An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about mindsets. This follows this post about abortion. This follows this post about evolution. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Mindsets A Set Mind

 by Robert Berendt 1 comment

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

We can carry around problems for most of our lives without realizing what kind of mindset we’re developing. With God’s help, we can overcome these mindsets and change our inner man to prepare for the Kingdom.

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

Putting the past behind us

I am greatly encouraged when I read the statement Paul was inspired to write in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
American King James Version×: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” The word “were” is vital in this sentence. Almighty God is able to erase and remove every painful fear that has been etched into our minds. He is able to heal us completely. He does not turn from those who are suffering, but His love leads us to have faith and trust in His forgiveness—and to leave the past behind us. We may not lose every painful memory or developed phobia, but He eases our load.
We all know through experience those fighting alcoholism must abstain from drinking any alcoholic beverages. They fight this battle on a day by day basis. It is a battle of the mind and certainly is not easy. I have come to realize how difficult it is for people who smoke to drop the habit. There are still far, far more difficult habits, emotions and actions that we may have to fight with. All of the categories Paul listed as not being allowed into the kingdom of God are present in our society. The word “were” indicates that a person is no longer in the grip of that “category.” It does not mean the battle against the mind and or the emotions is over—it only means that the person no longer fornicates, worships idols, commits adultery, etc. He or she has this under control.
In some extreme cases a person may have to live alone and avoid any situation compromising his struggle. Jesus made a strong point as to the value of our struggles when he said, “if your eye makes you sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into [Gehenna] fire” (Mark 9:47 Mark 9:47And if your eye offend you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
American King James Version×). C.S. Lewis wrote, “You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind.” Naturally, we know it is not the eye that makes us offend—it is our mind and our mindset.
It is that which may be deep within our minds and provides the thrust in certain directions. Mark does not mean to remove an eye—his words basically tell us to take whatever steps needed in order not to sin. We are not to remain in the categories to which the kingdom of God is barred. We cannot stay in them. We may have to fight the good fight every day—but it is worth it a thousand times over.

Changing the inner man

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

Further reading

For more interesting articles, ask to receive The Good News magazine.

The Cities Americans Are Ditching”…Are The Ones With The Most Immigration

A timely post about from www.debbieschlussel.com about immigration and population. This follows this post about Harper Lee's new book. This follows this post about Pope Francis turning LEFT.
You can follow me here.

The Cities Americans Are Ditching”…Are The Ones With The Most Immigration

>

---

Steve Sailer
                                                       

From Bloomberg:

These Are the Top 20 Cities Americans Are Ditching
Soaring costs of living meant residents left New York City and its suburbs in droves
by Erin Roman Wei Lu
July 22, 2015 — 3:00 AM PDT

Some of these cities are just Rust Belt cities in long-term decline, but the others are more interesting:

New York City, Los Angeles, Honolulu: They’re all places you would think would be popular destinations for Americans. So it might come as a surprise that these are among the cities U.S. residents are fleeing in droves.
The map below shows the 20 metropolitan areas that lost the greatest share of local people to other parts of the country between July 2013 and July 2014, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. …
Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S.
So what’s going on here? Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said. (Everyone knows how unaffordable the Manhattan area has become.)
And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls “creative housing arrangements” in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It’s an arrangement that most Americans just aren’t willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it’s not for them as time goes by, he said.

This has both a short-term (sojourners) and long-term (clannish cultures) aspect, as I noted in my 2010 review in VDARE of Tory cabinet minister David Willetts’ book The Pinch:

Willetts nicely lays out one reason why the Blair-Brown Bubble in London did so little to alleviate unemployment among young Englishmen in blue collar cities like Liverpool (just as the Bush Bubble in Las Vegas didn’t help American workers in Cleveland, as I pointed out in VDARE.com on July 7, 2006). He writes: “Quite simply, high house prices were one factor sucking in immigrants.”
Willetts observes, “The young man from Liverpool does not see why he should live in more cramped conditions than his family back in Liverpool occupy.” In contrast, the immigrant crams into a house with many others from his country. “His willingness to be under-housed gives him a labour market advantage and it is greater if house prices are higher.” In turn, sucking in immigrants creates a vicious cycle, driving up housing prices, which drives out more natives.
Moreover, remittances sent home from London to Liverpool buy a lot less in Liverpool than remittances sent home to a poor country:

“So it is not that our Liverpudlian is somehow a bad person compared to our Pole. It is that he or she cannot capture similar benefits for their family by under-housing themselves in London.”

Willetts sums up:

“The crucial proposition therefore underlying the economics of immigration in Britain is as follows. The larger the proportion of earnings consumed by housing costs, the greater the benefits of under-housing and the greater the price advantage of immigrant labour. It was not despite the high cost of housing that immigrants came to the house price hotspots in Britain to make a living—it was because of them.”

But, of course, a lot of immigrants who initially assume they’ll just be sojourning in America so they can send home remittances before they make their triumphant return wind up staying here and bringing over their extended families to live with them, crowding out Americans. As I explained:

The [Anglo-American-style] nuclear family is expensive. Each small family wants its own place to live—ideally, a house with a garden. Not surprisingly, the crowded British Isles were long the emigration capital of the world, as people headed out for the emptier lands of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Why don’t Anglo-Saxons like to live in large, noisy My Big Fat Greek Wedding-style homes? Unfortunately, Willetts doesn’t address this. Personally, I don`t see much evidence that people from other cultures get along better with their relatives. They just don’t seem to mind screaming at their cousin-in-laws as much as Anglos would mind. …
This relative lack of nepotism and ethnocentrism makes Anglos simultaneously both successful and at risk of being out-maneuvered by less idealistic groups.
The need for a separate home for each nuclear family can put Anglo-derived cultures at a disadvantage in newly cosmopolitan cities. For example, Los Angeles, strange as it may seem now, was largely built in the 20th Century by civil people from rather bland, trusting places such as Iowa, Illinois (where my father is from) and Minnesota (where my late mother grew up).
This causes them and their descendents problems today, in a very expensive city increasingly dominated by newcomers from the more vibrant cultures of the ex-Soviet Union and the Middle East who don’t as much mind crowding in with their in-laws and cutting corners on their taxes.

Bloomberg concludes:

El Paso, Texas, the city that residents fled from at the fastest pace, also saw a surprisingly small number of foreigners settling in given how close it is to Mexico.
“A lot of young, reasonably educated people are having a hard time finding work there,” Stoll said. “They’re not staying in town after they graduate,” leaving for the faster-growing economies of neighboring metro areas like Dallas and Austin, he said.

This is part of a general pattern that highly Mexican areas in America wind up being too economically stagnant to attract more Mexicans: it’s also seen in the Rio Grande Valley and in New Mexico. And some of Connecticut’s problems are due to Puerto Rican areas having stopped attracting Puerto Ricans.
[Comment at Unz.com]

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about abortion. This follows this post about evolution. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

  by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Violence, anger and argument tear at the country's soul over the unresolved issues surrounding abortion. Can we refocus the debate on more fundamental determinants?

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

A New Component-Untouched by Federal or State Laws

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

Chinese Émigré's Testimony Fuels Flames

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

Everyone Has “Rights” But Who Has Responsibility?

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

Reframe the Discussion

It is a mistake to debate the issue of abortion in isolation. The broader question is, “How did our society become saddled with this controversy?” A sweeping prophecy in 2 Timothy 3:1-7 2 Timothy 3:1-7 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
American King James Version×speaks to those wider concerns. They include rejection of moral values, rejection of the traditional family, a lack of good judgment, an addiction to pleasure seeking, selfishness and a failure to take personal responsibility.
The abortion issue has much to do with one taking responsibility for his/her actions. Argument about abortion is often buttressed with and bogs down in examples of extreme or rare scenarios. Let's take the debate back to before pregnancy occurs. Many decisions are made-some deliberately, some under pressure, and some by making no calculated choice to do anything other than let nature take its course. The decision to spend time with one of the opposite sex, often including the decision to drink alcoholic beverages and to use other drugs, the decision to touch and to allow touching in intimate ways, the decision to be “sexually active” are among them.
Consider further the decision to be “sexually active.” Unmarried people make a decision to act contrary to the laws of God by deciding to engage in sex outside of marriage. And then seek to free themselves from the unwanted consequences-the men by shuffling away, the women by bringing “forth the fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable.”
When human desires are given free reign, there are undesirable consequences. Jesus put it this way: “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within…proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications…. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23 Mark 7:20-23 20 And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
American King James Version×). Human nature, left unchecked, will spawn the precise societal crises that exist at the heart of the abortion issue.
Note how many of “the works of the flesh”—human nature—are often part of the circumstances that lead to an unwanted pregnancy. “Now the works of the flesh are evident…adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness…drunkenness… and the like” (Galatians 5:19 Galatians 5:19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
American King James Version×—21).

Existing Laws Already Cover the Abortion Issues

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

Oppose sanctuary cities bill H.R.3009

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about sacnutary city bill HR 3009. This follows this post about all the Sanctuary Bills. This follows this post about Donald Trump and John McCain. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

NumbersUSA to oppose sanctuary cities bill, H.R.3009

The House Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing for Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-Calif.) sanctuary cities bill, H.R.3009, for Wednesday afternoon. NumbersUSA has sent a notice to all House Members, telling them that we will oppose the Hunter legislation. Here's what was sent to House offices.

While we appreciate the intent behind the Hunter sanctuary bill (H.R. 3009), NumbersUSA has no choice but to oppose it. The Hunter language is actually weaker than the language that the House adopted--by a vote of 227-198--as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act, offered by Rep. Steve King. It is unconscionable that the House would respond to the tragic murder of Kate Steinle by moving legislation that is weaker than the language it adopted less than two months ago to defund sanctuary jurisdictions.
The bigger problem, however, is that the Hunter bill does not in any way address the largest sanctuary jurisdiction of all: the Federal government. Sanctuary states, cities, and counties release thousands of convicted criminal aliens each year, but the Department of Homeland Security releases tens of thousands of convicted criminal aliens each year. Grant Ronnebeck, murdered by a convicted criminal alien in an Arizona convenience store, is no less a victim of sanctuary policies than Kate Steinle just because his killer was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
NumbersUSA completely agrees that Congress needs to act now to stop sanctuary policies, but it needs to address all of them. Releasing convicted criminal aliens into our communities is dangerous and wrong, regardless of which government entity is doing the releasing.

sanctuary cities

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about evolution. This follows this post about a previous GOP primary. This follows this post about terrorism from the Koran. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

 by Mario Seiglie 103 comments

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.

Photos.com

Trilobite fossil

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

F for Fossils

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

A for Assumption

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

L for Life

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

S for Symbiosis

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

E for Engineering

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

A timely post about from www.jihadwatch.org about military recruiters.  This follows this post about the Iran deal.

You can follow me here.

Pentagon orders Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in wake of Chattanooga jihad massacre

 By Robert Spencer 52 Comments

Surrender. Instead of telling Marine recruiters to be ready to defend themselves, and instead of allowing military personnel to be armed on military bases, we now have Marine recruiters skulking about in civilian clothes, in fear of attracting the attention of the next mentally ill drug-addicted alcoholic who just happens to be a Muslim who just happens to want to be an Islamic martyr and just happens to read material by Awlaki and just happens to be carrying out an explicit call from the Islamic State, but whose actions have, of course, nothing to do with Islam.
“Marine recruiters told not to wear uniforms after attack,” by Jeff Schogol, Military Times, July 19, 2015:

The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday’s shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
Defense Secretary Ash Cater [sic] approved immediate steps taken by the military branches to increase security and has told the services to get back to him by the end of next week with additional force protection measures, Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said in a statement on Friday.
The steps were taken just a day after a gunman attacked two military facilities in Chattanooga, leaving four Marines and one sailor dead. Suspected gunman Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez was killed in the attacks on a joint-service recruiting station and a nearby Navy Operational Support Center.
One of the steps Carter approved was Marine Corps Recruiting Command’s decision to have recruiters not wear their military uniforms for now, a defense official said. The recruiting command also closed down all offices within 40 miles of the facilities in Chattanooga and increased the force protection condition level from “Bravo” to “Charlie.”…

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about a previous GOP primary. This follows this post about terrorism from the Koran. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Election Year Religion

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

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

God is "getting a lot of press" lately as the presidential candidates have brought religion into the campaign. Is the U.S. undergoing a significant change? Or are we witnessing politics as usual?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Faith-based” is the phrase of choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some fear talk is sincere—others fear it is not

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

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

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

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

Dropping God's name to get elected

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

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

Warning of the prevailing self-absorption of people of the last days of human history, the apostle Paul prophesied that societies would be dominated by men and women fettered by obvious indulgences. “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…” (2 Timothy 3:1-4 2 Timothy 3:1-4 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
American King James Version×).

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

True faith is not a political issue

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

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

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

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

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

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