On September 9, 2006, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Signs, Dreams and Circumstances.”

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 spite of what people think…
in spite of what people say…
in spite of what people do…

the following truths comprise a part of THE Truth which is God’s Word (John 17:17):

The 7th day Sabbath is still in effect;
We are to keep God’s Holy Days, not pagan holidays;
We do not go to heaven when we die;
Satan does exist;
We are not yet born again;
God is a Family — not a Trinity;
The Law is not done away;
Abortion and war are murder.

Though
some or even all of these may appear inconvenient, in actuality the
Truth is not nearly as difficult or burdensome as it may first seem. In
fact, the real inconvenience is in NOT keeping the Word of God. As we
look around the world today and honestly assess it; we see poverty,
sickness, perversion, unfairness, atheism, hatred and murder. The
reason for this is that most have a belief system grounded in either
personal scruples, politics, false religion, and/or science. There is a
direct causal relationship between obeying the Scriptures and contrary
behavior (Galatians 5:17-23).

Our foundation needs to be the
Bible, and we need to commit to living “by every word that proceeds
from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). If we do this, we will no longer
be a slave to sin and its horrible consequences, but rather we will be
truly free (John 8:32).

The Truth is the Truth; no amount of
protesting is going to change that; and ignoring it, surely, will not
make it go away. Go ahead and put God’s Word to the test! You will be
better off for it, and you will find that it is not inconvenient after
all.

September 11th Terrorist Attack Puppeteered?

Almost unbelievable allegations have been launched against the Pentagon by “leading academics” in the United States. It stands to reason that some or many people will believe their accusations–especially outside the United States. This might, in turn, create additional feelings of animosity against the USA.

The British Daily Mail reported on September 6:

“The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an ‘inside job’, according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated… They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran… The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7–a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day–was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.”

Fortunately, other experts, as well as the 9/11 Commission, have rejected as totally without basis “the numerous conspiracy theories after [an] exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.” The Daily Mail continued to state:

“Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at [Mount Holyoke] College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group. He said: ‘To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It’s too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards. After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we’ve had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It’s a waste of time.'”

The Death of the Crocodile Hunter

Australia, as well as the rest of the world, mourns the death of an extremely popular filmmaker, entertainer, animal activist, zoo director and animal preservationist and conservationist–Steve Irwin, the “Crocodile Hunter.” Irwin’s daring face-to-face confrontations with all manner of deadly crocodiles, snakes and spiders made him a global media phenomenon. His death was as dramatic as many of his life performances–Irvin, 44, was killed Monday off the Great Barrier Reef when the tail barb of a giant stingray punctured his heart as the creature lashed out at him while he was filming. More bizarre yet, Irwin’s death was caught on tape. Close friend and “Crocodile Hunter” producer John Stainton watched the tape. He said that Irwin plucked the stingray’s barbed tail from his chest before dying.

All kinds of speculations, assumptions, suspicions and questions surround Irwin’s death. Animal “experts” explain that it is extremely rare that a stingray would attack and hurt or kill a human being–in spite of the reported fact that hundreds of beachgoers are stung each year by stingrays at San Diego beaches alone. People, in order to satisfy their thirst for thrill and sensation, want to see the tape. Fortunately, some TV broadcasting companies have stated that they will refuse to show the tape, but it stands to reason that somehow the tape will be shown–even if it ends up on some weird Internet site.

Stainton was quoted by the AFP of September 6 as saying that the tape featuring Irwin’s death should never be shown. “It should be destroyed… At the moment, it’s in police custody for evidence.” Stainton had earlier told reporters in Australia the footage was “shocking,” and that it is “a very hard thing to watch because you’re actually witnessing somebody die … and it’s terrible.”

Yes, indeed! The Bible says that we should cry over the deaths of innocent people–not get excited and thrilled about them!

Irwin dedicated his life–and that of his family–to animals and their preservation. AFP continued to report:

“But even in death, Irwin was rallying people to the wildlife conservation cause he so passionately promoted on television. An environmental charity he set up, Wildlife Warriors Worldwide, had been overwhelmed by donations from around the world… The website had received ‘something like a million hits in the first few hours of the news breaking’ and on Tuesday ‘we were getting 55 donations every 10 minutes’… Staff at Irwin’s zoo were also astounded by the extraordinary global outpouring of grief for Australia’s most famous export… The shrine and outpouring of popular grief is being compared by Australian media to the floral mountain created in London after the 1997 death of Princess Diana.”

It is good to see that in this evil world, there are still some who are determined to make a difference for the better–and whatever one may think of Steve Irwin, he was such a man, dedicated to a worthy cause. How much more ought the Church of God be diligent and dedicated to its cause and commission–to preach the gospel in all the world as a witness (Matthew 24:14) and to feed God’s people (Matthew 28:18).

Turkey Gets Involved–and Fulfills Prophecy

The Associated Press reported on September 6, 2006, that “Turkey’s ruling party lawmakers voted Tuesday in favor of the deployment of peacekeeping troops [in Lebanon], despite objections from opposition parties and street protests by thousands of people… Turkey is the first Muslim nation with diplomatic ties with Israel to pledge troops for the force… Turkish leaders have not specified how many troops would be sent to Lebanon but… the number is unlikely to exceed 1,000.”

In spite of this rather small force, it is interesting that Turkey would send any troops to Lebanon. In Biblical prophecy, Turkey is known as modern Edom or Esau, the brother of Jacob. When Isaac blessed Esau, prophesying about his and his descendants’ future, he stated, in Genesis 27:39-40: “Behold, your dwelling shall be of [correct: without] the fatness [or fertility] of the earth, And of the dew of heaven from above. By your sword you shall live, And you shall serve your brother [Jacob or Israel–including his descendants, the modern nations of the houses of Israel and Judah]; And it shall come to pass, when you become restless, That you shall break his yoke from your neck.”

This prophecy was fulfilled under the Ottoman Empire of the Turkish people.

The book of Obadiah contains further prophecies about Edom or Turkey. It was prophesied that Turkey would become “small among the nations” (verse 2). It is also stated that “all the men in your confederacy Shall force you to the border; The men at peace with you Shall deceive you and prevail against you” (verse 7). Verses 10-14 explain why God will be very angry with modern-day Turkey–as Turkey will participate in the conquest of Jerusalem and the children of Judah. That is one of the reasons why it is noteworthy that Turkey is sending troops into that part of the world.

Blair in Big Trouble

President Bush’s most supportive ally on the war on terror, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is facing great difficulties. As The Associated Press reported on September 6, “Seven junior members of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government resigned Wednesday to protest his refusal to leave office as calls for the British leader to announce when he will step aside gained momentum. The rebellion in Blair’s Labour Party flared despite strong hints by senior ministers that Blair planned to step down within a year, and a news report claiming the departure date would be July 26. Though the lower-level revolt was unlikely to force Blair from office, it raised fears that the eventual change of command will be rancorous and messy…

“Blair… is not obliged to leave office before the next national vote. However, many Labour lawmakers, angry over his handling of the recent fighting in Lebanon and Iraq and anxious about their slide in the polls, are demanding he say when he’ll go because they fear the continued uncertainty will damage the party’s electoral prospects.”

The Associated Press reported on September 9 that “Blair reluctantly promised Thursday to resign within a year, hoping that revealing a general time frame for his departure will appease critics.”

Sooner or later, Tony Blair will step down from the political world scene. And it stands to reason that the new Prime Minister will not follow in Blair’s footsteps of an unquestioned alliance with, and support of, the Bush Administration. When that happens, the current American government will have lost its strongest supporter. Presently, many American citizens are not really aware of how much America’s prestige has decreased in the world. There are reasons for this development. Our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America” explains these reasons.

Iran Toys With a Sleeping World

Even before the arrival of the deadline set by the U.N. Security Council forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, Iran had explained that they would not comply. The deadline came and went, Iran did not comply, and it should now be expected that the world would act in some fashion! But far from it!

Reuters reported on September 2 that “European Union foreign ministers agreed on Saturday to give diplomacy two more weeks to clarify Iran’s stance on halting sensitive nuclear work… “

This is almost beyond belief! By now, it should be very clear what Iran’s “stance” is on the matter.

To nobody’s surprise who is cognizant of Iran’s clear agenda, The Associated Press reported on September 6:

“Iran abruptly announced Wednesday that last-ditch talks on its disputed nuclear program were postponed… The talks between Iranian nuclear envoy Ali Larijani and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana had been tentatively set for Wednesday in Vienna as a final attempt to see if common ground could be found to start negotiations… But while Solana had been ready to fly to the Austrian capital at short notice, the talks had been left hanging by uncertainty over whether Larijani would come. ‘We will not have the meeting today in Vienna,’ Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Associated Press. ‘Both sides are arranging (a meeting) for a couple of days later.’ Instead, Iran’s president proposed that he and President Bush hold a debate at the U.N. General Assembly later this month.”

On September 7, The Associated Press reported that “Solana said Thursday that he expects to hold talks with Iran’s top nuclear envoy on Saturday. The talks are considered a final attempt to determine whether there is common ground to start negotiations between Iran and the five U.N. Security Council nations, plus Germany.”

In spite of these all-too-obvious tactics, countries such as Russia and China are apparently still unwilling to impose any sanctions on Iran. And so, Iran is continuing to stay its course, while much of the world seems to be sound asleep. For example, Iran’s President is determined to establish radical Islam in his country. As The Associated Press reported on September 6, “Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country’s universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism.”

Is the world listening?

Please make sure to watch our StandingWatch program, “Iran’s Frightening Intentions.”

A Divided Europe Cannot Stand!

Slowly recovering from its poor performance during the Lebanon war, the EU ministers are trying to agree on a course of action regarding the Israeli-Palestinian “peace” process. But proposed solutions are hotly disputed–again. As the EUObserver reported on September 1:

“EU foreign ministers meeting in Finland agreed that the bloc should take the lead in reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process – but member states are divided over plans to hold talks with the Palestinian Hamas movement.”

Dissensions like these might very well ultimately lead to the establishment of a core of 10 European nations or groups of nations, which will give autocratic power to a charismatic political and military leader–the “beast,” as he is known in Biblical prophecy. But even then, the 10 European nations will not be totally united. Daniel 2:41-43 predicts that “the kingdom” of Europe “shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron [to make war] shall be in it… the kingdom shall be partly strong [militarily] and partly fragile [in other matters]… they will not adhere to one another.” In addition, Revelation 17:12 adds that these ten kings will be “of one mind [militarily], and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb [Jesus Christ]… For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.”

Keep watching for the unification of Europe, but don’t make the mistake of expecting a totally unified Europe in all respects. Remember, the “core” European Union will be partly strong and partly fragile; they will be divided and still be of one mind in certain matters.

Poll Results in Europe

The EUObserver reported on September 6, that a “majority of EU citizens [65 percent] are in favour of having a single EU foreign minister for the bloc… The EU foreign minister position is one of the key innovations of the European constitution which was shelved last year after French and Dutch voters rejected it in referendums.”

The report continued:

“But while there was some strong support for a foreign minister, the idea of the bloc strengthening its military power to play a larger role in the world proved more controversial. On average, 51 percent were against the idea but there were big differences between countries with the Portuguese (68%) and the French (56%) more in favour of the bloc assuming military responsibilities but the Germans (64%) and the Italians (56%) more against.

“The same survey shows that European support for US leadership in world affairs has dropped significantly (from 64% to 37%) since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington five years ago. On a similar note, European disapproval of US president George W. Bush’s handling of international affairs has risen strongly from 56 percent to 77 percent–with the French, Germans and Spanish proving to be the most critical with an 85 percent disapproval rate.”

For more information as to what will soon happen in Europe, including its relationship with the USA, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

Next War Between Israel, Iran and Syria?

The Sunday Times reported on September 3 that Israel is preparing for a “possible war with both Iran and Syria.” The article continued:

“The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable…  There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria which the Iranian defence minister described as a ‘mutual front against Israeli threats’… both Iran and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel Aviv.”

If you want to learn more about what is prophesied to happen soon in the Middle East, please read our free booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

This well-known law has been grossly misunderstood by some, thinking
that God actually required the maiming of an offender who was guilty of
injuring another person. However, this is clearly not the intended
meaning of the “an eye for an eye” principle, and the Church of God has
never taught otherwise.

The “an eye for an eye” principle is
commonly known as the “lex talionis,” which is Latin for the “law of
retaliation.” It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27;
Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21.

Rather than
requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been
correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The
law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as
determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to
“self-help.”

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia states the following about the “an eye for an eye” principle:

“The
basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment,
often expressed under the motto ‘Let the punishment fit the crime’…
The Torah’s first mention of the phrase ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot’ appears in Exodus
(21:22-27). The Talmud… based upon a critical interpretation of the
original Hebrew text, explains that this biblical concept entails
monetary compensation in tort cases. The same interpretation applies to
this phrase as it appears in Leviticus (24:18-20). Personal retribution
is explicitly forbidden by the Torah (Leviticus 19:18), such reciprocal
justice being strictly reserved for the social magistrate (usually in
the form of regional judges)… The Oral Law explains, based upon the
biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part
monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for ‘Damages,
Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish’…

“However,
the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the
phrase ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a
foot for a foot’ makes another appearance (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). Here,
the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against
another person. The Torah requires the court to ‘do to him as he had
conspired to do to his brother’ (ibid. 19:19)… the court carries out
this direct reciprocal justice (including when the punishment
constitutes the death penalty). Otherwise, the offenders receive
lashes… it is impossible to read ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth’ literally in the context of a conspiratorial witness…
the phrase is never meant literally in the Torah.”

In a related
article, the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, in quoting from the website of the
Union of Orthodox Congregations, points out:

“The oral law of
Judaism holds that this verse [Exodus 21:24] was, from the beginning,
never meant to be followed literally… to follow the spirit of this
law, it must be interpreted as applying to financial damages that are
commensurate with the severity of the crime… Ah, you ask, how do you
know the Torah means that, and is not to be taken literally? Because
the Torah says, ‘Do not take a ransom for the life of a Murderer, who
is wicked to the extent that he must die’; for the murderer, there is
no monetary amount that is sufficient to grant him atonement in the
eyes of God! Only payment with his life will secure that atonement! But
for other forms of injury, we will [inflict monetary damages on] the
criminal…”

In addition, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown state in
their Commentary on the Whole Bible, pertaining to Exodus 21: “The law
which authorized retaliation… was a civil one. It was given to
regulate the procedure of the public magistrate in determining the
amount of compensation in every case of injury, but did not encourage
feelings of private revenge. The later Jews, however, mistook it for a
moral precept, and were corrected by our Lord.”

The Soncino
Commentary states the following in regard to Exodus 21:24-25: “In all
these cases monetary compensation is intended. Strict justice demanded
the principle of measure for measure…”

The NIV Study Bible,
1985, points out to Leviticus 24:19: “This represents a statement of
principle. The penalty is to fit the crime, not exceed it. An actual
eye or tooth was not to be required, nor is there evidence that such a
penalty was ever exacted.”

As mentioned, the Church of God has
taught consistently that the “an eye for an eye principle” was not
meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person. A
careful analysis of the Scriptures clearly confirms the accuracy of
this conclusion.

For instance, we read in Exodus 21:22-25: “If
men fight, and hurt a woman with [an unborn] child, so that she gives
birth prematurely, yet no harm [to the woman] follows, he shall surely
be punished accordingly [this shows, by the way, that in God’s eyes, it
is wrong to hurt or kill an unborn child] as the woman’s husband
imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any
harm follows [to the woman], then you shall give life for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,
wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” In other words, the
specific, determined value of the life, the eye, the tooth, etc. had to
be paid. The whole context of this passage in Exodus 21 is addressing
COMPENSATION, not REVENGE or literal MAIMING. This can also be seen,
when continuing in verses 26 and 27:

“If a man strikes the eye
of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go
free for the sake of the eye [freedom from slavery compensated for the
eye–that was the value of the eye in such a case]. And if he knocks
out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free
for the sake of his tooth [again, in such a case, the value of the
tooth was freedom from slavery].”

The same intent of having to pay just compensation can be seen, when analyzing Leviticus 24:17-21:

“Whoever
kills any man [intentionally and deliberately, with foresight and
malice] shall surely be put to death. Whoever kills an animal shall
make it good [or, make restitution, pay for the value], animal for
animal. If a man causes disfiguration of his neighbor, as he has done,
so shall it be done to him [The Soncino Commentary points out that in
the Hebrew, the words for “done unto him” literally mean “given unto
him”; “he must pay the value of the damage in money that passes from
hand to hand”]– fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth;
as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done
[lit. given] unto him [that is, monetary compensation shall be given to
the disfigured person]. And whoever kills an animal shall restore it
[pay for its value]; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death [in
the case of a deliberate malicious murder, no monetary compensation was
allowed in lieu of capital punishment].”

In the New Testament,
Jesus Christ sometimes used figures of speech to stress a point, but He
did not mean a literal application in those cases. For instance, He
said in Matthew 5:29-30: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it
out and cast it from you… And if your right hand causes you to sin,
cut it off and cast it from you…” Christ did not mean, of course, to
apply this literally; rather, as the Lamsa Bible explains, these are
Aramaic idioms, meaning that we are to stop envying [with our eyes] or
stealing [with our hands].

In the same chapter, Jesus also addressed the “an eye for an eye” principle. He stated, in Matthew 5:38-39:

“You
have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist [forcefully, by resorting to
violence and thereby injuring or killing] an evil person. But whoever
slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

According
to the Lamsa Bible, the concept of “turning the other cheek” is another
Aramaic idiom, meaning, “Do not start a quarrel or a fight.”

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia explains Christ’s saying in Matthew 5:38-39 as follows:

“The
passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies
and those who harm you. This saying of Jesus is… interpreted [by
some] as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as
implying that ‘an eye for an eye’ encourages excessive vengeance rather
than an attempt to limit it… Most Christian scholars and commentators
have agreed that such an interpretation is a misunderstanding of this
section of Matthew. The ‘Expounding of the Law’ includes a series of
six sayings in similar format, known as the ‘antitheses’. In each of
them Jesus quotes the provisions of the… Law without
criticism–indeed, the passage is prefaced by a ringing endorsement of
the Law as [a] whole. However he then calls on his followers to go
further than the [letter of the] Law demands, in order to ‘be perfect’.
It seems clear Jesus was not criticising the Law, but calling on his
followers not only to refrain from the abuses the Law condemns, but to
go to the opposite extreme by exercising forgiveness and love–even
when one has a just claim…”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown clarify
in their Commentary on the Whole Bible, that Jesus was not stating, in
any way, that under Old Testament Law, offenders had to be maimed.
Christ was addressing quite a different issue: “An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth, i.e., whatever penalty was regarded as a proper
equivalent for these. This law of retribution–designed to take
vengeance out of the hands of a private person, and commit it to the
magistrate–was abused in the opposite way… [justifying in the minds
of the people] a warrant for taking redress into their own hands,
contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament… (Prov. 20:22).”

In
order to prevent personal vengeance, as well as an unwillingness to
forgive, to reconcile, and to live peaceably with all men, Christ
continued to encourage His followers, in Matthew 5:40, to settle a
claim with their adversaries out of court, without insisting on their
“rights.”

Paul cautioned us in the same way in 1 Corinthians
6:1-7, especially when lawsuits before worldly courts involve spiritual
brethren. He said, in verse 7: “… it is already an utter failure for
you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather
accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?”

Finally,
in Matthew 5:41, when encouraging His followers to go the “extra mile,”
Jesus referred to the Roman practice that “obliged the people not only
to furnish horses and carriages [for government dispatches], but to
give personal attendance, often at great inconvenience, when required.
But the thing here demanded is a readiness to submit to unreasonable
demands of whatever kind, rather than raise quarrels, with all the
evils resulting from them” (Jamiesson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on
the Whole Bible).

In conclusion, the Old Testament “lex
talionis” of an eye for an eye principle was never meant to be applied
literally by actually maiming an offender. It was meant to outlaw
personal vindictive “self-help” and to allow, instead, a magistrate or
a judge to consider the case and render righteous judgment by ordering
the offender to pay just compensation to the victim. Jesus Christ
addressed a wrong understanding of His listeners who thought that they
could avenge themselves. He cautioned all of us to be forgiving and
kind, and He encouraged us to avoid fights and especially violence,
even, if need be, at the price of foregoing our legal rights.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new member letter
has been written and posted on the Web. Hard copies were sent out on
Thursday. In the letter, Dave Harris explains the importance of keeping
God’s Holy Days at the correct time, and in the correct way.

Our new book on prayer has been sent to the printer in Canada. It will be posted shortly on the Web.

A new StandingWatch program was recorded last Friday and has been posted on the Web. It is titled: “Iran’s Frightening Intentions.”

Set forth below is a summary of the program:

As
anticipated and expected, Iran has refused to comply with the U.N.
Security Council’s resolution to halt uranium enrichment. How is the
world going to react to Iran’s defiance? Will the United States of
America have to act alone, as Russia and China, as well as some
European countries, don’t seem to be willing to impose sanctions on
Iran? Will the USA launch a military strike against Iran–perhaps even
with nuclear weapons? How real is the threat from Iran and its
president? Given Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s religious convictions and
philosophy, the threat is very real. Does Biblical prophecy tell us
what is soon going to happen?

On September 2, 2006, Bill Grams will give the sermon, titled, “Noah–Life and Times.”

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.

As we rapidly approach the time of year God has set apart for His
Fall festivals, how excited are we that we have been blessed with such
awesome knowledge; knowledge which reveals many details of God’s great
plan for all of humanity; knowledge of plans He will see completed
according to His faithful Word; events which will change forever the
course of the world and universe?

No doubt, when we first learned
of God’s intent of fulfilling His awesome plans–events which will
astound this world–it was difficult for us to contain this knowledge
within ourselves! We had an urgent need to tell all we had learned to
family, friends, and yes, even everyday acquaintances.

As time
passed and we all grew in the knowledge of God’s Holy Days, we came to
realize even more the significance of these precious days! Leviticus 26
reveals tremendous blessings for all who will walk in God’s Law, His
Statutes (which include God’s Holy Days), and His Judgments; while
revealing in the same set of Scriptures retributions which will surely
come on Israel and on all the nations of the world who fail to follow
these instructions! 

Deuteronomy 16 gives an outline of
all of God’s annual festivals wherein God instructs us to observe these
days and to rejoice therein! We observe these days for the purpose of
honoring our God, showing respect for Him and His instructions, and to
learn even more of Him and His Way–something impossible for anyone who
observes the holidays of this world ever to achieve.

Yet, with
many who once knew and observed these days, this enthusiasm has waned
over time, with the result that many of these no longer observe God’s
wonderful commands relative to His Holy Days! Many of these today are
no longer faithful in following God’s tithing laws (which include funds
to attend the festivals, funds to assist the less fortunate in
attending the festivals and funds to help in providing facilities
needed to observe the festivals, as God instructs in His Word). We
know, of course, that some do not have the financial resources to
attend God’s festivals.

Such lack of obedience to God’s
instructions demonstrates a total lack of enthusiasm in following God’s
Way, and in participating in His very important and significant Holy
Days.

How seriously do we take God’s commands relative to His festival season?

Powerless America!

Der Spiegel Online published this week a thought-provoking article on Europe, the United States, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Iran. This article is almost prophetic. It addressed the continuing downfall and defeat of the United States of America and Israel, as well as the growing influence of Muslim nations and Europe’s goal to create “peace” in the Middle East.

In referring to Iran, the article was titled, “The Spider’s Web.” It stated:

“More people than ever are dying in Iraq while the United States looks on powerlessly. In the wake of its invasion of Lebanon, Israel is riven with self-doubt, while Europe tries to establish peace. But there is one country that is benefiting from every crisis in the region: Iran… Thousands have died in Iraq in recent weeks, far more than those killed in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, which has dominated this summer’s headlines. The world seems to have grown weary of the misery, the mounting death toll and the bad news constantly coming out of Baghdad or the Sunni triangle, which has been poisoning the Middle East since the spring of 2003. Amr Mussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, once warned that a war in Iraq would open ‘the door to hell.’ Who would disagree with him today?… Meanwhile, Washington continues to indulge in rosy rhetoric about the ‘new Middle East’ it claims to have created… ‘I’m confident in our capacity to leave behind a better world,’ announced US President George W. Bush, sounding more defiant than triumphant…

“Nothing seems to be going well at the moment for the United States, the superpower with its vastly superior military might. The Taliban is on the rise again in Afghanistan, Iraq is in the throes of civil war and Washington’s reputation in the region has plunged to [an] historic low, its authority as a broker in the region’s conflict frittered away for now — and probably for a long time to come… Israel, the US’s staunchest ally in the region, isn’t faring any better. Far from achieving any of its war objectives, the country has only managed to bomb Lebanon’s remarkable ‘Cedar Revolution’ into distant memory. Israel seems determined to repeat the Americans’ mistakes. It became involved in an asymmetrical war against [the] terrorist organization Hezbollah, and its bombardment of areas filled with civilians has done nothing but strengthen the adversary it tried to destroy. In Lebanon, an international force numbering several thousand, initially under French leadership, will be expected to secure the peace, apparently with a far-reaching mandate, the details of which are being worked out.

“But everything seems to be going well at the moment for America’s greatest foe, the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It has crafted a finely woven web of relationships stretching from Ankara in Turkey to the Gulf and on to Russia, India and China. And what the regime hasn’t developed itself seems to be falling into its lap. The United States has done Iran a favor by eliminating its two worst enemies, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, jokes that he’ll send Tehran the bill one day. Iran has also emerged as a winner in the Iraq war, without having fired a single shot. Whether in Baghdad, Beirut or Kabul, everything is going according to the Iranians’ wishes — badly, that is…

“Iran, like a spider in a web, [is] steadily collecting its prey, and has become astoundingly weighty in the process. Despite a general lack of clarity over its domestic situation, the regime deals with the rest of the world with the gravitas of a major power… The Islamic Republic has established itself as a regional power, even without nuclear weapons. According to a recent report by Chatham House, a British think tank, Iran has more influence in Iraq than the United States does. Although the Americans have 135,000 troops stationed there, Iran controls the Shiite militias, whose membership numbers in the hundreds of thousands. ‘The debate is over,’ says Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert who once supported the war. ‘By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war.’ … One hundred thousand Arabs have fled from the Kurds in northern Iraq, 200,000 Sunnis from war-torn regions in the west, and between 50,000 and 100,000 Shiites from mixed districts in central Iraq… Now more than ever, Iran, 17 years after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, is the opinion leader in the anti-American and anti-Israeli discourse raging in the Islamic world…

“It appears that President Bush is now ready to listen. Iranian-born Vali Nasr, who teaches political science at the Naval Postgraduate Academy in Monterrey, California, recently explained the situation to Bush… According to Nasr, America, by marching into Iraq, destroyed the Sunni wall that had kept the mullahs in check. ‘This genie won’t go back into the bottle,’ he told the US president, adding that the old allies of the US have lost control of the region. How can America regain control?”

America’s military and political influence is shrinking–in spite of a German press release that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld allegedly said on August 29 that America would be capable, militarily, to deal with Iran. America’s declining role in the world is just the beginning of prophetic developments which will surely come to pass. For more information, please read our free booklets, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” and, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

U.S. Plains Withering in Drought

UPI reported on August 29:

“Five U.S. Plains states are experiencing a drought that has been setting records, decimating crops and careers for ranchers, The New York Times reports. The drought affecting North and South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming is the result of several years of dry conditions and a winter with little snow, climatologists with the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln told the newspaper. South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds has requested 51 of the state’s 66 counties be designated a federal agricultural disaster area, as sunflower, corn and pasture grasses have withered and died.”

Iran Won’t Concede!

On August 26, The Associated Press reported:

“An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb… Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy water plant is ‘one of the biggest nuclear projects’ in the country… He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer…”

On August 29, Der Spiegel Online reported about Iran’s most recent defiance, showing that Iran will not concede. Will the world respond to Iran’s relentless search for power? And if so, how? The magazine stated:

“At a wide-ranging press conference only two days ahead of a United Nations deadline calling for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment for its controversial nuclear program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear that Tehran would not ‘bow to threats and ultimatums’ made by the international community… Prior to Ahmadinejad’s press conference, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said on Monday that Iran’s efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle were ‘irreversible’ — similar to previous comments made by the country’s supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Washington is pushing for quick action at the Security Council if Iran fails to comply with the UN deadline. However, it remains to be seen if the world body can stick to a unified line, since both China and Russia are seen as being reluctant to harm their considerable economic interests in Iran by slapping harsh sanctions on Tehran.”

The German daily, Die Welt, wrote this week: “Washington will have a difficult time taking unilateral action if the Council shies away from imposing sanctions. The only thing that remains to be negotiated — that has become clear after the verbal muscle-flexing and theatrical self-portrayal — is whether and how the international community will accompany Iran’s genesis as a nuclear power while exerting some control. The alternative is war.”

Will America Have to Go Alone Against Iran?

The LA Times reported on August 26:

“With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade. The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council’s inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington’s position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

“Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack… Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, [U.S. Ambassador John] Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit… He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran’s transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen.”

America’s Options for Iran — “All of Them Bad!”

On August 24, David Horovitz wrote the following in “the Jerusalem Post”:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would ‘sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,’ Giora Eiland, Israel’s former national security adviser [said]. At present, Eiland stressed, the ultimate decision maker in Iran was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 67, whom he said was ‘more reasonable.’ But, Eiland went on, ‘if Ahmadinejad were to succeed him–and he has a reasonable chance of doing so–then we’d be in a highly dangerous situation.’ The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, ‘has a religious conviction that Israel’s demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that’s a real threat.’

“In facing up to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Eiland said the United States had three possible courses of action, ‘all of them bad,’ and that a decision could not be postponed for too long, ‘since delay, too, is a decision of sorts.’ The first option was ‘to give up’–to accept that Iran was going nuclear and try to make the best of it… Washington’s second option was to launch a last-ditch effort at diplomatic action, he said… The third option, said Eiland, was a military operation… this would be action that would have to be taken within months…”

German Troops in Southern Afghanistan?

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 29 about the German reaction to pressures from its allies to send German troops into southern Afghanistan:

“With growing unrest and fighting in southern Afghanistan, a major debate is shaping up in Germany over whether Bundeswehr army soldiers should be dispatched to the region… The conservative Die Welt writes that current developments are ‘forcing Germans to face a reality about the Bundeswehr’s foreign deployments that they didn’t take seriously before.’ And that’s that deployments aren’t just simple peacekeeping operations — they could put soldiers in harm’s way at any time. ‘If German soldiers are deployed to southern Afghanistan, they could face Taliban fighters,” the paper writes. “The perils facing German troops in Congo, where they are providing election security, was demonstrated a few days ago by a shootout in Khinshasa.’…

“The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung uses the debate over a southern Afghanistan deployment as the jumping off point for a bigger issue: the lack of a vision for the Bundeswehr. Since 1992, a total of 150,000 German soldiers have participated in missions abroad — sometimes for humanitarian reasons, at times for combat. But it is still unclear under what criteria Germany sends troops abroad. ‘There is no recognizable strategy whatsoever,’ the paper complains. ‘What German interests are represented in Afghanistan, in Congo and, in the future, in the Middle East?’ The paper says its almost laughable that a country with Germany’s economic might has already reached its military limit with less than 10,000 of its 260,000 troops being deployed abroad. ‘If Germany is going to have an army that gets its orders from parliament,’ the paper argues, ‘then parliament is going to have to take its job seriously. It has to provide a definition of the Bundeswehr’s actual role: It’s obviously no more than an army of self-defense at the moment. But should it become an army of intervention?’ The paper then calls on the government to develop a clear German policy that can determine whether a deployment of troops makes sense or not.”

As Biblical prophecy reveals, Germany will soon have a powerful army, and it will be used as an “army of intervention”–not only as an “army of self-defense.” For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.”

“More France Means Less Europe”

On August 25, Germany’s conservative daily, Die Welt, published a guest commentary by Dominique Moisi, one of the founders of the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI). According to Der Spiegel Online, summarizing the editorial, “Moisi argues that the conflict in Lebanon has ‘widened the emotional gap between Europe and the United States that began to open up with the beginning of the war in Iraq.’ The United States ‘may not be convinced of the tactical choices made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his administration,’ Moisi writes, ‘but the Americans still believe that there was no choice but to conduct this war — just as with the 1982 war in Lebanon.’ On the other hand, the ‘majority of Europeans’ view the war ‘as an operation that was useless from Israel’s point of view, and which could trigger a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West.’…

“[According to Moisi] ‘Spain and Italy have become more critical of Israel, and they’ve also moved closer to France.’ That this last country should be playing an increasingly central role in the debate over the UN peacekeeping mandate in Lebanon is not a good thing, in Moisi’s view: France’s decisions are dictated less by a clear strategy than by the country’s need to retain political ‘credibility’ and its ‘reputation for being a country that doesn’t shy from military intervention.’ Moisi also suggests that ‘more France’ means ‘less Europe,’ or that France’s tendency to take over the reins when it comes to intervention in the Middle East reflects the absence of a consistent EU policy.”

Europe Asked to Act More Decisively!

The EUObserver reported on August 28:

“The Middle East crisis has exposed weaknesses in EU foreign policy with the 25-member bloc reacting too slowly to stop the destruction of Lebanon, president Jacques Chirac said at an annual gathering of top French diplomats in Paris on Monday… ‘The future of the European project is today predicated on Europe’s ability to be a leading political player,’ the president added… The EU’s so-called high representative on foreign affairs, Javier Solana, flew to Lebanon at the height of the conflict in July but the Finnish EU presidency all-but-ignored Mr Chirac’s 20 July plea to give the unofficial EU foreign minister special powers in this case. Speaking at the time, EU diplomats said the UK was unwilling to let Mr Solana negotiate for the whole bloc because there was no unanimity on how to handle the crisis, while other EU states were afraid of losing control in foreign policy areas… ‘In a few short days we saw Lebanon laid to waste, its people battered, 15 years of [diplomatic] effort laid to waste,’ Mr Chirac said.”

European Policy Needs Cohesiveness!

Der Spiegel Online wrote on August 28 about the German perception that Europe’s and Germany’s foreign policy flip-flops. The magazine pointed out:

“The EU has long indicated it wants to play a larger role in world events. But this episode [pertaining to Lebanon] shows Europe still lacks the cohesion and decisiveness in foreign policy, German commentators [said] on Monday.

“Business daily Financial Times Deutschland… singled out France for its waffling on the number of troops it was going to send… In short, the paper writes: ‘The EU has taken on a big responsibility with its participation. Now it must show that it can live up to it.’ Left-leaning Berliner Zeitung says Germany is making itself part of the problem in the Middle East conflict by first rejecting any deployment that could bring its troops into confrontation with Israeli soldiers and then stressing that its navy will use force to stop arms shipments to Hezbolla.'”

Terrorists in Turkey

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 29 about the most recent horrible terror attacks in Turkey by Kurdish extremists, suggesting that more terrible attacks will follow. The magazine stated:

“Several bombs rocked Turkey’s Mediterranean coast and Istanbul late Sunday and Monday, causing at least three deaths and injuring many more. But the toll could have been even higher: Police have reportedly foiled another attack in the western port city Izmir after arresting a member of the banned Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)… The Kurdistan Liberation Hawks (TAK), believed to be tied to the PKK, claimed responsibility for the bombings… The TAK made clear that it was targeting Turkey’s tourist industry to further its separatist cause for the country’s sizable Kurdish minority. ‘We have warned the public of Turkey and the international public before, Turkey is not a safe country, tourists shouldn’t come,’ the group said in a statement on its Web site… The TAK tactic of trying to damage Turkey’s tourist industry, an important part of the country’s economy, could have serious repercussions for the number of foreign visitors… Turkey’s tourist industry, which brings in $18 billion each year, has already been hit this year by other militant attacks and a bird flu outbreak.”

Catholic Church Questions Theory of Evolution

The Guardian Unlimited reported on August 28 about a remarkable development within the Catholic Church, which is apparently willing to review its stance regarding creation and evolution. For decades, the Catholic Church followed the influence of intellectual science to postulate that the concept of evolution was more than a hypothesis. But this erroneous position might perhaps be revised. The article stated:

“Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican’s view of evolution. There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of ‘intelligent design’ taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.

“A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week’s meeting was ‘to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so.’… The Pope also raised the issue in the inaugural sermon of his pontificate, saying: ‘We are not the accidental product, without meaning, of evolution.'”

For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution–a Fairy Tale for Adults.”

Europe Needs Christians!

On August 27, the Catholic news agency, Zenit, published an interview with Hans Maier, retired professor of Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilians University. Maier was minister of Education and Culture in Bavaria from 1970 to 1986, and president of the Central Committee of German Catholics from 1976 to 1988. He has written some 30 books, including “Democracy in the Church?” (1970), in which he collaborated with Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

In the interview, Maier advocated the concept that Europe needs united and active Christians, and that Europe does not need the import of Arab Muslims. He stated:

“… there are common foundations and principles, manifested in the cultural specificities of each nation. And these unifying principles are Roman law, which led Europe to develop an efficient juridical culture; the Judeo-Christian belief in one God, which has imprinted itself on institutions and thought… We cannot say that Europe is only Christian, but the Judeo-Christian heritage profoundly influenced its cultural and political soul. To import in Europe the same Islam that has been structured in Arab countries would mean the suppression of present-day Europe to create another, radically different continent. This does not mean that we cannot have a Euro-Islam, an Islam adapted to Europe. But it presupposes on the part of Muslims respect for religious freedom, pluralism of thought and the distinction between religion and politics. It requires that the mullahs accept to live their faith along with the Jewish synagogues and Christian cathedrals. It is a process of transformation and maturation to which we must call Muslims, if they wish to be part of this Europe of ours…

“Freedom is something typically European, and I would also say, typically Christian. The contribution made by Christianity to the development of freedom as well as of democracy, is very strong. As for the rest, the totalitarianisms of the 20th century, Communism, and Fascism especially in their National-Socialist expression, are the substitute introduced when there was an attempt to suppress [the Judeo-Christian] religion in Europe… the roots of modern democracy [are] not by accident… Christian roots… Christians are called to unite, to seek ties with others. It must never be forgotten that one of the factors that led to the affirmation of Nazism in Germany was the division between Catholics and Protestants, who were unable to form a common front.”

A Christian European Constitution

Bild Online reported on August 29 about a formal visit between Pope Benedict XVI and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, daughter of a Protestant minister. During the visit, Merkel promised that she would strongly advocate that Christianity is firmly rooted in the European Constitution, as “Christianity has formed essentially our European history.” The Pope is scheduled to visit Bavaria on September 8.

An important tool in understanding a particular passage in Scripture
is to look at the passage in context, as well as in the light of other
Scriptures. In John 9, Christ healed a man on the Sabbath who had been
born blind. The Pharisees and the Jews accused Christ of breaking the
Sabbath and concluded that He was not from God (verse 16) and a
“sinner” (verse 24, in Greek, “hamartolos”). In response, the healed
man said: “Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is
a worshipper of God and does His will, He hears him… If this Man were
not from God, He could no nothing” (verses 31, 33).

As a
consequence, he was put out of the synagogue (verse 34), and Christ
later told some of the Pharisees that they were not blind, but that
their unrepented sin remained (verses 40-41).

The Pharisees had
made terrible accusations against Jesus. They had accused Him of
casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub, the “ruler of the
demons”–another designation for Satan (Matthew 12:24). Some even
claimed that He was possessed by Satan (Mark 3:22). Christ warned them
in that context that they were in danger of committing the unpardonable
sin, which cannot be forgiven, for they were blaspheming God’s Holy
Spirit dwelling in Christ (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30).

When
the Pharisees, Scribes and other leading Jews accused Christ of being a
“sinner,” they did not just refer to Him as One who might occasionally
sin. They were implying that He was influenced or even possessed by
Satan, and that He did miracles through demonic powers. Paul later
said, in Galatians 2:15, that “we… are Jews by nature, and not
sinners of the Gentiles,” which do not know God. In addition, as we
will see, when Christ was called a “sinner,” He was also accused of
having a depraved character and of deliberately and intentionally
rejecting God.

In the majority of cases, the Greek word for
“sinner” is used to describe those who are practicing, as a way of
life, a depraved and ungodly lifestyle. Christ was “betrayed into the
hands of sinners” (Matthew 26:45). He ate with “publicans and sinners”
(Matthew 9:10-11), because He had come to call “sinners” to repentance
(Mark 2:16-17). He said that God’s angels in heaven would rejoice over
a “sinner” who repents (Luke 15:10). Christ came into the world to
“save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). He warned His true disciples not to be
ashamed of Him and His words in this adulterous and sinful generation
(Mark 8:38)–literally, in this “generation of sinners.” Peter
would later ask: “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will
the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:18). A woman who
anointed Christ’s feet with fragrant oil was a well-known
“sinner”–apparently a prostitute (Luke 7:37-39).

Paul places
“sinners” in the same category as “the lawless and insubordinate… the
ungodly… the unholy and profane,… the murderers of fathers and
murderers of mothers… manslayers…, fornicators,… sodomites…
kidnappers…, liars… [and] perjurers” (1 Timothy 1:9-10). He also
stated that he was a “chief” sinner (1 Timothy 1:15), as he had
persecuted the Church of God. Peter adds that even converted Israelites
“spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles
[the “sinners”]–when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness,
revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries” (1 Peter 4:3).

The
implication is that Jesus, when He was called a “sinner,” was accused
of being a “pervert” and a “bastard,” born of fornication (John 8:41),
influenced and possessed by Satan the devil and his demons (John 7:20;
8:48, 52; 10:20).The man who was healed of his blindness responded that
Jesus could not have been guilty of such accusations, because if He was
such a “sinner,” God would not have heard Him and used Him to heal his
eyes.

The Bible does not teach that God does not hear us when we
slip and fall occasionally, committing a sin because of weakness or
neglect. All of us sin occasionally (1 John 1: 8). We are told that if
we sin, we can repent of and confess our sin to God, and ask God for
forgiveness, and “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). This shows that God
WILL HEAR us when we pray to Him, even though we have sinned.

However,
Isaiah 59:2-3 tells us that God does not hear us when we live in
iniquity and when we are unwilling to repent of it: “But your
iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden
His face from you, So that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled
with blood, And your fingers with iniquity; Your lips have spoken lies,
Your tongue has muttered perversity.” God says in Isaiah 1:15: “Even
though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of
blood.”

God clearly states in Micah 3:4: “Then they will cry to
the LORD, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from
them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds.” Verse 2
explains that they “hate good and love evil” and that they steal and
rob mercilessly from the people.

David understood that if he “had
cherished iniquity in [his] heart, the Lord would not have listened” to
his prayers (Psalm 66:18, Revised Standard Version).

God told
Jeremiah that He would not hear those who rebelled against God and who
continued to live in rebellion: “Do not pray for this people, for their
good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry… But I will consume
them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence” (Jeremiah
14:11-12). In fact, the prayers of those who REFUSE to listen to God
and to obey His law are called an abomination (Proverbs 28:9). God will
NOT LISTEN to prayers of people who REFUSE to hear His law (Zechariah
7:11-13).

The way to be heard on high is to “Seek the LORD…
[and to] Call upon Him… [and to] Let the wicked forsake his way, And
the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He
will have mercy on Him” (Isaiah 55:6-7).

God may hear the
prayers of people whom He did not call to salvation at this time, when
He sees genuine remorse on their part. He listened to the prayer of the
Ninivites and spared their city (Jonah 3:5-10). Jesus confirmed later
that their “repentance” was sufficient for God to relent from the
disaster that He had intended to bring upon them (Matthew 12:41).

Christ
listened to the prayer of a Gentile woman and healed her young
daughter, by casting out a demon, when He saw her faith (Mark 7:25-30).
In that case, we don’t even know whether she was conscious of, and
whether she had repented of her sins, but God honored her faith in Him.
God says that until He calls someone to repentance, He overlooks the
time of ignorance (Acts 17:30), but even then, He desires that people
“seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him,
though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).

Someone
who is looking to God and who is trying to do what is right, as much as
he or she understands it, might very well be heard by God. Christ
healed many people who had faith in Him, even though they did not
understand many things about God and His Way of Life. But once God
calls us to salvation, He expects of us to respond to His call, repent,
get to know Him and His Way better, and to obey Him. We have to forsake
the ways of this world and choose to live God’s Way of Life. 1 John
3:22 says: “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep
His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.”
And 1 John 5:14 adds: “Now this is the confidence that we have in Him,
that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.”

However,
if we continue to openly rebel against God; refuse to listen to Him and
His Word; refuse to repent of our sins; refuse to keep His law and to
be obedient to Him; then God will not listen to our prayers. If we want
to remain “sinners,” even though we have been taught the truth–if we
choose to continue to follow the dictates and devices of our own evil
heart–then we cannot expect to be heard on high.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In our effort to participate in fulfilling the Church’s commission,
as much as God gives us the means to do so, to preach the gospel in all
the world as a witness and to warn of pending disaster, we have
launched a German website in Germany, under http://aufpostenstehen.de.
Several additional new German entries, which are in preparation, will
be posted soon on the Website.

A new StandingWatch program was recorded and has been posted on the Web. It is titled: “Terrorism in Germany.”

Set forth below is a summary of the program:

Germany
is not immune from terrorist attacks. Fanatical terrorists might strike
anywhere–any time. If they had been successful in their foiled attempt
in late July to blow up several trains in Germany, hundreds of innocent
passengers would have been killed. In the meantime, several
suspects–Lebanese students living in Germany–were apprehended, but
the German government is convinced that they acted with the help of a
terrorist group in Germany, with connections to terrorist organizations
overseas. Germans are on edge and wondering, what is going to happen
next. And more importantly, will their government be able to protect
them from terrorists?

On August 26, 2006, Edwin Pope will give the sermon, titled, “… A New Creation.”

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.

It was a warm summer morning in 1930, as the nearly destitute man
walked along the rail track. The sun was beginning to get hot as he
strolled slowly along, small beads of perspiration forming on his
forehead. He thought that the heat was nothing compared to the pangs of
hunger he felt from not eating for the last two days. As he walked
along, he thought how nice it would be to have a decent meal–something
he had not enjoyed for a long time. He prayed silently, “Lord, it would
sure be appreciated if you could somehow fill my need at this
time.” Something suddenly caught his eye, glistening in the
sunlight on the ground. Stopping he looked, then bent down to pick up a
brand new fifty cent piece that someone had dropped on the ground. A
lump swelled in his throat with gladness and joy at the thought of the
fine meal this could buy him in the town just a few miles ahead. As he
walked along, clutching his new found treasure, he came across a
trestle which crossed a river almost a quarter of a mile long. About
half way across he lost his footing. As he fell forward and opened his
hand to break his fall, the fifty cent piece bounced off the track and
fell between the rail ties. He watched as it slowly turned,
flickering sunlight as it did, then slipping into the river, lost
forever. The man looked up to heaven and said, “Lord I thank you that I
still have my appetite.”

Although this is just a story, it
reflects a genuine spirit of gratitude–something sadly lacking in this
day and age. Let us look at how Paul described this end time
generation, in 2 Timothy 3:2: “For men will be lovers of themselves,
lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
UNTHANKFUL, unholy…”

Even though this typifies our generation today, were people filled with gratitude in the past?

Let
us consider what happened in Christ’s time. Luke 17:11-13 tells us:
“Now it happened as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the
midst of Samaria and Galilee. Then as He entered a certain village,
there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off. And they
lifted up their voices and said, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!'”

All
ten lepers were healed by Christ, but what happened? Verses 15-17
continue: “And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned,
and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at His
feet, giving Him thanks… So Jesus answered and said, ‘Were there not
ten cleansed? But where are the nine? Were there not any found who
returned to give glory to God except this foreigner?'”

The
foreigner happened to be a Samaritan (verse 16). The Jews looked down
on Samaritans as being inferior. However, only the Samaritan was
willing to thank God. This proves that not too much has changed in two
thousand years.

What about us?

Are we grateful for our
precious calling–the pearl of great price which has been bestowed upon
us by God through His great mercy–or do we just take it for granted?
Are we grateful for the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, making it
possible to enter that great future kingdom? In less than two months we
will be gathering together, where God has placed His name, to celebrate
the Feast of Tabernacles, picturing the wonderful world tomorrow and
our part in ruling with and under Christ, our beloved High Priest and
King. How grateful are we to be allowed this tremendous opportunity of
experiencing a foretaste of that future world? Let us never forget the
blessings we have and the opportunities we will have in the future, and
let us express daily a genuine attitude of gratitude for all God is
doing and will do in our lives.

Terrorists Strike in Germany

Some thought that Germany might be somewhat protected from terrorist activity. They were wrong. More than two weeks ago, Germany awoke to the cruel reality that fanatical terrorists might strike anywhere–any time. If they had been successful in their foiled attempt to blow up several trains, hundreds of innocent passengers would have been killed. As AFP put it: “The bombs were set to detonate 10 minutes before their arrival in the western cities of Hamm, near Dortmund, and Koblenz, but a technical fault prevented an almost certain bloodbath.” Both main suspects–students from Lebanon–were arrested; one in Germany, the other one, who escaped to Lebanon, in Tripoli. All clues point at a terror cell in Germany, with connections to Lebanon and al-Quida.

On August 19, Bild Online reported that the first captured suspect is a Lebanese student living in the German city of Kiel. The paper said that he is apparently a member of an Islamic network, and the two suspects were not acting alone, but as a part of a group with terrorist background. It is feared that the arrest of the one suspect will lead to retaliation from Islamic perpetrators.

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 19, that two train stations in Kiel, Germany, were closed from 4:00 am until 9:00 pm on Saturday because of suspected terrorist activity. In addition, trains were stopped and travelers were stranded for hours. The magazine also stated that in the past (Mohammed) Atta, the terrorist from New York, had been seen in the German city of Kiel.

On August 22, 2006, Der Spiegel Online added the following comments: “German authorities have identified the second suspect involved in last month’s failed plot to bomb trains. He is believed to be 20 years old and from Lebanon, like the first suspect, a 21- year- old student, who was arrested last Saturday… German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said fears of a possible terror attack were ‘unfortunately very real.’ He added that the motive of the two attackers remained unclear. However, a resident of the student dormitory where [the first arrested suspect] resided in Kiel told SPIEGEL ONLINE the student had told residents that his brother, a member of the Lebanese army, had been killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Beirut Airport.”

AFP added on August 22: “Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel reported that some of [the first suspect’s] relatives had links to the banned Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and that the 21-year-old was believed to have been radicalized by the organization, which strives to create an Islamic state.”

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 24 about the capture of the second suspect: “The search for a suspect accused of plotting a terrorist attack in Germany ended on Thursday after he was taken into custody in the northern Lebanese town of Tripoli. While German officials said he turned himself in to police, the Lebanese authorities said he was lured to the city and then arrested… [The] 20-year-old Lebanese citizen who had been living in Cologne [Germany], is thought to be involved in a plot to blow up two trains in western Germany on July 31. According to the Associated Press, the Lebanese anti-terrorism police acted on information from Interpol while searching for [the suspect] for almost a week in northern Lebanon. German federal prosecutors want him for several counts of attempted murder and membership in a terrorist organization.”

AFP added on August 24: “The German government said the plotters… had almost certainly acted with the help of a terrorist group. The plot has put the country on edge, reminding Germans that three of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, lived as students in Hamburg for years without arousing suspicion.”

Lebanon’s Fragile Peace

The Associated Press reported on August 19:

“Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that left one Israeli soldier dead. Lebanon called the raid a ‘flagrant violation’ of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms smuggling from Iran and Syria. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr threatened to halt the army’s deployment in south Lebanon if the United Nations does not take up the issue of the raid. A stop to the deployment would deeply damage efforts to move in an international force to strengthen the cease-fire… The fighting… highlighted the fragility of the 6-day-old truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.

“Under the cease-fire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon. The cease-fire resolution talks about an end to weapons shipments to Hezbollah as part of a long-term end to the conflict–but does not immediately require it…”

It was also reported by the Arab paper, Aljazeera, on August 19 that “Israeli soldiers have detained the Palestinian deputy prime minister, the latest step in a continuing crackdown against the ruling Hamas party… An Israeli army spokesman confirmed that troops had taken al-Shaer into custody, saying it was ‘due to his membership of a terrorist organisation’… With al-Shaer’s arrest, four members of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian cabinet and about 28 Hamas members of parliament are in Israeli custody.”

Please make sure to tune in to our StandingWatch program, titled, “What’s Next for Lebanon?”

Situation in Lebanon Explosive

The Associated Press reported on August 23:

“Israel’s foreign minister on Wednesday called the situation in Lebanon ‘explosive’ and urged the international community to work quickly to deploy peacekeeping troops there… Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora urged the United States to help end Israel’s sea and air blockade… France and other European countries have been demanding a clear mandate from the U.N. mission that gives their soldiers the right to defend themselves without dragging them into the conflict… Meanwhile, the shaky cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah was tested Wednesday as the Israeli army fired artillery into a disputed border region in response to what it said was an attack from inside Lebanon. An Israeli soldier was killed in a separate incident, the army said…”

The Associated Press reported in August 24:

“Israeli forces crossed into the Gaza Strip early Thursday in a raid that captured a local Hamas militant leader and left his brother dead near a Gaza border town… As the forces–backed by tanks and helicopter gunships–moved into the area of Abasan and took up positions on rooftops, militants began firing at them, sparking gunbattles that wounded two militants… The violence came as Israel continued its offensive in the Gaza Strip, which it began June 28, three days after Hamas-linked militants tunneled into Israel, attacked an Israeli army post and captured a soldier… Israel said it would maintain its offensive until [the soldier] was released and militants ceased firing rockets into Israel.”

Syria Rejects UN Forces at its Border

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 23:

“As one of Hezbollah’s strongest international supporters, many had hoped that Syria could be a partner in delivering peace between Israel and the Lebanon-based Islamic extremist group. But comments made by the country’s president, Bashar Assad, muted those hopes on Tuesday. Speaking in harsh tones, Assad said his country would not accept the stationing of troops from a United Nations security force along the border between Syria and Lebanon… Assad described the plans as a ‘hostile act.'”

AFP added on August 24:

“Syria has threatened to close its border with Lebanon if UN peacekeepers are deployed there, further complicating the struggle by world powers to agree on the makeup and role of a force to police a fragile ceasefire. The warning came as EU diplomats met in Brussels for a second day Thursday… A partial breakthrough seemed to emerge Thursday, when officials in Paris announced that France might send ‘hundreds more’ troops to join the 400 it already has in Lebanon. Following talks Wednesday in Helsinki with Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said ‘they will close the frontier for all traffic (if) the UN troops will be deployed’ along the border.”

Did Israel Commit War Crimes?

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 23:

“… the human rights organization Amnesty International on Wednesday accused Israel of having committed war crimes by deliberately destroying Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate bombing that led to a high number of civilian casualties. ‘The scale of destruction was just extraordinary,’ Amnesty Researcher Donatella Rovera said, according to AP. ‘There is clear evidence of disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks.’ The organization encouraged the UN to investigate whether Israel or Hezbollah had violated international law.

“Israel denied the charges. ‘Unlike Hezbollah,’ said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, ‘we did not deliberately target the Lebanese population. On the contrary, under very difficult circumstances, we tried to be as surgical as is humanly possible in targeting the Hezbollah terrorist organization.’ The Israeli army has also defended itself, issuing statements that it warned civilians in Lebanon that bombings would take place. Israel also accused Hezbollah of firing rockets at locations near civilian institutions.

“Amnesty International claims that more than 1,100 Lebanese were killed during the five-week war. One-third were reportedly children. An estimated 160 Israelis were killed in combat or as the result of Hezbollah rocket attacks.”

How To Respond to Iran?

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 23 about the reaction of the German press to Iran’s nebulous response to the UN’s demands to stop its nuclear program. The magazine wrote: “Iran says it’s ready for ‘serious negotiations’ about its controversial nuclear ambitions. But the country’s hard-liners aren’t prepared to give up uranium enrichment. What should be the international community’s next move?”

It continued:

“The conservative daily Die Welt has considerable doubts that Tehran is honestly willing to negotiate. ‘Suddenly Iran is in a hurry. And what have they done up till now? Correct: They have not been serious about talks, they have stalled for time, and they duped the international community,’ writes the paper. The West will now have to quickly determine if Tehran truly wants to return to the negotiating table. ‘If not — and nothing yet has shown that Tehran can be convinced to give up its uranium enrichment program — then the Security Council will have to place sanctions on the country.’ Failing to do so, argues Die Welt, would harm the UN’s credibility. ‘But the Council isn’t united. China’s and Russia’s interests are in conflict with Washington’s uncompromising course. Iran has always successfully exploited just that,’ writes the paper…

“The left-wing Berliner Zeitung places blame for any impasse on both Tehran and Washington, calling Iran’s response a ‘tactical answer to a tactical offer.’ The paper — no friend of the Bush administration — argues that the United States has put something on the table that Iran cannot agree to by making stopping uranium enrichment a condition and not a goal of further negotiations. ‘The political intention is clear. Iran should be able to be blamed for any coming escalation,’ opines the editorial after cynically implying that Washington only sees the Middle East as a vast market for oil and natural gas.

“The business daily Handelsblatt believes the dispute has reached a key turning point. ‘Until now the goal was to keep (Iran) from building a nuclear bomb with economic and political incentives,’ writes the paper. ‘Moving forward, however, the Europeans and Americans will have to discuss sanctions.’ Since Tehran doesn’t appear willing to give up its enrichment activities, the international community has little choice but to respond with the possibility of meting out punishment… Though the paper argues that the mullahs need to be firmly shown just how far they will be allowed to go, it is also concerned that the dispute could create divisions between the European Union and America…”

Ahmadinejad’s Thirst for Destruction

On August 22, the British paper, The Daily Mail, published an eye-opening article, titled, “Why this man should give us all nightmares.”

The paper explained what motivates Iran’s President to engage in his well-documented irate behavior. The answers are frightening and justify, indeed, the headline of the article.

It was stated:

“Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons? We [in Great Britain] have them, so has America, France, Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and possibly North Korea. So why make such a fuss about Iran?… The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for ‘peaceful energy purposes’, despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world. But, alas, there’s nothing which we would recognise as ‘reasonable’ about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith’s son from the slums of Tehran–who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and who, moreover, urges Iranians to ‘prepare to take over the world’. The UN gave him until August 31 to reply to its package of proposals designed to stop his nuclear programme. Significantly he chose yesterday to, in effect, reject the UN ultimatum because yesterday was a sacred day in the Islamic calendar. It is the day on which the Prophet Mohammed made his miraculous night flight from Jerusalem to heaven and back on Buraq, the winged horse.

“As one Iranian exile told me yesterday: ‘The trouble with you secular people is that you don’t realise how firmly Ahmadinejad believes–literally–in things like the winged horse. By choosing this date for his decision, he is telling his followers that he is going to obey his religious duty. ‘And he believes that his religious duty is to create chaos and bloodshed in the “infidel” world, in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi–the Hidden Imam. So don’t expect him to behave, in your eyes, “reasonably”.’

“So who is this Hidden Imam? He was a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who, at the age of five, disappeared down a well around AD 940. He will only return after a period of utter chaos and bloodshed, whereupon peace, justice and Islam will reign worldwide. When I was in Tehran, Ahmadinejad was its mayor, and an Iranian friend with links to the city council told me: ‘He’s instructed the council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi’s return’…

“On coming to power, in order to hasten the return of the Hidden Imam, the Iranian President allocated the equivalent of £10m for the building of a blue-tiled mosque at Jamkaran, south of the capital, where the five-year-old Hidden Imam was said to have disappeared down the well… the President’s apocalyptic mindset ‘makes you very strong. If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard’… nuclear-weapon technology in the hands of an Iranian President obsessed with ‘ fruitcake theology’ and the destruction of all ‘infidels’ is something which should keep us all awake at night.”

The REAL Federal Deficit

On August 4, 2006, USA Today published an alarming and thought-provoking article about the REAL federal deficit. The article claimed that the official figures published for the public are intentionally kept far too low, stating:

“The federal government keeps two sets of books. The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005. The set the government doesn’t talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government’s accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included… the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion… Last year, the audited statement produced by the accountants said the government ran a deficit equal to $6,700 for every American household. The number given to the public put the deficit at $2,800 per household…

“The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997… Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don’t count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included. The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion…” But it gets even more frightening. USA Today continued to explain the rationale WHY the retirement programs, Medicare and Social Security, are not included in the official government publications. But this reason is not in any way good news:

“The retirement programs do ‘not represent a legal obligation because Congress has the authority to increase or reduce social insurance benefits at any time,’ wrote Clay Johnson III, then acting director of the president’s Office of Management Budget, in a letter to the board in May… Social Security chief actuary Stephen Goss says it would be a mistake to apply accrual accounting to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are not pensions or legally binding federal obligations, although many people view them that way, he says. Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go programs and should be treated like food stamps and fighter jets, not like a Treasury bond that must be repaid in the future, he adds…”

America’s Power Pushed Back

New America Media reported on August 18:

“American power is being pushed back on several fronts. Both the nuclear deal [with India] and the American setbacks in world politics are aspects of a breakdown in the post-1989 unipolar order…

“America remains tied down in Iraq. The drain of American capabilities and prestige in Iraq has rendered it unable to prevent adverse trends elsewhere. The jihadis are rising in Afghanistan, and America has no reserves available to throw into the battle. Iran is gaining confidence in its ability to pursue its nuclear program, and North Korea is defying America and Japan with its missile tests. What makes these last two trends possible is the growing power and assertiveness of Russia and China. Their refusal to bow to Western pressure in the UN Security Council has disabled the United States, European Union, and Japan from mobilizing pressure on Iran and North Korea…”

America in Need of Marines

CNN reported on August 23:

“President Bush has authorized the U.S. Marine Corps to recall 2,500 troops to active duty because there are not enough volunteers returning for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq… The recall was authorized last month, and will begin in spring 2007 to fill positions for upcoming rotations… there is a shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments… Tours for recalled Marines could last 12 to 18 months… Though the initial recall is for 2,500 troops, there is no cap on how many could be called up in the future… The Marines recalled more than 2,600 troops in the early days of the Iraq war. The Army has recalled about 10,000 soldiers since September 11, 2001, the majority of those coming in 2004 to help in Iraq.”

Morning-After Pill Kills Innocent Human Life!

The Catholic news agency, Zenit, reported on August 21:

“President George Bush said he supports restricted access to the ‘morning-after’ pill for minors, disturbing some pro-lifers who want the potentially abortion-causing drug banned altogether… LifeSite… quoted Father Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, as saying: ‘President Bush’s implied support for the abortion-causing drug… is completely inconsistent with his recent veto of the embryonic stem cell research [ESCR] funding bill. What the president apparently fails to realize is that [the drug] kills the same innocent unborn children that the ESCR process does.’… The U.S. bishops’ conference opposes making [the drug] available over-the-counter on several grounds, including its abortifacient potential and its implications for informed consent.

“In a statement today, Judie Brown, president of American Life League, lamented Bush’s comments. ‘It is no secret that [the drug] can and does take the lives of newly conceived babies in the days immediately following fertilization,’ said Brown. ‘The drug’s own manufacturer recognizes this fact; so why can’t the rest of the pro-life community and our self-professed pro-life president recognize it as well? President Bush is showing inconsistency in his support for life.'”

Catholic Church vs. Madonna

The controversial British mass tabloid, The Sun News, reported on August 22 about pressures by the Catholic Church to prosecute singer and entertainer Madonna for alleged attacks on the Catholic religion. The tabloid stated:

“Prosecutors in Germany said they have decided against opening an investigation into the mock crucifixion scene performed by Madonna at her weekend concert. A crowd of about 45,000 packed Duesseldorf’s LTU Arena on Sunday night to watch the first of two German concerts on the singer’s worldwide ‘Confessions’ tour. The scene–in which Madonna rises from the stage on a mirrored cross while wearing a crown of fake thorns to sing ‘Live to Tell’–drew criticism from religious leaders in Italy earlier this month, who condemned it as an act of hostility toward the Roman Catholic Church.”

Recently, Bavaria’s leader, Edmund Stoiber, demanded in relationship to another alleged attack on the Catholic religion in Germany, to enact German laws which would make it easier to prosecute those vocally opposed to the Catholic religion.

Dark Matter–Yes or No?

On August 22, The Register reported the following:

“NASA says it now has the first direct evidence for the existence of dark matter, thanks to observations of a huge, intergalactic collision. Researchers… have been watching two galactic clusters collide, an event they say is the most energetic in the universe, ever, apart from the Big Bang… Most of the matter in the universe is thought to be so-called dark matter. It gets its name because it is effectively invisible, and until now its existence could only be inferred from its gravitational effects. The term was invented to account for the fact that despite not having enough mass to hold themselves together under their own gravity, galaxies still spectacularly failed to tear themselves apart. Astronomers reasoned that something invisible, but massive, must be holding things together. Hence, dark matter. However, not all scientists agree (and when do they ever?). Some alternative theories have been put forward, but NASA says only dark matter can explain the observations here.”

Scientists have come forward with all kind of scientific explanations as to how the universe came into being, and how it is sustained. Most of those ideas are wrong. The Bible, however, gives us very clear answers, but most scientists are unwilling to consider those. Hebrews 1:1-2 explains (New International Version):

“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”

Verse 3 continues (Revised English Bible): “… he sustains the universe by his word of power.”

Doesn’t an active Creator and living Sustainer of the universe, who is identified as the “light” shining “in the darkness” (John 1:5), sound much more plausible to explain the continued existence of the universe, than some kind of dead dark matter?

For more information, please read our free booklet: “The Theory of Evolution–a Fairy Tale for Adults.”

Certainly not. Our free booklet, “Baptism–A Requirement for Salvation,”
explains in detail that only adult LIVING persons are to be baptized,
after they repent of their sins and believe in the Sacrifice of Jesus
Christ. A person who has died, cannot repent and believe in anything,
as long as he is dead. The reason is that a dead person knows nothing
(Ecclesiastes 9:5). Our free booklet, “Do We Have an Immortal Soul?,”
explains that a person who dies is without consciousness–he or his
soul does not go to heaven or hell, because he–the person–IS the
soul. As long as he is alive, he is a living soul, and when he dies, he
has become a dead soul.

As Romans 6:3-4 explains, baptism–the
total immersion of the person under water–points at the figurative
death of the person. He “dies,” spiritually speaking, in the watery
grave. His old man dies (verse 6), and a new man arises out of the
watery grave (Colossians 3:9-10). In a sense, the new man is
“resurrected,” figuratively speaking, from the spiritual dead.

With
this background, let us review Paul’s saying in 1 Corinthians 15:29,
which reads: “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the
dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for
the dead?”

Paul was contending with those in Corinth who claimed
that there was no resurrection from the dead. He asked in verse 12:
“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how
do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” He
continues to explain that there is indeed a resurrection from the
dead–in fact, there is more than just one resurrection. Paul states
that every human being will be resurrected, but in a particular order
or time sequence (verses 20-24). In Revelation 20:5, the “first
resurrection” of the saints is mentioned. The same passage explains
that some will be resurrected at Christ’s coming, and many will be
resurrected 1,000 years later. For more information on this vital
subject, please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”

As
an additional argument for the resurrection FROM the dead, Paul
mentioned the resurrection FOR the dead (verse 29). Several attempts
have been advanced to explain what Paul might have meant with his
statement.

One major modern denomination preaches and practices
“baptism for the dead”–by baptizing people for their dead relatives.
This practice is not based on God’s Holy Word. Baptism only makes
sense when and so long as the person to be baptized is ALIVE. Baptism
for a dead person, that is, vicariously, derivatively or by proxy,
accomplishes nothing. God does not want us to become baptized “for” or
on behalf of somebody else. Baptism is an individual personal decision
and an individual act–our righteousness in baptism cannot be
transferred to another person. Christ never sinned–still, He was
baptized by John the Baptist to “fulfill all righteousness”
(Matthew 3:15). He gave us an example to follow His footsteps. Christ
did not get baptized FOR others–and so, He expects each and every one
of His disciples to get baptized him- or herself. After all, each and
every one of us will have to give account, individually, for what he or
she has done (Romans 14:12).

However, some commentaries advance
the idea that a few within the Corinthian Church might have been
involved in the practice of getting baptized for a dead relative.

For
instance, the Nelson Study Bible writes: “It may be that some of the
Corinthians had for some reason been baptized for others who had died
without baptism. Paul… used ‘they’ rather than ‘we’ when speaking of
it… To deny the resurrection, as the Corinthians did, and yet be
involved in such baptism activities made no sense.”

It is
important to note that Paul spoke of “them,” who were involved in the
practice. When speaking of true Christians, including those in the
Corinthian Church, he used the words “you,” “we,” “our” and “us”
(verses 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 30, 34). This seems to indicate that the
practice, which Paul was addressing, without approving of it, was done
OUTSIDE of the Church, even though the Corinthians were familiar with
it.

The Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown points at the
same distinction, explaining that Paul talked about those who engaged
in the practice in the “third person; a class distinct from that in
which the apostle places himself, ‘we’ (v. 30), first person.” The
commentary continues to stress that some “Marcionites adopted the
practice at a later period, probably from taking [and misapplying] this
passage…, but, generally, it was unknown in the Church.”

Even
without focusing on the use of different pronouns (like “them” and
“we”), the New Bible Commentary: Revised adds another possibility as to
how to understand this passage:

“… The Greek can also mean
‘baptized because of the dead,’ i.e. the reference is to the baptism of
those influenced by the testimony of a Christian who had recently died,
and in the hope of being re-united with him at the resurrection.”

In
the entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul spoke about the
hope of the resurrection. It is interesting that in the phrase in verse
29 (“baptized for the dead”), the word “for” is “huper” in the original
Greek. This word can also mean, “for the hope of” or “for the
realization of” (compare, The Analytical Greek Lexicon). For instance,
in Philippians 2:13, we read: “…for it is God who works in you both
to will and to do FOR [Greek: huper] His good pleasure.” The intended
meaning is: “for the realization of His good pleasure.”

In the
same way, 1 Corinthians 15:29 can be translated: “Otherwise, what will
they do who are baptized for [the realization of, or the hope of] the
dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for
[the realization of, or the hope of] the dead?”

When people were
baptized, they were not dead, but still alive. At the time of their
baptism, they were looking forward to their resurrection. Baptism was
the first necessary step toward the realization of their goal–the
resurrection of the dead. Without that hope, there would not have been
a reason to be baptized in the first place. Subsequently those who were
baptized died, sleeping in their graves and awaiting, in hope, so to
speak, their resurrection from the dead.

Whatever Paul had in
mind, when referring to the “resurrection for the dead,” it is clear
from the rest of the Bible, that God’s Church is not to engage in the
practice of actually conducting baptisms “by proxy”– of baptizing one
person on behalf of or instead of another dead relative. God does not
accept such “derivative” or “vicarious” baptisms.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The draft of a new booklet on suffering is almost completed and has entered the first review cycle. In the booklet, Norbert Link
addresses the question why there is so much suffering in the world, and
why even true Christians suffer today. The booklet will also offer
great hope for the not-too-distant future.

A new StandingWatch program has been posted on the Web. It was recorded on Friday, August 18, and is titled: “What’s Next for Lebanon?”

Set forth below is a summary of the program:

The
warfare between Israel and Hezbollah has come to a standstill. Does
this mean that we will enjoy lasting peace in Lebanon and the Middle
East? Based on the situation in the Middle East, some preachers and
evangelists tell us that Christ could come back tonight. Would this be
possible? The answer to both questions is: Absolutely not!

by Shana Rank

I wasn’t always as responsible as I am today.
Responsibility grows as I grow. When I was very young I was taught to
straighten my toys and make my bed. As I got a little older–emptying
the dishwasher, doing homework and taking care of myself were among
some of the added duties–none of which were very difficult in the
grand scheme of things.

Now as an adult I juggle many
responsibilities, one being my 3 month old son. I try my best to meet
all of his needs and wants because he cannot take care of himself. It
is a joy and pleasure to watch him grow.

As a Christian, it is my
responsibility to grow and challenge myself in all aspects of daily
life. It is also my responsibility to nurture and care for the Spirit
God has granted me. I often contemplate the hurdles I’ve encountered as
a youngster until now—serving as a measure of steady progress. With
God’s help I can learn more about His master plan and how I will
someday fit into it; but I must be the one to move forward, and
especially to grow.

On August 19, 2006, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Unless YOU Repent.”

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.

When we wake every morning, is it with a heart that longs to seek
after God’s Will, or with an attitude that we merely TRY not to break
His Laws?  The American Heritage Dictionary states:  “Observe
stresses compliance or respectful adherence to that which is
prescribed…” and “Celebrate emphasizes observance in the form of
rejoicing or festivity…”

As growing and persevering Christians we
are required to observe God’s Laws and His Way of Life.  But what
has the day-to-day “grind” of continued observance done to our
hearts?  Does the “first love” attitude still resound in it? 
Or have we become so battle-hardened through years of enduring, that we
no longer see the joy that this way of life brings?

We live in an
age in which our lifestyle is becoming more and more disliked. 
It’s easy to quietly endure, show few outward signs and hope no one
notices our unpopular beliefs.  But in trying to stay a “quiet
Christian,” are we still reflecting the attitude of the Being we
profess to follow? 

Christ said of King David that he was
a “man after My own heart” (Acts 13:22).  One such example of this
attitude occurred when David returned to Jerusalem with the Ark of the
Covenant: “… And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David,
and said, ‘How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering
himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the
base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!’  So David said to
Michal, ‘It was before the LORD…. Therefore I will play music before
the LORD. And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be
humble in my own sight…'” (2 Samuel 6:20-22).

David’s response,
when confronted with negative views of what he was doing, wasn’t to
quietly hide himself away.  On the CONTRARY!  He said he
would celebrate even more.

Likewise, we must strive to celebrate
this way of life more so, as the world around us darkens to God’s
truth.  When confronted with embarrassment because we stand out
from the crowd, we must know that God isn’t embarrassed. God isn’t
viewing us with disdain because of our perceived archaic beliefs. 
In fact, He might just be saying to you and me: “YOU are a person after
My own heart!”

Peace in the Middle East–No Way!

In this special report, we are publishing articles with all kinds of different political view points, shapes and colors about the current crisis situation in the Middle East. We do not necessarily agree with the quoted material and the opinions contained therein, but the following facts are clear: Israel has not accomplished its goals; Hezbollah has become much more popular in the Arab world; Europe is willing to send troops into Lebanon; the future in Lebanon is still very uncertain; and the United States of America and Israel find themselves all alone. And this means, lasting peace is more elusive than ever in that war-torn region.

These trends and developments have been prophesied. Please read our free booklet: “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

A New War Just a Matter of Time?

Bild Online wrote on August 14: “Since yesterday, 7:00 am, the weapons are silent. Did Israel win the war?”

The paper, which is friendly toward Israel, continued:

“Israel has won, but they are not the victors. Israel did not achieve all of its goals… The two captured soldiers are sill captured… the international community, especially the UN, has failed… Is the next war against Israel just a matter of time?… “

The paper also asked what the war did for Hezbollah, and stated:

“Hezbollah has shown a military strength succeeding the expectations of many, including many in Israel. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah claims that he is more popular in the country than Lebanese Prime Minister, Fonad Siniora.”

Will Israel Withdraw?

Reuters reported on August 16:

“Israel could withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon within 10 days, but only if the Lebanese army deploys quickly in the area, Israel’s army chief of staff, Dan Halutz, said… ‘If the Lebanese army does not move down within a number of days to the south … the way I see it, we must stop our withdrawal,’ Halutz added… Halutz… had been quoted earlier as saying Israel was prepared to keep troops in southern Lebanon for months if it takes that long for an international force to deploy… ‘We must check matters one by one and correct them quickly. I do not rule out the possibility that the situation could explode and we, as an army, must be ready,’ he said [on Wednesday].”

Hezbollah Won’t Disarm

The Jerusalem Post reported on August 16:

“The issue of disarmament is not on the agenda, senior Hizbullah official Hassan Fadlallah said on Wednesday, jeopardizing the fragile cease-fire in the region. The UN cease-fire resolution clearly states that the area south of the Litani river must be demilitarized. According to Fadlallah, who spoke with al-Jazeera, Hizbullah will not evacuate its operatives from southern Lebanon since they are the ones who populate the region. ‘Any such withdrawal means the evacuation of southern Lebanon,’ he said.”

Who Will Disarm Hezbollah?

Der Spiegel Online asked on August 16: “Who Will Disarm Hezbollah?” The magazine continued:

“The cease-fire resolution passed by the Security Council last Friday does not outline what kind of mandate a UN force in southern Lebanon might be equipped with. And many countries have said they are reluctant to pledge troops before such a mandate exists… The UN hopes to eventually assemble a force of 15,000 troops to assist the Lebanese force in enforcing the cease-fire, and aims at sending some 3,500 troops within the next week to 10 days. France has indicated its willingness to send a sizable force, as have Italy, Spain, Malaysia and Indonesia [as well as Turkey]. A number of other mostly European countries have also voiced interest in helping out, but none have made official pledges. German politicians continued their wrangling over the issue on Tuesday and Wednesday.”

The article continued:

“Hezbollah… sees itself as the winner of the war with Israel. Indeed, the group has taken the lead in rebuilding efforts in southern Lebanon, going door to door to ask returning residents what they need and trying to pave the way for a return to normal life… It could take up to a year for the United Nations to establish a full, 15,000-troop force in southern Lebanon… With Israel beginning its withdrawal, however, a rapid deployment is necessary.”

Lebanon’s Army Unwilling to Fight Hezbollah

Der Spiegel Online reported on August 17:

“… the Lebanese army began deploying troops in the southern part of the country on Thursday as part of the UN-brokered cease-fire plan to end fighting between Israel and Islamic extremist group Hezbollah. For decades, the Lebanese army has had little or no influence south of the Litani River. The border region’s true powerbrokers have been Hezbollah and Israel — the two opposing sides that the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and tanks in southern Lebanon is meant to keep from fighting. But it remains to be seen if the Lebanese government in Beirut can truly expand its control to its southern border with Israel, especially since the Islamist outfit Hezbollah appears far from willing to cede power or disarm. Lebanon’s cabinet on Wednesday backed the deployment of troops south of the Litani River, but the government — which includes ministers from Hezbollah’s political wing — said soldiers would not confront militia members of the Shiite extremist group…”

The magazine continued:

“However, establishing Lebanese army control in the south is a key part of the UN cease-fire that stopped over a month of heavy fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah. The government troops will have to bridge a period until a more robust UN peacekeeping force can be sent to the region to help stabilize the fragile peace. According to the UN cease-fire agreement that took hold on Monday, Israel will transfer control of its positions in southern Lebanon to the UN forces, which would then turn them over to the Lebanese army… Many local residents seemed pleased the Lebanese army had returned, even if they are unprepared to face down Hezbollah… But it remains to be seen if Israel will be content with a still-armed Hezbollah sitting on its northern border. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel expected Lebanon to fully follow the UN plan. ‘That resolution clearly calls for the creation of a Hezbollah-free zone south of the Litani River, and anything less would mean that the resolution is not being implemented,’ he said.”

What Germans Think About a UN Army

On August 15, Der Spiegel Online discussed the reaction of the German press to the creation of a UN army:

“The international force, being assembled to strengthen the small United Nations mission that is currently in southern Lebanon, is… taking shape slowly… The German press on Tuesday is urging speed.

“Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung… stresses, the cease-fire only has a chance of success ‘if UN troops are stationed in southern Lebanon within the next couple of days — not weeks.’ Additionally, these troops will need to be strong enough to ‘keep both conflicting parties from active fighting.’…

“According to the conservative daily Die Welt, ‘there is no cause for optimism’ for those familiar with the less-than-successful track record of UN troops. ‘Aside from the East Timor operation, most blue helmet missions can be classified as failures,’ the paper laments. The UN and the members of the Security Council carry part of the blame for this war; about two years ago they called for Hezbollah to be disarmed and then left it up to Lebanon to do the job. If something is to come out of a new mission, one ‘must send an army that will not hesitate to fight.’ And what’s more: ‘They need to be ready for a confrontation on the scale of the Americans’ war on terror in Afghanistan.’ Hezbollah will not willingly give up its weapons. But ‘Europe seems to want to avoid all of this’ and simply ‘wish the Lebanese well.'”

German Troops for Lebanon?

On August 15, Der Spiegel Online discussed the reaction of the German press to the concept of sending German troops into Lebanon:

“The Financial Times Deutschland [thinks that there] are real reasons for Germany to get involved in settling the Lebanese conflict…, stating, ‘ it would be disastrous for the entire region as well as for Europe, if Hezbollah succeeded in rising even stronger out of the ruins of Beirut.’… Berlin would do itself no favors were it to ‘focus on keeping out of it and making nice with all of the conflicting parties.’

“The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung emphasizes… [that] Germany is wary of putting itself in a position where it may be forced to fight Israeli troops; and even if Germany doesn’t get involved, the mere willingness to support military action ‘is a further … step on the way to emancipation from self-inflicted restraints of foreign policy involvement.’

“Business daily Handelsblatt goes a bit further in looking at how the current situation — and the possibility of Germany sending troops to the Middle East — will test the relationship between the two countries. On the one hand, Germany’s history — and constitution — requires a ‘special relationship’ between Germany and Israel. But since 1967, German public opinion has changed dramatically from being pro-Israeli to being anti-Zionist. ‘Along with that comes a strong antipathy towards America.’ In addition, even as the US has followed a strongly pro-Israeli foreign policy, ‘the European Union has followed a different path.’ But that different path cannot blind the Europeans to the danger facing Israel ‘when Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their sponsors aim at the heart of Israel.'”

BBC News added the following on August 17:

“Germany is waiting to hear precisely what the mandate of the UN force for Lebanon will be before it decides what role to play in it. Party leaders in the ruling coalition said on Wednesday they had agreed in principle on contributing to the planned international force. But sensitivities about Germany’s past make some politicians uneasy about the idea of German troops facing Israelis. Germany may help in humanitarian work and securing the Lebanon-Syria border. ‘Many questions are still open,’ said government spokesman Thomas Steg… Any cabinet decision to send troops would still have to be approved by parliament. Coalition officials said they were considering providing naval patrols or police to help secure the Lebanon-Syria border.”

The article continued:

“Germany has sent 7,700 soldiers overseas already to serve with international forces in Afghanistan, the Balkans and DR Congo. Edmund Stoiber, head of the conservative Bavarian CSU party allied to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, firmly opposed any deployment of German combat troops. He said his Christian Social Union ‘will never vote for a combat operation for German soldiers in the buffer zone between Hezbollah and the Israeli border.'”

The US and Israel Stand Alone

On August 15, Der Spiegel Online published an interview with former President Jimmy Carter, addressing the current Middle Eastern crisis:

“I don’t think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza…  I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably stand more alone than our country has in generations.”

Iran and Syria Praise Hezbollah–and Incur German Wrath

The Associated Press reported on August 15:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Hezbollah has ‘hoisted the banner of victory’ over Israel and toppled U.S.-led plans for the Middle East. Hezbollah’s main backers–Iran and Syria–struck nearly identical tones a day after a cease-fire took effect in Lebanon: heaping praise on the guerrillas as perceived victors for the Islamic world and claiming that Western influence in the region was dealt a serious blow.”

Reuters added on August 15:

“Assad said in a speech to the Syrian Journalists Union on Tuesday: ‘It is evident that after six years of this (US) administration that there is no peace and there will be none in the foreseeable future… The Israeli leadership is in front of an historic crossroads. Either it moves toward peace and gives back rights or face constant instability until an (Arab) generation comes and puts an end to the issue.'”

As a consequence, according to Reuters, “German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier cancelled a [planned] trip to Syria on Tuesday… ‘The speech today by Syrian President Assad is a negative contribution that is not in any way justified in view of the current challenges and opportunities in the Middle East,’ Steinmeier said in a statement… Steinmeier left on Monday for his third trip to the Middle East since hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon erupted.”

Special Report on the Middle East

Last week, Mathias Dapfner, CEO of the Axel Stronger AG and publisher of the right-wing mass tabloid, Bild, as well as the daily, Die Welt, wrote in an editorial in Welt am Sonntag against the concept that Hezbollah, Iran and other controversial nations must be “appeased.” He also strongly advocated European action:

“Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

“Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and although we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word ‘equidistance,’ now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

“Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush… Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

“And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a ‘Muslim Holiday’ in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our… Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State ‘Muslim Holiday’ will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain’s Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European ‘Peace in our time’.

“What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it?… Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy… [We] listen to TV pastors preach about the need to ‘reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive’. These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor’s house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.”

War With Iran Is Coming

On August 10, 2006, TIA Daily published a provocative article with the catching headline, “Five Minutes to Midnight.” Even though some, if not much, of the article is to be viewed as propaganda for the purpose of advocating war with Iran, some of the statements are noteworthy. We quote selected excerpts, as follows:

“It is, indeed, ‘five minutes to midnight’–not just for Israel, but for the West. The time is very short now before we will have to confront Iran… We can’t avoid this war, because Iran won’t let us avoid it. That is the real analogy to the 1930s. Hitler came to power espousing the goal of German world domination, openly promising to conquer neighboring nations through military force and to persecute and murder Europe’s Jews. He predicted that the free nations of the world would be too weak–too morally weak–to stand up to him, and European and American leaders spent the 1930s reinforcing that impression. So Hitler kept advancing–the militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the Spanish bombing campaign in 1937, the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, the invasion of Poland in 1939–until the West finally, belated[ly] decided there was no alternative but war.

“That is what is playing out today. Iran’s theocracy has chosen, as the nation’s new president, a religious fanatic who believes in the impending, apocalyptic triumph of Islam over the infidels. He openly proclaims his desire to create an Iranian-led Axis that will unite the Middle East in the battle against America, and he proclaims his desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map,’ telling an audience of Muslim leaders that ‘the main solution’ to the conflict in Lebanon is ‘the elimination of the Zionist regime.'”

Haider’s Tirades

The European Jewish Press reported on August 13:

“Tension between Austria’s far right-wing strongman Joerg Haider and the president of the country’s Jewish Community (IKG) has intensified after the two clashed over the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict. Far-right leader Haider said that IKG President Ariel Muzicant belonged to ‘those Zionist provocateurs in the West who defend the murder of dozens of children and hundreds of civilians and the destruction of bridges in order to stop people from fleeing and aid getting in, as well as the killing of UN soldiers, and with it justify a senseless war by Israel’. He added that ‘Muzicant’s credo and that of the Israeli warmongers in the Middle East’ is ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, instead of finding a peaceful solution without further violence,’ the respected daily ‘Die Presse’ reported…

“Haider’s tirade came after Muzicant criticised the ‘one-sidedness’ of discussions in Austria about the conflict. And he said politicians were trying to ‘use the tragedy in the Middle East for their own election purposes’, which he described as ‘tasteless’… Opposition towards Israel in Austria is mounting…”

The Risk of Nuclear Energy

On August 7, 2006, Der Spiegel Online raised some critical questions regarding the “vulnerability inherent in the process of producing nuclear energy.” In the article, titled, “How Close Did Sweden Come to Disaster?”, it is stated:

“The culprit was as simple as it was troubling: a short-circuit. But that short-circuit caused an electricity failure that nearly led to [a] catastrophe at Sweden’s Forsmark 1 nuclear reactor. Nearly two weeks ago, around noon on July 25, a power outage occured at Forsmark, throwing the plant’s control room into a state of chaos. As the power failed, so did two of the plant’s four emergency backup generators. The numbers on the controls started to go berserk, and it took a full 23 minutes before the workers, who for a time had no idea what was happening inside the reactor, were able to bring Forsmark 1 back under control.

“Describing the mishap, the environmental organization Greenpeace wrote that the events at Forsmark were comparable to a ‘ghost ship,’ with nobody at the rudder… Swedish nuclear expert Lars-Olov Högland, who served as chief of construction for Vattenfall until 1986, put it far more dramatically. ‘It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown,’ he said. ‘It was the worst incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg,’ a reference to the 1979 meltdown at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

“… the incident shows yet again how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to a failure in electricity systems. ‘Nuclear power plants can quickly spin out of control and lead to meltdowns if short circuits or even power surges occur,’ warned Henrik Paulitz, of the German chapter of the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Paulitz also took the opportunity to point out that Germany’s nuclear plants haven’t been immune to problems either. They included a power failure at Germany’s Biblis B nuclear reactor on Feb. 8, 2004. ‘And that was just because the weather was bad and there was a short in the power line,’ he recalled. Less than a decade earlier, in 1986, lightning disrupted operations at the plant. And in 1992, at a plant in Philippsburg, Germany, a defective electrical component caused an incident that had similarities with the July 25 incident in Sweden.”

Abortion and Confused World Religions

On August 13, 2006, USA Today published a lengthy article on the view point of influential religions on abortion. The emerging picture is one of utter confusion. If we follow God’s authoritative Holy Word, the Bible, we must conclude that abortion is ALWAYS wrong and NEVER justified, and that human life begins with the moment of conception. (For more information, please read our free booklet, “Are You Already Born Again?”) We are reproducing the following excerpts from the article in USA Today:

“Roman Catholicism:

“The popes have taught that abortion is always forbidden, and the church hierarchy has held to a doctrine that strongly opposes it. Even so, grounds for permitting abortion exist in the Catholic tradition, and many Catholic theological authorities permit abortion in a variety of situations. There is even a pro-choice Catholic saint, the 15th century archbishop of Florence, St. Antoninus. He approved of early abortions when needed to save the life of the mother, a huge category in his day. There is thus no one Catholic view.

“Protestantism:

“Conservative Protestants usually condemn abortion, but Protestants are largely open to a moral choice on abortion. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice reports that some abortion rights are accepted within denominations, including Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Quakers, the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, Methodists, United Church of Christ and Unitarian churches. The United Methodist General Conference was typical of mainline Protestant churches when it rejected ‘simplistic answers to the problem of abortion which, on the one hand, regard all abortions as murders, or, on the other hand, regard all abortions as procedures without moral significance.’

“Judaism:

“Because of the survival challenges Jews have faced historically, Judaism places great stress on children as a blessing. Nonetheless, as Orthodox theologian Laurie Zoloth says, ‘Abortion appears as an option for Jewish women from the earliest sources of the Bible and Mishnaic commentary.’ According to most Jewish authorities, the fetus does not have the status of a nefesh, a person, until the head emerges in the birthing process. This does not mean, however, that late-term abortions would be deemed acceptable in all circumstances. In some cases, performing an abortion is even considered a mitzvah, a sacred duty, not a ‘lesser evil.’

“Islam:

“Like all religions, it highly prizes fertility. Even so, Islam believes that we are obligated by God not to overpopulate. As Islamic scholar Azizah al-Hibri says, ‘The majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.’ After 120 days, abortion is permissible only to save the mother’s life, where the pregnancy is harming an already suckling child, or when it is known that the fetus is malformed. Though the various schools of Islam differ on the time in which an abortion is permitted, al-Hibri says all “permit abortion for exigencies such as saving the mother’s life.'”

Although in most cases, human anger is wrong, there is nothing wrong with godly indignation or wrath, which is always righteous. But we need to understand the nature of godly anger, and against whom or what it is directed.

The context of Psalm 7 shows that “Cush, a Benjamite,” persecuted innocent David. According to the Soncino commentary, Cush is a designation for King Saul. David expresses to God his innocence (vv. 3-5, 8), and asks God to take care of his situation. He points out that God will rise in His anger (verse 6), and that He “hath indignation every day” (according to Soncino). The New King James Bible ADDED the words, “with the wicked,” which do not appear in the original Hebrew. However, the addition is in accordance with the intended meaning.
Soncino explains:

“He [David] removes the false impression he may have created in the foregoing that God had been indifferent to what had happened to him, and that he called upon Him to adjudicate because He had failed to do so. He admits that God is indignant with the wicked every day, constantly.”

It is important to note WHY God is angry with the wicked. Verse 12 explains: “If he does not turn back [that is, if he does not repent of his evil deeds], He [God] will sharpen His sword.” That is, God will fight against him, and his own evil and “violent dealing shall come down on his own crown” (verse 16).

Psalm 7 expresses and describes an important character trait of God: God is slow to anger (Psalm 103:8) and ready to pardon or to forgive (Nehemiah 9:17). God’s anger only lasts just for a moment (Psalm 30:5). However, God’s patience is not without limit. God is angry at sin and sinful, rebellious conduct. But God’s anger ceases when man repents of his sin.

King Solomon understood that when man sins, God becomes angry with man and brings trouble upon him (compare 1 Kings 8:46). He also understood that when man sincerely repents of his evil deeds, God forgives and helps man out of trouble (vv. 47-50).

There are many examples in the Bible, showing that God’s hot anger is kindled against man because of sin. As we saw, God became angry in Old Testament times (cp. Judges 2:11-14). Jesus Christ became angry too when He saw the hardness and stubbornness of the Pharisees who rebelled against God’s mercy and compassion for suffering people (cp. Mark 3:5). And God will pour out His fierce anger on rebellious mankind, in an unparalleled way, in the not-too-distant future.

We are told in Scripture that the day of the LORD is at hand—a time of God’s wrath and hot displeasure when God will intervene in human affairs and punish those who rebel against Him.

Isaiah 13:9, 11, 13 says: “Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it… ‘I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible… Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.’”

Isaiah 66:15-17 includes additional aspects of God’s anger to be poured out on this world in a few years from now. Also, Micah 5:15 states: “And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury On the nations that have not heard [or obeyed, as the margin has it].”

God is angry with wicked people every day who refuse to repent, and who, instead, harm others. We read in Revelation 11:18: “The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come… that you should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

God is also angry with those who refuse to respond to His call for salvation. In the parable of the Great Supper, in Luke 14, God is depicted as a man or master who gave a great supper and invited many people. But they all began to make excuses, refusing to attend the supper. In verse 21, we read that the master of the house became angry with those people.

God’s righteous indignation is directed at rebellious mankind who refuse to obey God and to repent of their evil and wicked deeds. This world will soon wake up to the fact that God CAN BE VERY ANGRY—and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31). Those who permanently and rebelliously refuse to submit to God, even though they know better, will pay the price. Hebrews 10:26-27 says:

“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

Shortly after the “day of the LORD” has begun, Jesus Christ will return to this earth, to establish the Kingdom and government of God. He will come to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked who do not know and obey God and His Word (2 Thessalonians 1:3-8). We need to make sure that we don’t belong to those with whom God is angry “every day.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new member letter has been written and sent out. It is also posted
on the Web. In the letter, Brian Gale addresses the importance of watching
current world events, in light of Biblical prophecy, and, most
importantly, our own personal spiritual condition.

Our new book
on Prayer has been sent to our graphic designer, Shelly Bruno, for
finalization and forwarding to the printer in Canada.

A new StandingWatch program has been posted on the Web. It is titled: “Terrorism and Your Protection!”

Set forth below is a summary of the program:

Terrorists
were plotting to destroy, with liquid explosives, several airplanes
flying from England to America. Fortunately, governmental agencies
intervened before the plot could be carried out. What prompts
terrorists–in this case presumably fanatic radical Muslims–to commit
suicide and mass murder? As a consequence to this recent plot to kill
innocent people, new stringent restrictions were implemented for all
travelers, but the security levels differ from country to country. Why
these inconsistencies? And can those restrictions really give us safety
and security?