Uncivilized Civilization: The Call of the Wild

by Stephen Z. Biller

Recently, I coined a phrase to refer to modern, mainstream American culture: Heathen Nation. I see this evidenced in the body piercings and tattoos that disfigure the forms of so many individuals in the States today. Oh, and those forms--they don't have much on to to cover them anymore either! The sad thing is that it's not just young people--nor is it just the secular culture. More and more, this heathenization is spreading to all ages and classes, in the church and outside of it.

As evidenced by the popularity of Mel Gibson's recent gory, provocative flick Apocalypto, the "American dream" for many Americans today seems to be the pursuit of sensuous pleasure. I think that there are a lot of Americans who would like nothing better than to run around naked, giving in to every idea that pops into their heads. This is definitely the entertainment industry's dream for Western society, and people are buying it--literally. Look at what many of them wear, do, watch and play. From gory video games to prime time television that would have embarrassed even the most secular of entertainment gurus in days gone by--people are showing their primitive tastes.

I am reminded of Golding's classic Lord of the Flies. This book, contrary to most secular teachers' opinions, is an examination of life without the confines of God. The title "Lord of the Flies" is actually the English interpretation of the Greek word "Beelzebub." Yep, the name Jesus used for Satan. I never knew this until I ran across a review of the book on a Catholic teen magazine's website. Throughout the novel, the "Lord of the Flies" is a voice that speaks to the main character and tries to get him to follow his comrades into their riotous, uncivilized way of living. The boy refuses, through great effort, and perseveres until the group is rescued from the island. Unfortunately, the other boys, who give in to their "natural" call of sin, commit horrible crimes that will undoubtedly haunt them for the rest of their lives.

I do not believe that society is what keeps us pure. As a creationist, I recognize the Biblical truth that civilization left alone would continually degrade to destruction at its own hands (not evolve to a continually better state!). God's grace is the only thing that has enabled mankind to form itself into peaceful, constructive groups. He initiated society when He created the first family (the very foundation of any society), and He has guided civilization throughout the centuries. Thus, I believe that God made society in order to help us live upright lives. We are not intended to be solitary creatures, at least not as a norm. (There might be times in your life when God calls you into solitude in order for you can hear Him better.)

What does this mean for the Christian? What practical application can you and I take away from this? Well, throughout history God has used His people to preserve civilized living in the world. Sanctity of life is the best name for what separates a godly civilization from a heathen one, and this is protected by purity and prudence in the individual. Government can help to ensure these things, but only on an outer level. The root of the problem (the heart of men) can only be addressed by God through His Son. Thus, the born-again believer has the responsibility to live a wholesome, holy lifestyle in line with the teaching of the Bible.

Prov. 14:34 tells us, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."
and Psalm 33:12 says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." (NIV)

It is up to the Conservative, Christian community to preserve a righteous civilization in America and the Western World. We must resist the temptations of Beelzebub and live as one who has "died, and...is now hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). For we "have been raised with Christ" (v. 1) and become "more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom. 8:37, NIV).

We can and must stand strong against the urges of "natural" sin!


Special Note:
I have not seen Apocalypto, nor do I intend to. I highly recommend that you do NOT go to see it either; from what I have read, you would probably regret it! Also, I have never read the whole of Lord of the Flies , but I understand that it is pretty intense. Thus, I urge caution if you do read it.

Feliz Navidad!

Hope Enthroned
By: Terah K. B.


Sent to save the world from sin
That sinners might be born again,
Emmanuel. Hope enthroned
Upon the day our Christ was born.

Redeeming grace sent down to earth,
And simple shepherds greet Him first.
What child is this of lowly means?

Behold! He is the King of Kings!

Hello Everyone!

Merry Christmas from Steve and Ter here at Rubies & Sapphires! We hope that the Lord blesses you during this festive time of the year with many happy moments with family and friends!

Today we published the Christmas issue of our family's ezine, Blue. We encourage you to check it out at www.bluezine.blogspot.com.

Have a safe and Merry Christmas!

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. -Matthew 1:23

Science in my Worldview

by Stephen B.

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
– Isaiah 40:21, NRS

One’s view of the beginning of matter—the beginning of existence, period—is the base for one’s worldview. This is not just a matter of opinion, the answers to all of life’s questions lie in the beginning. Just as a book starts on the first page and a music cd begins with track 1, everything you and I believe starts at the beginning of existence. A person can begin his or her search for meaning and shape his or her worldview without at first considering the question of “Where did this all come from?” (much like one can start a book in the middle or even at the end). However, if one asks questions long enough, they will be forced to eventually consider this question.

Actually, most of us have an answer to that question, even when we do not consciously know our answer. If we were to look for that answer within our concept of life (our worldview) we would undoubtedly discover the “why” for many of our other beliefs and feelings. My worldview is based on God (or Who I believe God to be), and I derive my understanding from God—and thus my worldview is based on—the Bible, which I believe to be God’s words in a written form. The validity of this base is rationally arguable to a certain extent, but in the end, I would have to admit that the naked truth is that I simply have faith that my foundation is concrete and real. This does not scare me because my Bible tells me that my relationship with God is and must be built upon faith. Hebrews 11:3 tells me, “By faith we understand” (NIV).

How does science play into the picture of my worldview? Hebrews 11:3 actually offers the beginning of the answer to this question, as well, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (NIV). By “universe” I understand this Biblical author to meaning all that exists. I believe that this verse (and others that back it up and expound upon its concept) means that God created all matter and the laws that our world operates by. Thus, I believe that God created the things we study in Science.

But, I believe that God made more than just the physical world and its laws; I believe that God also made things that cannot be studied with a microscope. He also made beauty and emotions. The very essence of life is in Him—both the physical and surreal aspects of life. Thus, when I look at a rainbow I see an amazing “painting”—a work of art. I see a message that I understand through theology and faith. And, equally as important as the first two, I see drops of water with light streaming through them just as the Creator said that they would when he made the miracle of refraction.

I see God.

Do You Judge God's Gift of Grace?

Written By:
Terah K. B.

God’s gift of grace is an amazing thing! It’s a mystery that we cannot fathom. Our human minds just cannot understand the concept of grace. Why would Jesus give His life for sinners that did not care? Why would our God heap blessings upon us when we least deserve them? And if we do not even understand grace, then why are we so presumptuous as to judge God’s gift of grace in other’s lives? This final question is very humbling.

According to Romans 3:23, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” We are no more worthy of grace than the person standing next to us. Why, then, do we judge what amount of grace they should be allotted? Grace cannot be earned! For instance, let us look at the following example:

If ever a man deserved something special or an easy road in this world, it was Jesus, who was the epitome of all perfection. And instead, Jesus received a crucifixion. Now, Peter, on the other hand, denied even knowing Jesus three times over. But did Jesus deny knowing him in return? No! Jesus said to him, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:32) Jesus knew that Peter would be afraid, that Peter would fail, and that Peter would deny knowing him three times. Jesus knew, but still He prayed. He prayed that Peter, even after denying him, would regain faith. And Jesus instructed Peter, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Did Peter deserve to return after turning his back on Jesus? Did Peter deserve to even strengthen his brothers in Christ after such a denial of Christ? No. But God allowed him these privileges. The perfect Son of God received crucifixion, and the sinful Peter received redemption. Grace can definitely not be earned!

Why, then, if grace cannot be earned, do we judge who should receive God’s grace? Who are we to dictate which person should receive a blessing of grace and which person should not? “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4) We each are a servant of our master, God. What we will be allotted is dictated by God. This applies to earth and to Heaven. We do not know why God would give an undeserving person more of the very thing that he does not deserve. And we do not know why God would give less of that same thing to someone who does deserve it. We do not understand because we do not understand grace. Perhaps God does these things to draw His children to a closer walk with Him. Perhaps He uses these things as a tool to build our faith. Our God is omniscient. We humans only know what God has allowed us to know. We should not presume to know whether a person should be allotted God’s grace or not.

If grace cannot be earned and we cannot know who needs grace, then as Paul says in Romans 14:13a, “Let us therefore not judge one another anymore.” Let us not judge those who receive God’s grace, but let us instead trust God who works in ways we cannot fathom. After all, “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10b) So let us each concentrate on our own personal walk with the Lord. Let us count our own blessings, each of which we also do not deserve.

On Purpose and Life's Meaning

Here's another assignment I've done that I thought you might enjoy reading. It's another science/theology thing. It deals with an interesting "idea" scientists have only recently come to the conclusion about: the anthropic principle. Rather interesting; hope you enjoy it...Steve


The anthropic principle is a theory on the why the universe (and the laws that make it operate) exist as they do. This principle states that things are as they are because “the physical features of the universe” must support life (Giberson 205). This is apparently in contradiction to the hopeless (and unreasonable) former scientific conclusion that the universe just happened to explode into a perfect existence. According to the anthropic principle, matter must exist for a reason, and that reason is to support life.

I suppose that this is science’s verification that there was a thinker behind the existence of the physical universe. Though this principle might seem slightly obvious to a Christian (especially a Creationist), it is actually a rather dynamic statement. Think about it—everything exists as it does so it can support life. WOW! Here, we find the evidence of something...something deeper than just chance. This has implications that are much more far reaching than just the start of the world.

If matter was created (or came into being) for a specific purpose, then maybe people all have a purpose too! If life is not by chance, mere circumstance, than maybe presupposition comes before every life. That presupposition is demonstrably not present in every human parent’s act of procreation, so there is good reason to wonder about a supernatural Being doing the supposition. This may be a little off the subject, but we are not merely discussing science when we discuss the beginning of being; we are discussing the roots to a whole worldview. How one believes the world came into being is reflected in every aspect of one’s worldview. Thus, it is no giant leap from the anthropic principle to the issue of sanctity of life. Purpose is the question being presented here, and purpose is also the answer to the questions of why (if not who).

I have talked in previous assignments about the abyss I see between science and religion. This abyss, as I havestated before, is filled by God, and I believe, is where science and religion meet. This abyss is formed by the question of purpose. It is put into very apt words by the anthropic principle. In reality neither science nor religion has the answer to why. Neither can say “I know the whole truth,” because neither of them do. Throughout much of world history, religion has often been recognized as the keeper of the answer, and in recent years scientists have tried to finder a more “plausible” answer for an increasingly prosaic culture. However, neither of them have the answer.

Neither of them hold the answer, but both of them lead to it. Or, at least, they can both lead to it if truth is the object of the seeker. In order to emphasize my point, allow me to state the matter like this: Religion is the science of the spiritual realm of God’s presence, and Science is the religion of the natural realm of God’s presence. I know that this statement will probably not be well-received by either camps, but I use it in order to accentuate the fact that both Science and Religion are viable paths to God. He is most definitely present in both places (and at the same time, too!), and He brings them both together in Himself. The abyss is not really so great as we might suppose, it is simply God Himself. Both religion and science’s journeys of discovery ultimately end in the question of purpose (why, how and who), and both can find their ultimate answer in the One Who initiated both studies.

Ancient Computer

Talk about wisdom of the ancients! Here's an article about a 2,100 year old "computer"!!!!

Yep...check it out at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15984363/.

Pretty cool...Steve

The Divine Call of Self-Control

Matt. 16:24-26
Col. 3: 1-14


I never really understood Jesus' teaching in the Matt. passage to be a reference to personal desires. Yet "deny himself" definitely carries those connotations.

Paul describes those things we must deny ourselves of. He says it so forcefully, "Put to death...whatever belongs to your earthly nature." He gives two lists (vv. 5 + 8-9) of things that we are to stay away from because we "have been raised with Christ." He then gives a list of what we should do (vv. 12-14). These lists involve actions just as much as thoughts. In fact, all of the lists contain things that spring from our hearts (which is where our sin is rooted and buried, but where Christ desires to dwell).

The two passages I listed above are both talking about the same thing--following Christ. I think it can be read as a dialogue (even though it probably not originally written this way). Paul points out that Christ has been "raised" and now sits with God. Christ tells us that we can "come after" Him, that is follow Him. Paul then adds that when we are born again (modern term) our life is hidden away with Christ.

I find it intriguing that we say "born again" and Paul often refers to accepting Christ as "dying" (see v. 3). Letting Christ into our lives is really only the first part of this death. It takes conscious effort on out part to help God in purifying us. I am not elevating man here, I am referring to what Jesus' calls "carrying our cross." It is a wonderful part of God's love that He never forces His healing touch on us. After we let Him into our lives, He begin the long job of cleaning our out our hearts. As He goes along, He will reveal to us things that are hidden within our hearts (things we might not even have known about or remembered). We then have to either destroy that things (through Christ's strength and help) and move on to a deeper point in our relationship with God, or we can hold on to that thing and stop in our growth.

The first of these two is our "denying ourselves, taking up our cross, and following Christ," and requires practicing self-control. The latter is willfully "forfeiting our souls for the world." The latter leads not to glory, but to shame--Christ cannot know those who deny Him.

A final note: we can only achieve a deeper walk by succeeding in our "denial." We can only succeed in our denial by keeping our eyes on Christ. In Paul's terms, "Set[ting] our hearts...[and] minds on things above, not on earthly things." Above--that is where our King is, and that is where we are hidden.



P.S.: That pic at the top is from our property. We got about six inches of snow yesterday! This is unusual for OK...it is really beautiful (though somewhat of a bother!). -Steve

An Apology for Creationism

Hey everybody,

I posted awhile back about a book I am reading in college called World's Apart: The Unholy War Bewteen Religion and Science written by Karl Giberson. The first four chapters were great, but starting with chapter five, his anti-creationist views come out. It's actually really sad, becasue he was raised a creationist but rejected the views in college (how surprising...not!). Anyways, here is the assigned question I had to answer on the book. I have no idea how my views will be taken by my prof, but I had to be honest.

Anyways, enjoy and tell me what you think...Steve



Assignment:

Based on what you have read in the Worlds Apart answer the following question in at least 500 words:

Summarize the author's view of scientific creationism. Why does Giberson believe that creation science is bad science? How does Giberson reconcile modern scientific findings of the origin of life with the Genesis account? Does this challenge your worldview?

Response:

Giberson presents his view of scientific creationism in a rather unscientific way. His clear, level-headed writing seems to flee from him as enters into the fifth chapter of his book. No longer is he interested in honest facts alone, but instead he deems it necessary to jump on the back of a Christian organization. I found this rather interesting, specifically considering that he said that the organization consists of men who “attack...fellow Christians” (Giberson 114). As I read the four long chapters of five through nine in Giberson’s book, I began to wonder who was really beating their “ploughshares into swords”—scientific creationists or Giberson (118)?

Giberson believes that scientific creationism is bad science because he has come to believe that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Whether he believes that the Bible can be taken literally at any time in any place was not specified, but he was clear on the point of his view about the creation story in Genesis. “The writer [of Genesis] is...a deeply involved and inspired author,” he says, “who is communicating profound truths that are deeply meaningful to him” (157). Quite obviously these “truths” are not relevant in today’s world and have no bearing on modern science (something Giberson says a several times throughout chapters five through nine). To Mr. Giberson, these “truths” were important only to the author of Genesis, even though they are in the book that Christianity is built upon—making its contents demonstrably relevant to all believers through all of time.

His argument is further proved inconsistent when one considers his complaints against creationists in general and the Institute for Creation Research in particular, “Creationist experts...[are] all writing outside their field...this [is] the problem with scientific creationism” (175). Yet, looking at Mr. Giberson’s qualifications on the back of his book, we find that he holds a Ph.D. in physics and a B.A. in philosophy. Nowhere is theology mentioned. Thus, throughout most of chapter eight he is “writing outside of his field,” discussing such matters as what literary form the first chapters of Genesis should be interpreted in. By his very own writing he discredits his arguments. I found further reason to doubt his argument when I researched the scientists at ICR and found that not only are their degrees legitimate (and from such prestigious colleges as Princeton, University of Kansas, and Texas Tech, just to name a very few), but that they do write within their fields (“Research” n.p.). In fact, in my search of the ICR website (which lists dozens of creationist scientists), I did not find any papers that were written by an author outside of his field. Mr. Giberson’s arguments appear to be founded either on a small number of author’s works or entirely outdated (Worlds Apart was published more than a decade ago, in 1993).

Giberson is surprisingly unclear when it comes to reconciling his views of modern science with the origin of life accounted in the Bible. He preferred to discuss ways that the creation story can be interpreted than to state his exact views on the subject. Much of the four chapters we read this week is more of a discourse on why creationism cannot possibly be true than anything else. His arguments failed to change or even challenge my worldview because he lost my respect early on. His argument lacked force because he used such tactics as circular reasoning, attempted discrediting of his “opponent,” and faulty generalizations. There were also several instances when he made it appear that creationists were in opposition to a certain point, then turned around and acknowledged that they believed the same thing as he did. These things left me wondering how this book could even be considered a college textbook worthy of standing unchallenged (by other textbooks) in a class.

Works Cited:

Giberson, Karl. World’s Apart: The Unholy War Between Religion and Science. Kansas

City: Beacon Hill, 1993.

“Research.” ICR.org. Institute for Creation Research, 2006. 27 Nov. 2006

<http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/> Path: Scientists in the

Physical Sciences; and Scientists in the Biological Sciences.

Thanksgiving Day!

Hey everyone! I posted some Thanksgiving pics on our family blog. Check it out at www.billerblog.blogspot.com!

This is a pic of my littlest bro, Zach. I know I posted it on the family blog, but I couldn't resist putting it on here too. Isn't he ADORABLE?! We all love our little soon-to-be 5 month old treasure! Stephen is the one holding him in this picture. Notice Stephen's new sweater. He's wanted one for ages, and he finally bought one. = )

Terah K.

Science vs. Religion: Does this mean War?

Here's an assignement I did last week in class. One of our textbooks is all about the "Unholy War Between Religion and Science" (which also happens to be its name). It is an interetsing book by a Karl Giberson. I thought some of you might enjoy reading my thoughts on this imprtant issue...Steve

Question: How do you view the current "war" between secular scientists and people of faith? How do faith and science influence one another? What assumptions, presuppositions and beliefs does each side bring to this conflict?

Response:

I think that Giberson got it right on when he said, “The issue boils down to one of authority. Who should decide what is true” (36). He was also correct in pointing out that it was the church who did this deciding for most of the Christian era; science has only gained the upper-hand in recent centuries (37). Christians stand today as gladiators fighting against the “bear” of materialism, the “lion” of abortion, and the “Roman soldier” of evolution, and we look up at the emerald-eyed emperor and call him science. Science is no Nero, and the world did not pick this fight between science and religion. The Church started this fight long ago, when it superstitiously refused to accept the findings of people who were blessed with a curious, scientific mind.

Science was created by God—it was He who put into place Newton’s famous Laws. The true scientist is only seeking to think God’s thoughts after, and this is the kind of science that Biblical Christians can embrace whole-heartedly. I always found it so amazing that, when one researches the life and sayings of a father of science (i.e. Galileo, Newton, etc) one usually finds that they were devout men of God. Their faith influenced their scientific work, and they often suffered persecutions that were similar to the persecutions administered on Christians throughout the centuries.

In my personal experience and from what I have studied of history, it seems to me that people are afraid of the truth. Truth sometimes hurts, and often shakes us from the comfortable position we had previously held. Why? Because the Father of Lies tries to do everything he can to veil, hide, or distort the awesome presence of God that is present all around us—and especially in nature.

Those who oppose science, or are antiscientific as Giberson calls them, deny that God is the creator of what science seeks out. They “claim that the motivation for science is not the noble and dispassionate pursuit of truth...but rather the undermining of religious belief” (Giberson 47). Secular scientists, on the other hand, often think of the Church as inferior to Science, which is often their “religion.” This supposed inferiority springs from the fact that parts of Christianity are not able to be analyzed by scientific thought (a train of thought which does not take into account the fact that no theory of the origin of matter can be analyzed either). However, there are also scientists and scholars, like those at the Institute for Creation Research, who believe that God made the universe and set its natural laws into play and use science as it is to be used, as a tool to discover God in His creation.

The Church needs to realize that science is never at odds with the Bible. Any “science” that is at odds with the Word of God is not a science at all and will be disproved sooner or later.


Works Cited:

Giberson, Karl. World’s Apart: The Unholy War Between Religion and Science. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1993.

Today's Happenings

Today a friend took my French Alpine/Nubian buck to an auction for me! (Thank you, Heather F.!) I'm so glad I could finally sell him. I really did enjoy having him, don't get me wrong. It was fun learning the ins and outs of training and containing a buck. But he has served his pupose- breeding my doe. He has developed a full grown buck tempermant. And he has sired my new buck, Harry. With only one doe right now, one buck is out of a job. = ) Here are some pics of me with Snowy this morning before I loaded him up.






When he's not dirty, he's beautiful! LOL! = ) Maybe, I'll post some pics of my far prettier goats, Tansy and Harry, another time.

~Terah K.

Spanking...The Way to Raise a Violent Child or a Successful One?

"According to a recent article in USA Today, there is one thing the nation's most successful CEOs have in common -- they received their share of spankings as children.
Although the article stated that "[m]ost CEOs believed spankings played little or no role in their success," the CEOs also acknowledged that the practice taught them valuable life lessons. David Haffner, chief executive officer of Leggett & Platt, said the spankings he received as a child made him 'disciplined, detailed and organized.' Joe Mogolia, with TD Ameritrade, said he learned from his parents that 'tough love is better than soft love'. "

Read the rest by clicking on the following link...
Crosswalk.com - Spanking: Godly Discipline or Outdated Cruelty?

Mariage, Puberty, and Society Today

Here's an interesting discussion going on in the newsgroup for one of the classes I am taking right now through the online program at Nazarene Bible College in Colorado Springs. The original post is from a classmate and my reply is below that. Enjoy...Steve

Original Post:

"Jewish men regularly married by eighteen, Romans by twenty-five, but Greeks often not until thirty. Girls of all three cultures, however, were usually wed soon after puberty, in their early to mid-teens." (Blomberg, 63).

I have often wondered, because I know this holds for many if not all other societies, if the western world does not place unreasonable expectations on their young people. I speak with particular reference to the "born again" church. We want our children to be well educated, preferably before they are married and ignore the very natural physical urges that previous societies did not have such a battle with.

Being engaged in scholarly pursuits does not remove the physical impulses from human beings. Marriages are no longer arranged and many of our church young people do not have the physical control necessary for the celibate life. We tell them not to date non Christians [and we should] but in many churches the females greatly outnumber the males. Then in Trinidad, where I live, the females are doing exceptionally better than the males in school. Some of the young women ask- Where are we to find suitable husbands? There are few single ministries. What should the twenty first century church do to meet these challenges in addition to pointing out what God's Word has to say about purity.

Donna

Reply:

Donna,

I think I am going to enjoy reading your stuff! : ) This is a great question--and a real problem. I was just reading in a Psychology class last semester about how the stretch of time between the first pangs of puberty and marriage has lengthened so considerably in the West in recent decades. No longer do girls marry at sixteen-eighteen; they go to college, start a career/ministry, and often wait until their mid-twenties to get married. The author I was reading also pointed out that many girls in today's Western society are physically ready for marriage at an earlier age than their great-grandmothers were; this fact, coupled with the other fact that many families are unstable (i.e. fatherless), have lead to an increase in pregnancies and poor relationship choices early in girls' lives.

In my Christian community, the problem is not so much a lack of desire to be married, but the absence of any suitable men. Thus, many of the young women I know that are not married are in that state because they cannot find a Christian man who will support them (and/or, sometimes, live up to their dreams).

Like you, I feel that there is a situation here that needs addressed. Abstinence is important, but for some girls (and guys) marriage is needed--and before college is over! It's like Paul says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9).

And elsewhere, "It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:1-3). These are immoral times, and God's servants need mates to help each other. Arranged marriages are out-dated (and unfeasible in independent, Western culture!), but I think churches should have teen singles counseling on the subject of marriage. Some kids can go to college just fine and stay pure, but many need to fill their need (and divine calling) of marriage before or during college. It depends on the individuals, and that is where counseling would probably be useful.

Dems won or Repubs lost?

Here's an interesting article I ran across on the Crosswalk.com website...Steve

'More About Republicans Losing Than Dems Winning'
Susan Jones
Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - While Democrats hailed their historic victory and promised to take America in a "New Direction," one conservative rejected the notion that Democrats had achieved a voter "mandate."

"I think a fairly good case can be made that the story of Election 2006 is more about poorly-led House Republicans losing than Democrats winning," said John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union.

Berthoud noted the long-time trend of the majority party losing congressional seats in Congress in the sixth year of a presidency. He also noted Republicans' considerable "baggage" going into the election -- the Foley, Ney and Abramoff scandals, to mention a few.

"Beyond these individual characters, the party often prostituted itself to corporate interests," Berthoud said, pointing to the Medicare reform bill and the energy and transportation bills.

"In the process of pleasing their corporate friends, the House Republicans lost their soul...and their base. The GOP went so overboard that they allowed the Democratic Party (complete captives of the teacher unions, trial lawyers, labor union bosses, etc.) to take the moral high ground on the issue of "being in the pocket of special interests." That takes some doing," he said.

Berthoud rejected the notion that the election had something to do with "liberalism triumphing over the ideals of limited government." He suggested that if more Republicans had stood up for a "reduction in government" while they had majority control of Congress, fewer of them might have lost the election.

Hello!!!!!

Hello to all our family, friends, relations, & strangers!
Welcome to our new Blog!
Steve & Ter