the shape that they want–and with which they are comfortable. Whichever direction public opinion takes should make absolutely no difference to our approach to the important issues of life. The knowledge of God and His ways are simply not known or understood, except by the very few. In the Kingdom of God, public opinion will not be influenced by that master of the black arts–Satan the devil–who is today the real source of forming and shaping the values of our society.

Once Jesus Christ has established God’s government here on earth, mankind will have to be taught God’s way, and a lifetime of absorbing Satan’s influences will have to be swept away out of the minds of billions of people. Public opinion then will be Godly and not manipulated in the wrong direction as it is today. Public opinion is of no use to us at all–it is the opinion and the way of God that matters. What we have to do is seek the will of God–not the will and opinion of society. Matthew 6:33 sums it up perfectly: “But seek first the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness, and all these [physical] things shall be added to you.”

Reactions to Global Warming Report

Reuters wrote on February 2:

“The world’s top climate scientists said on Friday global warming was man-made… The scientists said it was ‘very likely’ — or more than 90 percent probable — that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years… The Kyoto Protocol is the main plan for capping emissions of greenhouse gases until 2012 but it has been severely weakened since the United States, the top source of greenhouse gases, pulled out in 2001. Emissions by many backers of Kyoto are far over target… A 21-page summary of IPCC findings for policy makers… says it is ‘more likely than not’ that greenhouse gases have made tropical cyclones more intense.”

The Associated Press added on February 2:

“Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will ‘continue for centuries’ no matter how much humans control their pollution… The 21-page report represents the most authoritative science on global warming as the panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives. It only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it… The scientists said global warming was ‘very likely’ caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame. It also said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.”

On February 2, BBC News quoted Sharon Hays, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, as saying: “This report is a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of climate change science.”

The Washington Post wrote on February 2 that “In 1965, the concern that greenhouse gases would lead to global warming was a prediction. Today, it is an established scientific fact.”

AFP added on February 2:

“In its first assessment in six years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) dealt a crippling blow Friday to the shrinking body of opinion that claims higher temperatures in past decades have been driven by natural, not man-made, causes… British Environment Minister David Miliband said the report ‘is another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers’… The exhaustive IPCC study, culled from work by 2,500 scientists in more than 100 countries, sounded alarms about the impact of carbon pollution, mostly from the burning of oil, gas and coal. These fossil fuels release CO2, which traps heat from the sun instead of letting it radiate safely into space.”

Der Spiegel Online wrote on February 2:

“A new United Nations report on climate change makes for sobering reading. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, humans are almost certainly responsible for global warming. And the consequences could be worst than previously thought. For years, global warming was dismissed as an apocalyptic vision dreamt up by cranks and hippies. But recently consensus has been growing that the climate is indeed changing and humans are directly responsible. Now the United Nations has concluded that humans are almost certainly responsible for global warming and issued its strongest-ever warning about the consequences.

“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its keenly awaited report on climate change Friday in Paris. It contains the UN’s strongest conclusion yet that human activities are leading to global warming, and warns of more droughts, stronger storms and rising sea levels by 2100… According to the report, human-made emissions of greenhouse gases can be blamed for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength.”

The Los Angeles Times wrote on February 2:

“In the strongest language it has ever used, a United Nations panel says global warming is ‘very likely’ caused by human activities and has become a runaway train that cannot be stopped… The phrase ‘very likely’ indicates a 90% certainty. The last IPCC report, issued five years ago, said it was ‘likely’ that human activity was at fault, indicating a certainty of 66%. Many scientists had argued during the editing process that the report should say it is ‘virtually certain’ that human activities are causing global warming. That would indicate a 99% certainty. But the change was strongly resisted by China, among other nations, because of its reliance on fossil fuels to help build its economy…In addition, the report says, for the first time, that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the strong hurricanes and cyclones observed since 1970 have been produced by global warming.”

Bild Online wrote in sensational words, “Climate Horrors–Man is to be blamed when our earth dies.” The article quoted some of the German co-authors of the “shocking” study, as well as other weather experts, as saying that cities like London or Sydney were in danger of overflooding. According to the article, commencing in 2020, Dublin and Ireland will experience drought; the Sahara might stretch as far as Berlin, and man will become more and more violent…

No Universal Agreement on Global Warming

Not everyone agrees with the finding of the IPCC report–nor, that there is unanimous consensus of all reputable scientists on the issues of man-made global warming or climate change. To reach this conclusion, one does not have to go so far as to focus on controversial “commentator” Rush Limbaugh, who postulates on his shows that the extent to which fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the rise in global atmospheric air temperatures since about the mid-1800s is still debatable, and that the Antarctica ice is actually increasing.

Other voices, which are normally more accepted within the scientific community, can be heard as well. The highly-respected conservative German newspaper, Die Welt, wrote on February 3 that those scientists who disagree with the findings of the UN report are rejected as “deniers”–a highly explosive term, especially in Germany, where Holocaust deniers are committing a crime. Die Welt also stressed that there are scientific critics, including respected meteorologists, who have gathered and analyzed data and who have reached different and less dramatic results pertaining to the weather and the climate. The paper stressed, too, that in the negotiations in Paris, which resulted in the UN report, politicians, and not scientists, had the final say.

Another highly respected newspaper, the German left-liberal publication, “Die Zeit,” likewise criticized the fact that politicians, and not scientists, seemed to have run the show in Paris. This began–according to Die Zeit–when counties selected “their” representative scientists for Paris–a procedure which hardly guarantees independence. And the report itself had to be agreed to by the representatives of the individual governments–and these representatives had received directives from their governments what to agree to and what not. In an interview with sociologist Peter Weingart, Die Zeit raised tough questions, including the fear that the report could not be objective, as it had become part of the political mainstream to predict global warming. The additional fear was voiced that a scientist who would not agree to such a postulate would be cut off from receiving further funds for scientific research. The paper also stated that, due to inconsistent scientific “findings” of the past, “no one is sure anymore what to believe, when it comes to climate change.”

Political Pressure on “Dissenters”

In our last Update, we reported about alleged political pressure from the Bush Administration on scientists believing that global warming is man-made.  But it goes both ways. Set forth below is an article reporting about political pressure from the state of Oregon on the state’s Climatologist who believes that man does not cause global warming.
 
kgw.com reported on February 7:
 
“In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change… Taylor has held the title of ‘state climatologist’ since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU. The university created the job title, not the state. His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint…

“In an interview [Taylor] told KGW, ‘There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don’t believe that’s true.’ He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen. A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter. Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it’s important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor.”

European Pressure on the USA

The New York Times reported on February 1 that continuous critic of the USA, French President Jacques Chirac, “has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012… he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.”

Chirac expresses, to a large extent, the European opinion which blames the U.S. in this matter. They openly deride America for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. This is another arena in which the United States is viewed as a rogue nation that is disinterested in what others think. The impact of this latest go-round is only serving to further isolate the U.S.A.

This can also be seen, when considering the following excerpts from an article in The Associated Press of February 3:

“Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France’s appeal for a new environmental body that could single out — and perhaps police — nations that abuse the Earth… Without naming the United States directly, Chirac expressed frustration that ‘some large countries, large rich countries, still must be convinced.’ They are ‘refusing to accept the consequences of their acts,’ he said.”

Angela Merkel–Peacemaker or Economist?

Deutsche Welle reported on February 6:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel met Emirati President Khalifa Monday as part of her efforts to revive the Middle East peace process… Merkel said Germany, as the current European Union president, would throw its weight behind the reconciliation talks in Mecca on Tuesday between Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas political supremo Khaled Meshaal… adding the EU would stay in close contact with Saudi Arabia, which is hosting the meeting… Merkel later told the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies in a speech on EU foreign policy that reaching a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ‘absolutely central to bringing stability to the region.’… She said that working towards a two-state solution is the best way forward…

“Merkel also criticized Iran and Syria for their role in the Middle East… ‘There are forces, in the region and elsewhere, that do not want success in these efforts,’ Merkel said in the United Arab Emirates’ capital. ‘On this account we have concerns, especially with respect to Iran… Syria has not used its opportunity to play a constructive role…’

“Elsewhere, the meeting with Sheikh Khalifa focused on… economic ties between Berlin and Abu Dhabi… Sheikh Khalifa also called for a boost to economic ties between the UAE and Germany, whose two-way trade increased 25 percent last year to seven billion dollars… In Riyadh, she met King Abdullah as well as the crown prince and foreign minister of the oil-rich monarchy, and Abderrahman al-Attiya, secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.”

“Limited” Mandate to Help NATO troops in Afghanistan?

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 7:

“The German cabinet decided on Wednesday to send six Tornado reconnaissance jets to Afghanistan to help locate Taliban bases in response to a request from NATO. The German pilots will be accompanied by around 500 support staff. The mission has to be approved by parliament in March and the Tornados could be deployed in April for a six-month tour…. Germany has around 2,900 troops serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan…. The mission will cost around €35 million. With more than 4,000 people killed in violence, last year was the bloodiest in Afghanistan since US-led forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001. Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said the Tornados… could help prevent civilian casualties and that the mission was necessary given that the Taliban had announced it would launch 2,000 suicide attacks.

“Meanwhile an opinion poll showed a big majority of Germans are opposed to sending Tornado jets to the south of Afghanistan. Only 21 percent were in favor, with 77 percent opposed… Former German air force general Hermann Hagena said the Tornados might end up getting involved in combat. If troops on the ground were in danger a pilot should be prepared to open fire, Hagena told NDR Info radio.”

While Bild Online asked the question, “Has Germany entered the war,” Der Spiegel Online voiced the opinion that “Germany has already been at war for a while,” and that the German government should be honest enough to admit this fact.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on February 8:

“In approving the deployment of Tornado jets to Afghanistan, but only for reconnaissance purposes, the German cabinet has revealed the full extent of Germany’s schizophrenic Afghanistan policy. This double game has to stop. The chancellor should finally say it like it is: Germany is at war. The German government approved the deployment of Tornado jets to Afghanistan on Wednesday. ‘Are we now at war?’ the tabloid Bild wrote, clearly hedging its bets. German Chancellor Angela Merkel should be honest enough to answer this question with a clear ‘Yes.’ While she’s at it, she should add that this has been the case for the last five years.”

Pagan Christians or Christian Pagans?

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 7:

“The old natural religions continue to thrive in Africa. While Christianity and Islam vie for supremacy in many countries, they have failed to banish the rain gods and spirits south of the Sahara. Frequently the pagan rites have fused with a faith in Jesus Christ… The clash of civilizations and religions… can be witnessed firsthand here in Africa…  Islamic Fundamentalism is advancing from the west, penetrating all the way to the continent’s eastern reaches. In some regions it collides head-on with an equally aggressive brand of Christianity. The clashes are becoming increasingly bitter because the desert is expanding, bringing more poverty in its wake… Yet, as hard as the two great monotheistic faiths have struggled for supremacy, they have failed to wrest power from [pagan] priests… With its nature deities, the old African mythology is often the only stabilizing force in a world full of suffering, displacement and death, where everything is in constant flux but rarely changes for the better, where – in many respects – time has stood still. This is a world populated by nymphs and sirens, by elfin spirits, sun and moon gods, and by animal deities such as cows, stags, lambs and calves.

“At the end of the 19th century, the British ethnologist Edward Burnett Tylor coined the term animism (the Latin word anima means soul or breath) to describe this pantheon [explaining that] plants, animals and objects also have souls in the minds of these ‘primitive peoples.’… Despite the best efforts of Christian and Islamic missionaries, some 40 percent of the people in Burkina Faso, western Africa, are still considered animist. In East African Ethiopia, a largely Christian domain, the figure is still thought to be 10 percent. Yet these numbers remain pure conjecture. In truth, religious distinctions have long blurred, indeed evaporated, in Africa. Someone who attends church in the morning and the mosque at midday might easily invite a voodoo priest over in the evening to read the kola nuts. Practically everywhere the cult of the dead intermingles with Christianity…

“In Kenya, for example, the modernminded Kikuyu, flashing cell phones and Ray-Bans, happily journey to Mount Kenya and pray to Ngai, the supreme God of the animists – despite often being members of one of the numerous Christian sects, such as the Pentecostals or the gospel churches. In this way… Christianity and the pagan belief in nature deities and demons mutually impact one another. The existence of a god of creation in nearly all pre-Christian African religions encourages this process. This cross-fertilization is not as strange as it may sound, even to Christians in the West. Something quite similar occurred there centuries ago, ‘when pagan Germanic customs mingled with Christian rites,’ says [religious scholar Fritz] Stenger [from the Catholic University of East Africa in Nairobi]. ‘Even Christmas – that most traditional of Christian celebrations – has ancient Germanic roots.”

New U.S. Military Command HQ in Africa–and Germany Will Help…

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 7:

“With the end of the Cold War, Germany lost much of its strategic importance for the United States military, a development reflected in the ongoing drawdown of US forces from bases here. But Germany hasn’t lost all of its significance — it is still home to the US forces’ European headquarters and soon it will also serve as temporary host to the US military command for Africa, Africom…

“The move reflects increased US interest in the continent as a result of fears that Islamist militants could find havens in countries with weak governments such as Somalia. US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were targeted in simultaneous al-Qaida attacks in 1998, killing over 250 people, and US forces recently targeted al-Qaida militants in Somalia with air strikes. Washington is also keen to foster stability on the continent with an eye to AFRICA’S OIL RESERVES which could provide an alternative to Middle Eastern oil. The new unit will initially be based in the western German city of Stuttgart, also HOME to the military’s EUROPEAN COMMAND, and it is expected to be in full operation by September 2008.”

“The West Must Pay Closer Attention” to Russia!

On February 2, Der Spiegel Online published an interesting interview with Russian author Vladimir Sorokin. In the interview, Sorokin stated:

“…what would happen to Russia if it isolated itself completely from the Western world — that is, if it erected a new Iron Curtain. There is much talk about Russia being a fortress. Orthodox churches, autocracy and national traditions are supposed to form a new national ideology… Putin likes to quote a sentence from Czar Alexander III, who said that Russia has only two allies — the army and the navy. As a citizen, this makes me sit up and take notice. This is a concept of self-imposed isolation, a defense strategy that sees Russia surrounded by enemies.

“When I turn on the TV I see a general calmly claiming that our missiles are ahead of the latest American models by three five-year plans. It’s a nightmare. We are creating a concept of the enemy, just as they did in the Soviet era. This is a giant step backward… . My television teaches me that everything was wonderful in the Soviet Union. According to the programs I watch, the KGB and apparatchiks were angels, and the Stalin era was so festive that the heroes of the day must still be celebrated today…”

The article continued to quote Sorokin, as follows:

“The West should be even more vocal in insisting that the Russians respect human rights. All compromise aside, I ask myself whether Russia is moving in the direction of democracy. I don’t believe it is! Bit by bit, Russia is slipping back into an authoritarian empire. The worst thing that can happen to us is indifference in the West — that is, if it were interested in nothing but oil and gas. I am always surprised when I watch the weather report on German television. First they show the map of Europe and then the camera moves to the right. Then comes Kiev, then Moscow and then everything stops. This seems to be the West’s view of us — of a wild Russia that begins past Moscow, a place one prefers not to see. This is a big mistake. The West must pay closer attention.”

Bird Flu Isolates Britain

The Associated Press reported on February 5 about an outbreak of the bird flu virus H5N1, which is also dangerous for humans:

“Poultry farmers around Europe were on guard Monday against the possible spread of bird flu across the North Sea from infected Britain, fearing the disease could be carried by wild birds.The Netherlands and Norway ordered restrictions on commercial poultry over the weekend after the outbreak last week of the H5N1 strain of the virus, which hit poultry stocks in Asia in 2003. About 2,500 turkeys died of the H5N1 strain on the farm, owned by… Europe’s largest turkey producer… and all of the facility’s 159,000 turkeys were ordered slaughtered. It was the first time H5N1 had been found on a British farm.

“Authorities in both parts of Ireland banned bird shipments from Britain and revoked poultry-import licenses Monday… the ban in Japan, which imported more than 160,000 fowl from Britain in 2006, was effective as of Saturday. Russia will stop imports from Tuesday, including eggs and poultry feed…”

Army Officer Might Have to Go to Jail

The following serves as a good example to illustrate that once you are in the army, you have to follow orders unconditionally–even if they violate your personal conscience and convictions. Therefore, for this reason alone, young men and women should carefully consider the consequences, before joining the military.

The Associated Press reported on February 4:

“Denied a chance to debate the legality of the Iraq war in court, an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq now goes to trial hoping to at least minimize the amount of time he could serve if convicted… Ehren Watada… has spoken out against U.S. military involvement in Iraq, calling it morally wrong and a breach of American law. ‘As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order,’ Watada said in a video statement [in the past]… ‘Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime,’ Watada said then…

“Seitz [Watada’s attorney] unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated Army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter. His final attempt was quashed last month when the military judge… ruled Watada cannot base his defense on the war’s legality. [The judge] also rejected claims that Watada’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.”

The Ten Commandments are listed in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. There is universal acceptance that the number of the commandments which God gave to us, is ten. In fact, the Bible calls this set of commandments from God, “…the Ten Commandments” (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4).

There is, however, disagreement as to HOW to number the Ten Commandments. Many professing Christians count the Ten Commandments differently today than the Jews do–and the early New Testament Church did.

For instance, the Jews count Exodus 20:2-3 as the First Commandment, which reads, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

The Jews count Exodus 20:4-6 as the Second Commandment, which reads:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve [margin: worship] them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

Many professing Christians count the entire passage of Exodus 20:2-6, as quoted above, as just ONE commandment, believing that all these verses describe just the First Commandment. However, the early Church understood Exodus 20:2-6 as describing TWO commandments, not just one.

It was Augustine, a Catholic bishop of Hippo in North Africa, who, in the fourth century, combined the First and the Second Commandment as just ONE commandment, so as to allow the worship of images. In order to reach the number ten, he divided the last or the TENTH Commandment into two.

However, the Jews and the early Church correctly understood that the entirety of the TENTH Commandment reads: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, not his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17).

This is clearly just ONE commandment. Augustine, by dropping the Second Commandment and still wanting to reach the number “ten,” divided the Tenth Commandment into two, claiming that the first part of verse 17 (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house”) constitutes the Ninth Commandment, and that the second part of verse 17 (“…you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s”) constitutes the Tenth Commandment.

Anyone should be able to see that this distinction is highly arbitrary. Why would God give one commandment against coveting our neighbor’s house–and another commandment against coveting our neighbor’s wife, his servants, his animals and ANYTHING that belongs to him?

For further proof that Augustine’s renumbering of the Ten Commandments must be rejected, please note that Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, made no distinction between coveting our neighbor’s house or his wife. There is only ONE commandment against coveting, as Paul clearly explains.

He said in Romans 13:9: “For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'”

He also wrote in Romans 7:7: “… for I would not have known covetousness [i.e., that it is wrong and a sin] unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.'” Again, no distinction is made between coveting our neighbor’s house and coveting our neighbor’s wife, servants or animals.

As mentioned, the reason why Augustine renumbered the Ten Commandments (by counting the First and the Second Commandment as just one commandment) was a strictly “political” one. It was done for the purpose of allowing the worship of images and statues as part of the worship of God. But THAT is EXACTLY what the Second Commandment prohibits. While the First Commandment prohibits the worship of anything else BUT God, the Second Commandment prohibits the worship of statues in connection with the worship of God. This means, it is wrong to bow down and worship in front of a statue which supposedly depicts Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary or a “departed saint.”

The Bible is very clear that neither Mary, the mother of Christ, nor any of the dead Christians, such as the Apostles Peter, Paul and John, are alive today. Rather, they are in their graves, awaiting the resurrection from the dead. It is therefore useless, for that reason alone, to bow down in front of a statue allegedly representing or depicting them, and pray to them for help. It is also clearly prohibited in the Bible to do so.

In addition, Jesus Christ is GOD (Hebrews 1:8), and to make a statue of God and to worship IT is also in clear violation of the Second Commandment. This is even true apart from the fact that virtually all pictures or statues, which purportedly represent Christ, are in total opposition to every description given of Him in the Bible, when He was on earth in the flesh. For instance, Christ did not wear long hair (compare 1 Corinthians 11:14); and He was a carpenter, working outdoors (Mark 6:3), but virtually all statues and pictures portray Christ as a feminine looking man with long hair.

In conclusion, Augustine’s renumbering of the Ten Commandments, which has been adopted today by so many professing Christians, is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to God’s inspired Word. Correctly numbered, here are the Ten Commandments in an outline format (for the complete presentation, compare Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21), as inspired by God Almighty:

1) I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2) You shall make for yourself no image to bow down to it and worship it.
3) You shall not take the name of your God in vain.
4) You shall keep the Sabbath day holy.
5) Honor your father and your mother.
6) You shall not murder.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
8) You shall not steal.
9) You shall not bear false witness or lie.
10) You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The video-recorded sermon by Norbert Link, titled, “How To Be Truly Successful,” has been posted on Video Google.  The audio version is posted on our Website.

A new StandingWatch program was placed on Google Video and on our Website. It is titled, “What’s Wrong With ‘St. Valentine’s Day?”

In the program, Norbert Link discusses the fact that many people observe, in one way or another, “St. Valentine’s Day” on February 14, without knowing how and why today’s custom on this day have started. And even if they knew, would or should it make any difference?

Annual Conference

The dates for the annual conference in San Diego are:

First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007
Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please continue to pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

Time and Location of Memorial Service for Edwin Pope:

Memorial Service for Edwin Pope will be held on Sunday, February 11, 2007.

Please note the leaflet for the memorial service has been posted on our Website.

All family members and friends are invited to attend this special occasion. Please share this announcement with those who might be interested in attending, but who might not receive our weekly Updates.

The Memorial Service will begin at 11:30 am, followed by a potluck. The services will be held at the facilities of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, at 102 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2520. The facilities are located at the corner of 4th Avenue and D-Avenue.

If you are driving from the Los Angeles area, you might want to use the I-5 toward Santa Ana; take exit #9 onto CA-54 east; take the 4th Avenue exit and turn right. The facilities are on your right.

by Kalon Mitchell (21)

When my sister was in the hospital, a few months ago, the doctors first gave her a 50-50 chance to live. Medically speaking, she should have been dead. But she pulled through, I believe, with the help of God.

During the month she spent in the hospital, I came to realize just how fragile our human existence is, and how easy it is for us to die. It struck me to know that no matter what, God is in control. Learning this, made me come to have a better relationship with those around me and to appreciate and enjoy every day that I wake up. I came to see that human life is not something to be taken for granted. During that month in the hospital, my sister had so many people thinking of and praying for her, and coming to see her. It made me realize how many lives we can touch, by just an action, a smile, or a nice word.

I also grew to be thankful to God for everything that He gives us in this world–from the air we breathe and the food we eat, to our spiritual calling. We, as the people of God, have more than any single person in this world. Many go through life wondering what will happen to them when they are dead–perhaps even wondering why they are here. We know that God placed us on this earth to fulfill a purpose. We must continue living and overcoming, realizing that with God, our chances to live eternally are much greater than just 50 percent.

On February 3, 2007, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “The Church of God–A Great Mystery.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Blaise Pascal is purported to be one of the great thinkers of the 17th Century. In an effort to convince non-believers that they should become followers of the Bible, he came up with the following logic. His argument was that we should accept the truth of Christianity, because if we are wrong, we have lost nothing, but if we are right, we have gained everything.

Have we accepted this gambit as our approach to Christianity?  Are we “hedging our bet” that we are doing the right thing or that we are in the right place?  We do not need to “go with the best odds” to know whether God exists or the fact that His Way is true.

Once called by God, we have all the facts and assurances that we need in the Bible if we are willing to put forth the work and time. The Word of God is not laid out like a good technical manual, but rather meanings have been purposefully obscured to most (Matthew 13:10-13), and pieces to each puzzle have been scattered “a little here and a little there” (Isaiah 28:10,13). But nonetheless, the Book of Books does indeed have all the information that we need to prove that God exists and that this is the path in which we should walk.

If we are willing to put forth the effort, as we are admonished (Ecclesiastes 9:10), we can know with 100% certainty what is and will continue to be a mystery to many.

The Latest German Scandal

The case of Murat Kurnaz, a German-born Turkish citizen who was allegedly tortured as a detainee in Afghanistan and Iraq, has developed into the latest scandal for the German government. It also reflects negatively on the alleged American inhuman treatment of “political prisoners” in those countries–especially when there is no evidence that those prisoners, like Kurnaz, are related to terrorism in any way. And it reveals the dubious role German politicians have apparently played–secretly collaborating with the Bush administration, while publicly condemning American actions in Iraq.

Der Spiegel Online wrote on January 29:

“The career of German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier appears to be in jeopardy as unease about his conduct in the case of Gunatánamo detainee Murat Kurnaz continues to grow. The German papers accuse him of hypocrisy, indecisiveness and even racism. Pressure is growing on… Steinmeier to reveal exactly what he knew about the case of Murat Kurnaz, the German-born Turkish citizen who was held in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for over four years. Steinmeier is in trouble because of reports that he did not take up a CIA offer to send Kurnaz back to Germany in the fall of 2002 — condemning the detainee to four more years in the camp. A parliamentary committee is investigating the case and recently heard Kurnaz’s disturbing testimony of how he was tortured in a camp in Afghanistan and in Guantánamo. There has been no evidence that Kurnaz is connected to terrorism in any way. Politicians from the Christian Democrats (CDU), who are in a coalition government with the Social Democrats (SPD), to whom Steinmeier belongs, went on the offensive Monday… Germany’s newspapers were Monday unanimously critical of Steinmeier’s behavior and pointed out the contradictions in his assertions up until now.

“The center-right Die Welt… writes: ‘Instead of clearly deciding on a course of action and accepting the consequences … (the government) muddled its way through. The half-heartedness with which the coalition camp is now on the one hand criticizing, and on the other defending Steinmeier doesn’t suggest that very much has changed.’

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘We have to congratulate … Steinmeier and ex-interior minister Otto Schily on their well-scrubbed consciences: Neither of them is aware of any guilt in the Kurnaz case, and they apparently have nothing to do with the things which indisputably went wrong. … Steinmeier and Schily explain it like this: First of all the whole story is false; secondly, we didn’t do anything to the man; and thirdly, he deserved what we did do, or want to do, to him — because he’s a Turk and a security risk. Murat Kurnaz was born and raised in Bremen and has never lived anywhere else… Germany is pursuing a policy of domestic security which obviously transforms politicians into cynics. If that is the case, then there is clearly something wrong with German security policy.'”

How Germany Applies Its Blue Laws

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 26:

“With residents of a Berlin neighborhood deeply unhappy about the opening of a new Scientology center, city officials have found a creative way of limiting the church’s activity. Because Scientology is considered a business and not a church in Germany, it falls under the country’s rigid Sunday closing law [banning sales on Sunday]… The Church of Scientology has long struggled to gain a foothold in Germany. In 1995, the German Federal Labor Court ruled that Scientology is ‘neither a religion nor an ideology.’ In the eyes of the Germans, it’s just a business, no different than other American imports like Wal-Mart or McDonalds… Scientologists will be free in Berlin to stop passers-by on the street and speak to them — unlike in Hamburg, where the city district where the Hamburg Scientology center is located has banned such activities… Any normal church is free to sell postcards, books or any other educational or fundraising goods on that day, but the Church of Scientology will be banned from offering courses or selling any goods on Sundays.”

Germany Issues Warrants Against CIA Agents

AFP reported on January 31:

“Germany has ordered the arrest of 13 people believed to be CIA agents over the alleged kidnapping of a Lebanese-born German national… German authorities are probing allegations by Khaled el-Masri that he was abducted by US agents in the Macedonian capital Skopje on New Year’s Eve 2003 and flown to a prison in Afghanistan for interrogation before he was released five months later in Albania. Masri has said he was tortured while imprisoned… [The prosecutor’s office said:] ‘According to the information we have, the suspects listed in the arrest warrants are believed to be so-called code names of CIA agents. The investigation will now focus on learning the actual names of the suspects.’ Public broadcaster NDR had reported earlier that most of the CIA employees sought lived in North Carolina in the United States. NDR noted that the German arrest warrants were not valid in the United States and that US authorities had refused to cooperate with the investigation. If the suspects were to travel to the European Union, however, they could be arrested… Masri is also pursuing a 75,000-dollar compensation claim against the CIA in US courts.”

Former Chief of the CIA’s Europe Division Speaks Out

In an interview with Spiegel Online, dated January 25, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, Tyler Drumheller, made some strong allegations regarding US foreign policy. We are publishing the following quotes from his interview:

“… never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war… The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy… We made mistakes. And it may suit the White House to have people believe in a black and white version of reality — that it could have avoided the Iraq war if the CIA had only given it a true picture of Saddam’s armaments. But the truth is that the White House believed what it wanted to believe.”

USA and Europe At Odds Again?

The New York Times reported on January 30:

“European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran… In December, Iran’s refusal to give up its nuclear program led the United Nations Security Council to impose economic sanctions. Iran’s rebuff is based on its contention that its nuclear program is civilian in nature, while the United States and other countries believe Iran plans to make weapons. At issue now is how the resolution is to be carried out, with Europeans resisting American appeals for quick action, citing technical and political problems related to the heavy European economic ties to Iran and its oil industry…

“’We are telling the Europeans that they need to go way beyond what they’ve done to maximize pressure on Iran,’ said a senior administration official. ‘The European response on the economic side has been pretty weak.’… The main targets are Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Britain, all with extensive business dealings with Iran, particularly in energy. Administration officials say, however, that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the current head of the European Union, has been responsive.”

Keep Your Eyes on Somalia

The Associated Press reported on January 31:

“Somalia’s interim government began imposing martial law in areas under its control, the prime minister said, as rising violence threatens its tenuous grip on power… The three-month long emergency law was announced on Jan. 13 but was never implemented. Its imposition came as African leaders meeting in neighboring Ethiopia failed to make up a shortfall of 4,000 troops for a peacekeeping mission to Somalia. Fears are mounting that Somalia could again be plunged into civil war without a peacekeeping force. Since the Islamic movement was ousted by Somali government troops backed by Ethiopian soldiers, tanks and war planes, factional violence has again become a feature of life in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. “Ethiopia has begun withdrawing its forces, and diplomats are warning it could create a power vacuum that Islamic fighters could take advantage of… The U.S. has accused the Islamic group [in Somalia] of sheltering suspects in the 1998 al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Osama Bin Laden has said Somalia is a battleground in his war on the West. The U.S. launched at least two airstrikes against fleeing Islamic fighters, although details of the attacks are unknown.”

Scientists to Issue a New Report on Global Warming

AFP reported on January 28:

“Hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists muster in Paris on Monday to frame a report expected to issue the bleakest assessment yet about global warming and its effects on the weather system. On Friday, they will issue the first update in six years of the scientific evidence for global warming… In alpine areas, glaciers are melting and snow cover is shrinking. The North Pole’s summer icefield is a mere fraction of what it once was. Permafrost in high northerly latitudes is retreating. The oceans are becoming more acidic through absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2).”

The Associated Press added on January 28:

“Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version… They ‘don’t take into account the gorillas — Greenland and Antarctica,’ said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. ‘I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century.’ Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don’t know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world’s coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

“Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won’t play such a dramatic role… University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn’t melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.”

The Associated Press added on January 29:

“As the panel [of scientists] meets [in Paris], the planet is the warmest it has been in thousands of years — if not more — and international concern over what to do about it is at an all-time high…  ‘We’re hoping that it will convince people that climate change is real and that we have a responsibility for much of it, and that we really do have to make changes in how we live,’ said Kenneth Denman, one of the report’s authors and senior scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis. It has been an unusually warm winter in some parts of the world, and awareness of the consequences of climate change is growing.

“Last week, President Bush referred to global warming as an established fact, after years of arguing that not enough was known about global warming to do anything about it…

“While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on input from hundreds of scientists, including skeptics and industry researchers. And its reports must be unanimous, approved by 154 governments — including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia.”

AFP published the following on January 29:

“There is no longer any doubt about the reality of global warming and the speed at which it is developing is a ‘major risk’, a senior expert says. ‘Is the climate changing? For the past few years there is no longer any doubt about it,’ said Herve le Treut, [the director of the dynamic meteorology laboratory at the Pierre-Simon Laplace institute in eastern France and] one of the world’s top climate scientists who muster in Paris on Monday. ‘Is the climate changing due to human activity, the response is more and more certainly, yes,’ le Treut [continued]. He said scientists were becoming more confident in their evaluations as events had backed up previous predictions.”

CTV.ca reported on January 30:

“Scientists and government officials are finishing a much-awaited report expected to say that climate change is real, serious and that human influence on it is undeniable.”

AFP added on January 30:

“Earth’s surface temperature could rise by 4.5 C (8.1 F) if carbon dioxide levels double over pre-industrial levels, but higher warming cannot be ruled out, according to a draft report under debate by the UN’s top climate experts. The draft — being discussed line by line at the four-day meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — grimly states that the evidence for man-made influence on the climate system is now stronger than ever… It considers it ‘very likely’ — a probability of more than 90 percent — that the [temperature] rise since the mid-1900s was caused by man-made greenhouse gases. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said this probability was ‘likely,’ or 66 percent or less.”

President Bush on Global Warming

On January 29, NPR published an interview with President Bush. He was specifically asked whether he meant global warming, when he spoke in the State of the Union address about “the serious challenge of global climate change.” President Bush responded to this question, as follows:

“Absolutely, and it’s a serious challenge. And one of the things that I am proud of is this administration has done a lot on advancing new technologies that will enable us to do two things – strengthen our economy, and at the same time, be better stewards of the environment. In 2002, I talked about an energy efficiency standard, which says new technologies will enable us to grow our economy, and at the same time, improve the environment, and we’re meeting certain standards that I set for the country.

“And what kind of technologies? Well, if you’re really interested in global warming and climate change, then it seems like to me that we ought to promote technologies to advance the development of safe nuclear power. It’s a renewable source of energy, and at the same time has no emissions to it. But also, we’re advancing clean-coal technologies. The goal is to have a zero-emission coal-fired plant. And then, in the State of the Union, I talked about another aspect of economic security and environmental quality, and that is changing the habits – or changing how we power our cars. And I want more people driving automobiles with, you know, ethanol, for example, or biodiesel. And I believe the goal I set, which is a very bold goal, of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years is an attainable goal, but it’s going to require the Congress funding the research and development initiatives that I have put in my budgets. And I expect them to do so.”

Were Scientists Pressured to Downplay Global Warming?

In a bizarre twist of events, The Associated Press reported about pressures on scientists from governmental agencies  to downplay global warming. The article stated:

“Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming. The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ from a report.”

Is Climate Change Threatening Australia?

The Associated Press reported on January 31:

“Average temperatures in Sydney will rise by about 9 degrees during the next 65 years, with devastating consequences including 1,300 more heat-related deaths per year, according to a government study released Wednesday. With Australia gripped by its worst drought on record, the issue of climate change has emerged as a battleground in this year’s national elections. Prime Minister John Howard has come under renewed criticism for not ratifying the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, making Australia the only major industrial nation other than the U.S. to reject the treaty that mandates lower emissions of global-warming greenhouse gases…

“As a major exporter and consumer of carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels, Australia rates as one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas producers per capita. Howard says the Kyoto Protocol’s steep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions would hurt Australia’s economy by handing a competitive advantage to China and India, which are not bound by the treaty. Australian power companies issued a report Wednesday that said expanding the use of nuclear power and retrofitting coal-fired power stations to capture carbon dioxide is the best way to slow greenhouse emissions. Howard said he agreed with that recommendation.”

Is Global Warming Man-Made?

Not all scientists agree, however, that global warming is man-made.

The Drudge Report stated the following on January 31, 2007:

“Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. ‘Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years,’ by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. ‘The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change,’ by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

“Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

“Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

“‘The Chilling Stars’ relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.’We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,’ says Svensmark.

“‘The Chilling Stars’ documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

“‘Unstoppable Global Warming’ documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. ‘The Chilling Stars’ explains the why and how.”

Centuries before Christ, the ancient Romans celebrated the evenings of February 14th and February 15th as an idolatrous and sensual festival in honor of Lupercus, the “hunter of wolves.” The Romans called the festival “Lupercalia.” In her book, “Customs and Holidays Around the World,” Lavinia Dobler states on page 172: “It was not until the reign of Pope Gelasius that the holiday became a ‘Christian custom.’ As far back as 496, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia on February 15th to St Valentine’s Day on February 14th.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica states on page 336 in its 15th edition, volume 10:

“St Valentine’s day as a lovers’ festival and the modern tradition of sending valentine cards have no relation to the saints but, rather, seem to be connected either with the Roman (sexual) fertility festival of the Lupercalia (February 15th) or with the mating season of birds.”

The Encyclopedia Americana states that “this pairing off was, of course, linked with sexual immorality.”

An article from the Internet (http://www.techdirect.com/valentine/origin.html) gives several descriptions of the origin of Valentine’s Day, including the following:

“The first interpretation has this celebration originating as a pagan tradition in the third century. During this time hordes of hungry wolves roamed outside of Rome where shepherds kept their flocks. The God Lupercus was said to watch over the shepherds and their flocks and keep them from the wolves. Every February the Romans celebrated a feast called Lupercalia to honor Lupercus so that no harm would come to the shepherds and their flocks. Also during Lupercalia, but in honor of the goddess Juno Februata, the names of young women were put into a box and names were drawn by lot. The boys and girls who were matched would be considered partners for the year, which began in March. This celebration continued long after wolves were a problem to Rome… As Christianity became prevalent, priests attempted to replace [or better: sugarcoat and cover with a Christian mantle] old heathen practices. To Christianize the ancient pagan celebration of the Feast of Lubercus, the church officials changed the name to St. Valentine’s Day.”

In his book, “Christianity–the Origins of a Pagan Religion,” French scholar and professor of medieval French literature, Philippe Walter, states the following on pages 76-78:

“.. the [Catholic] church invented the figures of saints–both men and women–who both borrowed the names of their pagan predecessors and possessed mythical attributes similar to those of their pagan models. This is why we cannot be surprised at worship devoted today to certain mysterious saints–including Saint Valentine. In fact, along with the time of year of his celebration, the initial syllable of his name–val–compels us to establish a potential link with the mythology of Carnival… It is curious that February 14 is celebrated in five regions to commemorate no fewer than five distinct saints all bearing the name Valentine… This phenomenon points to the camouflaging of paganism–most specifically, the rites and myths commemorated on this date in the pagan calendar–in several regions [namely, Rome, Italy; Terni, Italy; Toro, Spain; Puy; and Africa]…”

Alexander Hislop explained in his book, “Two Babylons,” that Valentine was a common Roman name. Roman parents often gave the name to their children in honor of the famous man who was first called Valentine in antiquity. That famous man was Lupercus, the hunter. Who was Lupercus? Why should he also have borne the name “Valentine” among the heathen Romans? The Greeks called Lupercus by the name of “Pan.” The Semites called Pan “Baal”–mentioned so often in the Bible–and this name was merely another name for Nimrod, the “mighty hunter” (Genesis 10:9). The hunter Nimrod was the Lupercus–or wolf hunter–of the Romans. “St Valentine’s Day” was originally a day set aside by the pagans in his honor.

Nimrod–Baal or sun god of the ancient pagans–was said to have been born at the winter solstice. In ancient times the solstice occurred on January 6th and his birthday therefore was celebrated on January 6th. Later, as the solstice changed, it was celebrated on December 25th and is now called Xmas. It was the custom of antiquity for the mother of a male child to present herself for purification on the 40th day after the day of birth. The 40th day after January 6th–Nimrod’s original birthdate–takes us to February 15th, the celebration of which began on February 14th–the Lupercalia or St Valentine’s Day. On this day in February, Semiramis, the mother of Nimrod, was said to have been purified and to have appeared for the first time in public with her son as the original “mother and child.”

Valentine’s Day is one of those pagan days that has become part and parcel of the fabric of today’s society. It is clear that Valentine’s Day–whichever way you look at it–has paganism written all over it. Paganism is not to be entertained by the people of God. God commands us not to worship Him in the way that the pagans worshipped their gods. Therefore, we are not to participate in the celebration of Valentine’s Day.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale and Norbert Link

A video-recorded sermon by Edwin Pope, which he gave on the Sabbath of December 3, 2005, titled, “Sin–A Powerful Enemy,” has been posted on Video Google.  The audio version is posted on our Website.

A new StandingWatch program was placed on Google Video and on our Website. It is titled, “To Spank or Not to Spank.”

In the program, Norbert Link discusses the attempts of a California Assembly woman to introduce a bill outlawing spanking of children up to 3 years. More than 10 European countries already criminalize spanking of children. But many child psychologists believe that proper spanking can be effective. So, what should parents do?

Annual Conference

The dates for the annual conference in San Diego are:

First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007
Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please continue to pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

Time and Location of Memorial Service for Edwin Pope:

Memorial Service for Edwin Pope will be held on Sunday, February 11, 2007. All family members and friends are invited to attend this special occasion. Please share this announcement with those who might be interested in attending, but who might not receive our weekly Updates.

The Memorial Service will begin at 11:30 am, followed by a potluck. The services will be held at the facilities of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, at 102 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2520. The facilities are located at the corner of 4th Avenue and D-Avenue.

If you are driving from the Los Angeles area, you might want to use the I-5 toward Santa Ana; take exit #9 onto CA-54 east; take the 4th Avenue exit and turn right. The facilities are on your right.

On January 27, 2007, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “How To Be Truly Successful.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

In the Ian Fleming novels and later in the movies, the character of James Bond had the designation “007.” This was a license to kill in the branch of the secret service Bond was serving, which was a department of the British Government.

In this day and age we can observe what I have coined “spiritual 007.” It is not a license to kill physically, but rather to commit licentiousness under the guise of grace. After all, so goes the rationale, “God is merciful, and He loves us unconditionally.” “Spiritual 007” is a “license” to commit spiritual suicide and to murder others in a spiritual way through our bad example which they might adopt and follow.

Those who argue that they are free to sin–that they have spiritual license to sin–never seem to ask where our love for God is and how do we prove that love for God. “Spiritual 007” is a departure from what the spirit of the law embraces in regard to keeping the law of God and demonstrating that love for God through obedience. The Bible rejects the thinking: “I can sin all I want because I have God’s Spirit and am now under grace.” The concept and biblical truth of repentance and putting sin out of our life seems to escape this kind of mentality–as if the Holy Spirit somehow falls out of the sky on an individual without that person meeting first the biblical criteria of repentance, baptism and laying on of hands, as outlined in Acts 2:38 and Acts 8:18. The laying on of hands cannot be done by just anyone, but it has to be done by a true minister of God, and without true repentance, baptism is nothing more than a bath. It will produce no spiritual fruit, as outlined in Galatians 5, and which we are commanded by many parables of Christ to bring forth. We are also to grow in grace and knowledge all of our lives, not just during the time frame shortly before or after our repentance and baptism.

“Spiritual 007” is a sad commentary on the conditions of this world and the individuals who parade grace around as some kind of license to sin–by turning from the holy commands of God to follow the traditions and worship practices of men which we are commanded to reject. Paul admonished us: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1, Authorized Version). Christ obeyed His Father, and He told us not to disobey God’s commandments by keeping man’s traditions instead.

We must reject the spiritual  misconception that when we are under grace we have license to do whatever we want. Rather, we should seek God’s ways, especially as we are coming up to the Passover season, which is a time to examine ourselves and recommit and rededicate ourselves in a our sincere desire to obey God and put sin out of our lives.

“Spiritual 007” is a “license” we must avoid at all costs. The only license we should have is the one to obey God, which leads to eternal life–rather than a “license” to sin, which only leads to suffering and eternal death, if not repented of. We are to look to and follow the example of our elder brother, high priest and soon-coming ruler of this earth, Jesus Christ, by not adding or taking away from what we are told in His Word, the Bible.

No More Legal Spanking in California?

In an attempt to totally defy Biblical teaching, a California Assemblywoman wants to introduce a bill outlawing spanking of children up to 3 years in any manner, shape or form.

On January 18, 2007, the Mercury News reported the following:

“The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children? Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids. Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some — and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best… The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, [Lieber] added, prohibiting ‘any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.’ Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

“The idea is encountering skepticism even before it’s been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists — many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective — the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ‘nanny government.’… Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children’s issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979…

“Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities… Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it’s used sparingly and doesn’t escalate to abuse. ‘If it’s used in a limited way,’ the Oklahoma State University professor said, ‘it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.’ He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn’t be spanked at all, because they can’t understand why it’s happening. As for Lieber’s proposal, the professor said: ‘I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it’s a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn’t any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.”

WorldNetDaily added the following well-considered comments, on January 23:

“‘It’s really awfully arrogant to try to protect my child from me,’ Karen England, of the Capitol Resource Institute, told WND. ‘If they want to protect children, protect them from predators.’…  Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, called it the wackiest bill of the year. ‘This punish-you-if-you-spank-your-children bill is intrusive, unenforceable, and the most blatant violation of parental rights I’ve ever seen,’ he said. ‘What’s next, jail time for parents who raise their voices at their children? We already have enough legitimate laws prohibiting physical abuse of children, and this proposal is certainly not one of them. Government regulation of parents’ discipline wipes out the right of parents to raise their own children. This is wrong. God gave children to parents, not to the state,’ Thomasson said. England agreed. ‘There already are safeguards in place,’ she said.

“‘Appropriate spanking is not “beating” or “abusing” a child, which is a ridiculous and offensive comparison,’ said Thomasson. ‘When appropriate spanking is lovingly administered, it can help a disobedient youngster to become a well-adjusted adult who respects authority.’… appropriate spanking of rebellious children from 2-10 ‘is the shortest and most effective route to an attitude adjustment.’…

“Brad Dacus, of the Pacific Justice Institute, called it yet another effort to expand the reach of government. ‘Even without this proposed new law, California gives such wide latitude to Child Protective Services that decent parents often get falsely charged with child abuse,’ Dacus said. ‘How much more if the state tries to outlaw all corporal punishment on young children?’ He said the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the fundamental rights of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.”

For more information on the BIBLICAL teaching on child discipline, please read our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families.”

New US Passport Rules

The Associated Press reported on January 23:

“Americans flying to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean made sure to bring their passports Monday because of a new rule going into effect Tuesday that requires them to show one to get back into the country. Only about a quarter of U.S. citizens hold valid passports, and most Americans are accustomed to traveling to neighboring countries with just a driver’s license or birth certificate, which have long been sufficient to get through airport customs on the trip home. The new regulations requiring passports were adopted by Congress in 2004 to secure the borders against terrorists…

“Starting Tuesday, Canadian, Mexican and Bermudan air travelers, as well as U.S. citizens flying home from those countries or the Caribbean, must display their passports to enter the United States. The only valid substitutes for a passport will be a NEXUS Air card, used by some American and Canadian frequent fliers; identification as a U.S. Coast Guard merchant mariner; and the green card carried by legal permanent residents. Active members of the U.S. military are exempt.

“For now, the rules affect only air travelers. Land and sea travelers will not have to show passports until at least January 2008. Air travelers who cannot produce a passport will be interviewed by customs agents, who will decide whether to let them into the country… The State Department issued a record 12.1 million passports in 2006 and expects to issue 16 million more this year to meet the increased demand.”

The World Condemns American Foreign Policy

Britain’s The Daily Mail wrote the following on January 23:

“The vast majority of Britons see America’s influence on the world as negative and 81 per cent disapprove of its actions in Iraq, a poll has shown. The damning verdict of the British public on the Bush administration’s handling of some of the world’s most crucial issues is backed by the majority of people around the globe, the survey for the BBC reveals… Three out of four people questioned in 25 countries disapproved of the way the U.S. is dealing with Iraq, where more than 100 died yesterday in one of Iraq’s bloodiest days this year. The poll, coming hours before President Bush’s annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, found that half of those questioned in all 25 countries believe the U.S. is playing a mainly negative role in the world. Some 68 per cent of those questioned around the world believe the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents and only 17 per cent feel America’s presence there is a stabilising force.

“In addition to the overwhelming disapproval of U.S. actions in Iraq, 76 per cent of Britons condemned the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons, 70 per cent were critical of the U.S. response to the Israel-Hezbollah war in the Lebanon, and 64 per cent disagreed with America’s response to Iran’s nuclear programme. Only 33 per cent of Britons saw U.S. influence in the world as mainly positive, 79 per cent disapproved of its approach to global warming and 55 per cent were against the way it handled North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. More than seven out of ten Britons – 72 per cent – saw the U.S. military presence in the Middle East as ‘provoking more conflict than it prevents’… Two-thirds of Americans, 66 per cent, think the U.S. is on the wrong track.”

The State of the Union Address

AFP reported on January 24:

“US President George W. Bush has pleaded with a war-weary US public to give his unpopular Iraq strategy a chance, warning that a US defeat could ignite an ‘epic battle’ engulfing the entire Middle East. ‘For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective,’ Bush said in his annual State of the Union speech late Tuesday, striking a more defiant than downbeat tone despite his mounting political woes. Two weeks after unveiling a new strategy centered on sending 21,500 more soldiers into battle, the embattled president gave no ground to his critics and urged lawmakers and the US public: ‘Give it a chance to work.’

“Bush, fighting to save his presidency and derail pending congressional action against his Iraq plan, also laid out a handful of domestic policies to cut US gasoline use and pollution, expand health care, and reform immigration. But the chief goal of the 49-minute televised speech was to win a reprieve on Iraq from a skeptical US public and an increasingly hostile US Congress, led by opposition Democrats for the first time in a dozen years…

“The president also acknowledged a dramatic upsurge in sectarian violence, telling Americans leery of seeing US troops caught in the crossfire: ‘This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in.’ That appeared to be a reversal from Bush’s promise, made at an October 25, 2006 press conference, that ‘Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions.’ In fact, while Bush tied events in Iraq to the war on terrorism — which he declared in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks — he focused on the threat of future sectarian strife…

“The official Democratic response to the speech, delivered by Senator Jim Webb — a Vietnam veteran whose son is a Marine in Iraq — was tough and blunt. ‘The president took us into this war recklessly,’ said Webb. ‘The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of our military, nor does Congress. We need a new direction.’

“The New York Times editorial said that Bush ‘gave no hint’ of fresh policies, offering instead ‘a tepid menu of ideas that would change little.’ The main Washington Post story described Bush as ‘politically wounded but rhetorically unbowed,’ while the Los Angeles Times said his domestic plans were ‘too modest’ to ‘rescue the last quarter of his presidency from irrelevance and patch his tattered legacy.'”

Europe Ready for More Military Operations

The EUObserver reported on January 19:

“Europe says it is ready for more military action under the EU flag in 2007 after its ‘success’ in Congo last year, with the German EU presidency putting Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon and Afghanistan at the top of its defence agenda for the next six months… The EU now has two units that can be deployed for ‘crisis-management’ anywhere in the world 10 days after member states take a unanimous vote, in a decision that would ‘as a rule’ follow a UN security council resolution but that could also see the EU go it alone. Each group brings together 1,500 soldiers from two or three member states, which hold joint training exercises and wear both national and EU insignia – a blue disk with 12 gold stars – on the model of EU police missions in Bosnia and Macedonia.

“‘Europe can assume very important peacekeeping and peacemaking functions in this world,’ German defence minister Franz Josef Jung said… ‘Europe is a great peace project and we will continue to make our contribution [to global stability].’… No EU battle group has ever been tested in a real operation, but last year saw two major EU military projects: member states coordinated sending 9,000 European peacekeepers under a UN flag to Lebanon and dispatched 1,400 soldiers under an EU flag to Congo.”

China’s Desire to Use Military Might

Britain’s The Telegraph reported on January 19:

“The prospect of ‘Star Wars’ between China and the West loomed last night after Beijing used a ballistic missile to destroy a satellite in space… It suggests that the Chinese have developed a major new capability that underscores the communist regime’s desire to use its military might as well as burgeoning economic power to expand its influence… The test shows that the Chinese could soon have the capability to destroy the array of commercial satellites operated by the US, Europe, Israel, Russia and Japan.”

The article also pointed out:

“The ability to destroy satellites with such precision could undermine the US National Missile Defence programme, a network of rocket interceptors, computers and satellites intended to protect America and its key allies from nuclear attack. It became known as ‘Son of Star Wars’ after President Ronald Reagan’s so-called ‘Star Wars’ programme proposed in the 1980s.”

Russia Threatens or Being Threatened?

AFP reported on January 21:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin were at odds after talks on energy relations amid EU doubts over Moscow’s reliability as a supplier. Merkel stressed the importance of ‘relations of trust’ and called for improved communication on energy between the European Union and Russia ‘in order to avoid tensions, misunderstandings or disappointments.’ But Putin defended Russian moves to drastically increase energy prices for neighbouring former Soviet countries — a policy that has led to supply disruptions to Europe through Belarus and Ukraine in the past 12 months…

“The European Union depends on Russia for a quarter of its energy needs. Much of the supply, particularly of natural gas, travels through the neighbouring former Soviet republics… A Russian embargo on meat imports from Poland — another issue clouding relations between the European Union and Russia — remained unresolved, despite hopes of a possible breakthrough ahead of the Putin-Merkel meeting… Germany has been Russia’s main ally in the European Union and the two are key trade partners but relations appear cooler than under Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, who was openly friendly with Putin.”

AFP reported on January 22:

“A top Russian general warned that a missile defense system that the United States wants to deploy in eastern Europe would pose a ‘clear threat’ to his country. The United States confirmed it would soon begin formal talks on deploying the system in the Czech Republic and Poland, aimed at warding off rocket attacks from North Korea or Iran… Czech and Polish leaders rejected Russia’s fears as groundless… The US State Department reiterated its view that the missile system was not directed against Russia… Moscow has warned of ‘negative consequences’ if Prague agrees to host the missile system… Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said in November that it was a ‘destabilizing’ move to which Russia would respond.”

These Russian threats might not be just mere political propaganda. Many still remember Russia’s ruthless and brutal suppression of Czechian thirst for freedom in the late 60’s, when Russian troops illegally invaded Czechoslovakia, while the free world stood idly by. Only 20 years later did the Czechs gain democratic freedoms with the fall of the Iron Curtain. It is no secret that Russian leaders would love to bring Czechoslovakia and other former Russian “satellite” states back into the “fold ” of Mother Russia.  Will Russia’s thirst for power lead to the repeat of such terrible atrocities, as occured in the late 60’s, and will the Western World again fail to intervene?

Daniel 11:44-45 prophesies that frightening rumors from countries such as Russia and China will alarm the future leader of Europe. However, his resulting actions will be devastating for both power blocs.

Sunday Worship?

On January 9, 2007, the Catholic News Agency, Zenit, published an English translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to Cardinal Francis Arinze, dated November 27, 2006. In the letter, the pope made some startling admissions as to how the Catholic Church CHANGED the observance from Saturday-Sabbath to Sunday, using some “biblical” justifications for that change. However, the Bible nowhere justifies the abolition of the weekly Saturday-Sabbath and the substitution of Sunday.

The pope wrote the following, as quoted by Zenit:

“The Second Vatican Council teaches that ‘the Church celebrates the Paschal Mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the ‘Lord’s Day’ or ‘Sunday’… On the ‘first day after Saturday’, the women and then the Disciples, meeting the Risen One, understood that this was ‘the day which the Lord has made’ (Ps 118[117]:24) , ‘his’ day, the ‘Dies Domini.’… From the very outset, this has been a stable element in the perception of the mystery of Sunday: ‘The Word’, Origen affirms, ‘has moved the feast of the Sabbath to the day on which the light was produced and has given us as an image of true repose, Sunday, the day of salvation, the first day of the light in which the Savior of the world, after completing all his work with men and after conquering death, crossed the threshold of Heaven, surpassing the creation of the six days and receiving the blessed Sabbath and rest in God’. Inspired by knowledge of this, St Ignatius of Antioch asserted: ‘We are no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord’s Day’… How much more necessary it is today to reaffirm the sacredness of the Lord’s Day and the need to take part in Sunday Mass!… The cultural context in which we live… must not let us forget that the People of God, born from ‘Christ’s Passover, Sunday’, should return to it as to an inexhaustible source, in order to understand better and better the features of their own identity and the reasons for their existence.

“The Second Vatican Council, after pointing out the origin of Sunday, continued: ‘On this day Christ’s faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the Word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection and Glory of the Lord Jesus and giving thanks to God who ‘has begotten them again, through the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living hope’… Sunday was not chosen by the Christian community but by the Apostles, and indeed by Christ himself, who on that day, ‘the first day of the week’, rose and appeared to the disciples (cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16: 9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1,19; Acts 20:7; I Cor 16: 2), and appeared to them again ‘eight days later’ (Jn 20:26). Sunday is the day on which the Risen Lord makes himself present among his followers, invites them to his banquet and shares himself with them so that they too, united and configured to him, may worship God properly. Therefore, as I encourage people to give ever greater importance to the ‘Lord’s Day,’ I am eager to highlight the central place of the Eucharist as a fundamental pillar of Sunday and of all ecclesial life.”

Our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy” explains in detail WHY the abolition of Saturday-Sabbath worship is NOT authorized in Scripture. In addition, our free booklet, “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery,” explains that Jesus Christ was NOT resurrected on Sunday, either. Our booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” shows that the Biblical “Lord’s Day” has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday. And finally, our new booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” shows why the celebration of the weekly “Sunday Mass” or “Paschal Mystery” is not an acceptable substitute for the Biblically-mandated annual Passover service.

The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God; that is, the second member of the God Family. However, the Bible also reveals that Christ BECAME the Son of Man when He gave up His divine glory and became a human being.

Hebrews 1:2 states that God “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” The very next verse (verse 3) then describes Jesus, God’s Son, in this way: “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…”

From these two verses in Hebrews 1, we learn that God made the worlds through His Son–John 1 verifies this! In other words, God the FATHER made the worlds through His SON, as Hebrews 1:2 testifies. We also see that Jesus is described as being an exact image of God–a description that is, by itself, an indication of a father and a son. Add to this the fact that Jesus said that “‘…My Father is greater than I'” (Compare John 14:28).

The Father-Son relationship, existing from eternity, is the only way that the Bible accounts for a difference within the Family of God–both from and into all eternity. Otherwise, WHY is the Father greater than the Son? HOW did this come about? Was there a time when both were equal? The Bible does not teach this. It teaches that the Father was always greater than the Son–that is why the FATHER created everything THROUGH the Son. Note that God created through Jesus–He gave His Son a work to accomplish, and Jesus was and remains subordinate to His Father.

The Bible reveals that the Son of God willingly became–also–the Son of Man. He always was the Son of God, but He BECAME the Son of Man when He became a human being, living in the flesh without ever sinning. This is the reason why He–the “Man Christ Jesus”–is now our merciful High Priest and “Mediator between God [the Father] and men” (compare 1 Timothy 2:5). Christ always was and always will be the SUBORDINATE Son of God according to what is written in the Word of God.

We are setting forth below relevant sections from our booklet, “God Is A Family,” proving that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God, and that there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, or when the Father was not the Father:

“Some quote Romans 1:4 as proof of the concept that Jesus Christ—the second being in the Godhead—BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection from the dead.

“In Romans 1:3–4, Paul states that God made a promise before ‘concerning HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.’ Does this Scripture say that Christ became the Son of God through the resurrection of the dead? Without analyzing the rest of the Scriptures, and focusing on this passage alone, another possible way of understanding Paul’s statement could also be that the Son, who had been flesh, became again a powerful being through the resurrection from the dead. In other words, Romans 1:3–4 is not conclusive proof that Jesus Christ BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection from the dead.

“Before we clearly present from the Bible what Romans 1:3–4 is saying, let us note another passage, Hebrews 1:5, which has been used in an attempt to prove that Christ BECAME the Son of God—that He was not the Son of God from all eternity. Hebrews 1:5 states, ‘For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten you”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?’ Does this passage mean that Christ became the Son of God when He came into the world (verse 6), and that God became the Father at that time? Another explanation—again, just looking at this passage alone—could be that God the Father begot the Son, Jesus Christ, as a human being at that time, and that God the Father will be, and has been, to Christ a Father in the truest sense of the word, as Christ showed through obedience in His human life that He was an obedient Son, even while in the flesh.

“When we view the passages in Romans 1 and Hebrews 1 in context with the other Biblical testimony, we must conclude that they cannot be used to validate the concept that Christ BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection. If it were true that Christ became the Son of God through the resurrection, why did God the Father say before Christ’s resurrection, ‘This is My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)? When this event occurred, John the Baptist exclaimed, ‘And I have seen and testified that this is the SON OF GOD’ (John 1:34). Christ is identified many times in the New Testament as the ‘Son of God,’ prior to His death and resurrection (compare John 1:49; Matthew 4:3, 6; Matthew 8:29; Matthew 14:33)… The Jews KNEW that Christ claimed that He WAS the Son of God (compare Matthew 27:40, 43; Luke 22:70; John 9:35–37; John 10:33–36; John 11:4; John 19:7). When Christ died, the centurion recognized that Christ was ‘the Son of God’ (Matthew 27:54).

“In addition, we find a few Scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to Christ—the second being in the God Family—as the Son (compare Psalm 2:1–2, 7, 11–12; Proverbs 30:4). Generally, however, this terminology is not used in the Old Testament, as God was not clearly revealed as Father and Son in ancient times. Christ, as the Son of God, had to come to reveal the Father. The Jews were under the misimpression that they were worshipping ‘the Father.’ They did not understand that the God being functioning as the Messenger or Spokesperson of the Father and the God Family, who had been dealing directly with the ancients, was actually Jesus Christ. (Compare Christ’s words in John 8:54, ‘It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.’). Still, there are Old Testament passages that speak about God as ‘the Father.’ References to ‘the Father’ in the Old Testament can be found in Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 1:6; 2:10; 2 Samuel 7:13–14; 1 Chronicles 22:10; and Deuteronomy 32:6. In those passages, Christ—the ‘Word’ or Spokesman for the Father—communicated to the people the words of the Father.

“Since God created everything through Christ, it is also said in Isaiah 9:6 that Christ will be called in the future—after His Second Coming—the ‘Everlasting Father.’ This statement proves, too, that Christ existed for all eternity. He is referred to here as the ‘everlasting Father’ or ‘the everlasting Source’ of everything—the ‘beginning of the creation of God.’ However, when the Bible speaks of the ‘Father,’ it normally refers strictly and exclusively to the highest God being in the God Family. We find, then, that God was identified in Scripture as the Father and the Son prior to the human existence of Jesus Christ. God has been a Family for all eternity…

“Returning to Romans 1:3–4, Paul is addressing the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This showed WHO Christ was. Notice again what Romans 1:2–4 really says. God the Father made a promise concerning His Son Jesus Christ. We read that the SON was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. We also read that the SON was declared to be the Son of God WITH POWER according to the Spirit by the resurrection from the dead. Christ was already the SON when He was born as a human being—but He became POWERFUL when He became once again a glorified God being. He came back to His disciples after His resurrection to prove who He was, that God the Father had raised Him back to life, and that all authority or ‘POWER’ had been given to Him by the Father (compare Matthew 28:18 in the Authorized Version; see also Hebrews 1:3).

“We also read in Romans 8:3 that God sent ‘His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.’ Note whom God the Father sent to become a human being. It says, He sent ‘His own Son.’ Notice the same statement in Galatians 4:4: ‘When the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth HIS SON, born of a woman, born under the law.’ Hebrews 5:8 also emphasizes that Christ had to suffer in the flesh, although He was ‘a Son.’ He was already the Son of God PRIOR to His resurrection.

“In light of the foregoing, we understand that Hebrews 1 does not state that Christ was not the Son prior to His human existence. Rather, the Bible teaches consistently that the Son of God came into the world. He became a human being. Thus, He became the Son of Man as well.

“In thinking about Jesus in His preincarnate life, it is hard to describe the Father and Son relationship that existed from eternity in physical analogies. It is plain that although Christ was equal to God in one sense, He still said that God the Father was greater than He was (John 14:28). Also, Christ is and always has been the Spokesman for the Father and the Family of God. John 1:1 states: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.’ What is important to understand from this verse is that Jesus was with God (the Father) at the beginning of creation. Further, Christ will be known again to the nations as the Word of God, when He returns to this earth. Revelation 19:13 describes His Second Coming in this way: ‘He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.’

“God the Father holds a superior position in the God Family in that He represents the final authority. Christ was, always is, and always will be subject to the Father—a structure of relationship that has always existed. The role in the Family of God between Father and Son not only stretches back through eternity, but it is a role that will continue forever into the future. Several decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we find a statement that was recorded by John, an apostle of Jesus Christ: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which GOD GAVE HIM to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John’ (Revelation 1:1). Jesus is not doing this by Himself. Rather, the revelation is received from God the Father, and Christ, as Spokesman for the Family of God, then sends it through His angel to John. We read in 1 Corinthians 15:24, 27–28, ‘Then comes the end, when He [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father… For “He [the Father] has put all things under His [Christ’s] feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.’ The head of Christ is and will be—and always has been—God the Father (1 Corinthians 11:3).

“It may be difficult for us to comprehend that Christ WAS always the Son, and that the Father WAS always the Father. We may not be able to explain how that could have been the case, thinking, in using a human analogy, that God the Father must of necessity have existed prior to the Son’s ‘birth.’ This is not true, however, since the Bible tells us that the Son—Jesus Christ, the Word— did not have a beginning. The Bible teaches us that God the Father was always the Father and that Christ was always the Son. We cannot explain this revelation with our limited human understanding. Neither can we explain how God could have lived from all eternity, or that there were even two God beings from all eternity. However, we know this to be true. The Bible teaches it, and we must accept it ‘by faith’ (Hebrews 11:6), although the human mind might not be able to fully comprehend it (compare Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 13:12).

“We have also learned from the Bible that God the Father is the highest in the Godhead. The Bible nowhere says that He was NOT the highest from all eternity. In fact, we read that God the Father created everything THROUGH Jesus Christ—so the highest God being created everything, including the spiritual world, through a God being ‘lower’ than He. If we were to speculate, we could imagine, perhaps, that BEFORE anything was created, the two totally ‘equal’ God beings decided between themselves that one should become the highest. However, the Biblical record does not leave room for such speculation. We are clearly taught that the Father always was the highest. We can’t explain or comprehend how that could be. Likewise, we might not understand how Christ could have always been the Son, or how the Father could have always been the Father. Still, the Biblical record is clear in this regard.

“Therefore, we must conclude that God HAS ALWAYS BEEN a Family—and that God IS a Family today, presently consisting of the Father and the Son.”

Lead Writers: Norbert Link and Dave Harris

Our new booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” has been sent to the printer in England. It has also been placed on the Web.

A new StandingWatch program was placed on Google Video and on our Website. It is titled, “Why This Terrible Weather?”

In the program, Norbert Link asked why we hear of severe weather conditions in Southern California, as well as in Germany and many areas around the world. Are there unknown causes and conditions for these terrible situations which have been largely overlooked? And what can we expect to occur in the future?

Annual Conference

The dates for the annual conference in San Diego are:

First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007

Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please continue to pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

Time and Location of Memorial Service for Edwin Pope:

Memorial Service for Edwin Pope will be held on Sunday, February 11, 2007. All family members and friends are invited to attend this special occasion. Please share this announcement with those who might be interested in attending, but who might not receive our weekly Updates.

The Memorial Service will begin at 11:30 am, followed by a potluck. The services will be held at the facilities of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, at 102 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2520. The facilities are located at the corner of 4th Avenue and D-Avenue.

If you are driving from the Los Angeles area, you might want to use the I-5 toward Santa Ana; take exit #9 onto CA-54 east; take the 4th Avenue exit and turn right. The facilities are on your right.

by Eric Rank

The Bible reminds us that we need not fear what others think about us. We have only God to fear. Yet, the Bible also instructs us against becoming stumbling blocks to others by our behavior.

When we tell others that we are Christians, how do they respond? Do they nod as if to finally understand the things we do? Or do they become confused because our behavior doesn’t match the true virtues of Christianity? As Christians, we are called to hold ourselves to a higher standard — God’s standard of life. Certainly, some people we come in contact with fall short of understanding the full richness of this way of life, but they probably have the ability to discern some aspects of Christian virtue. The virtues of love and kindness towards others might be the most dominant and pervasive of those known to most people. Do people we come in contact with see these virtues in us, or are they caused to stumble — perhaps discarding Christianity as a whole because of the hypocrisy they might see?

Even though it is important to remember that other people’s judgment is nothing compared to God’s judgment, we must realize that we are here in this life, answering God’s call, as ambassadors of God. The most difficult part about being a Christian is making our actions match our beliefs. We are setting an example to the world around us of God’s way of life. If people see contradictions between what we do and what we believe, it not only reflects poorly upon our character, but more importantly, we let down God. Since we sit as lamps on a lamp-stand to the world around us, the gaps between belief and action are much more visible.

The most difficult thing I have done, and will ever do, is to continuously commit my life to God. By answering this calling, not only do I have a new standard to live up to, but I have a job to do in representing God’s way of life. Certainly, this is a challenge, but the God promises that the reward is great.