Update 1099

On, January 20, 2024, Frank Bruno will present the first split sermon, titled, “Restoration,” and Eric Rank will present the second split sermon, titled, “What is the Law of Christ?”

The live services are available, over video and audio, at http://eternalgod.org/live-services/ (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time; 8:30 pm Greenwich Mean Time; 9:30 pm Central European Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

When we are confident in our abilities, it brings about gratification and a sense of accomplishment which in return makes us feel good.  

We can be confident in our various talents; especially, when it leads to good fruit.  When we do well and are successful in a sporting event, or a work project, or a school assignment, or when we have finished a task, whatever it may be, we then have that feeling of achievement. 

Being confident in our conviction should also make us feel at ease; especially, since we know what we believe is the Truth and we have the Bible to back us up. 

Paul had this conviction, and he was confident that he was going to make it by overcoming all the trials he had to endure and that he would receive his crown when Christ would return.  He said in 2 Timothy 4:8: “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.”  He was absolutely convinced he would succeed as he said in verses 6 and 7: “… the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

When Jesus was on this earth as a man, He could have sinned and was tested repeatedly but He obviously passed the tests and lived a sinless life.  He also had the absolute confidence that He would not sin, as did God the Father, for they knew the crucial role of Christ’s sinlessness to accomplish God’s plan, for the sake of you and me, and all of mankind. 

Just as God the Father and Jesus Christ were confident in their plan, they also have that same confidence in us that we will succeed.  They are convinced that all those whom God calls to eternal salvation in this day and age WILL succeed. He WANTS those whom He calls to salvation to be in His Kingdom— to be in His Family. 

Because Paul knew this, he was certain that the following statement in Philippians 1:3-6 would apply to him as well: “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ…”

Is this the kind of confidence we have in ourselves, just as Paul did? And for those of us who are called today, do we believe that we WILL make it into His Kingdom?  It takes work, though, and we need to prove to God that we are serious in our obedience to Him so that our confidence is acceptable by fruits worthy of repentance and of the gospel.

by Norbert Link

We begin with Trump’s landslide historic victory in Iowa; the continuing uproar in Germany; France’s new gay prime minister; and the ongoing attacks of Iran’s Houthi pirates on ships in the Red Sea and America’s more than questionable attacks in Yemen.

We continue with Russia’s declaration never to recognize Ukraine, and Israel’s position never to allow for a Palestinian state.

We conclude with the lies of Anthony Fauci and statements by Pope Francis on war and communism.

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

Trump’s Historic Win in Iowa

The Daily Mail wrote on January 16:

“Donald Trump’s runaway victory in the Iowa caucuses means the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination has pretty much ended on the day it began. The scale of Trump’s triumph is historic. Just about everything went right for him. Whether it’s right for America and the rest of the world is another matter.

“After Iowa, America seems condemned to a re-run of the Trump-Biden contest of 2020, a repeat a majority of Americans have made clear they do not want but seem powerless to stop. For America’s allies, the increased prospect of a Trump presidency brings nothing but dread, even among conservatives-minded governments. For its enemies, the risk is that opportunities for them to sow mischief will abound.

“Trump won 51 per cent of the vote, a record-breaking 30 points ahead of his nearest rival and more than his two main challengers combined. Until Tuesday, Bob Dole had held the record in a contested Republican Iowa caucus with a 13-point victory margin in 1988. Trump smashed that. He also won 98 of Iowa’s 99 counties, with the only hold out, Johnson County, home of the University of Iowa, going for Nikki Haley by… one vote…

“He swept all before him, winning not just a majority of evangelicals in rural areas and small towns but with clear leads even among more moderate suburban Republicans… Of course, Iowa is hardly representative of America and some will claim you can read too much into Tuesday’s result. But it is representative — largely white, rural, small town, evangelical, blue collar, not college educated — of the Republican Party base on which Trump has such a grip and which will deliver him the nomination… The icing on his Iowa cake was Vivek Ramaswamy’s decision to pull out of the race and back him…

“President Zelensky in Kyiv must be wondering what progress he can make against Russia in Ukraine before a Trump presidency 2.0 threatens to undermine his war effort. The chancelleries of Europe woke up Wednesday morning to the harsh reality that the potential next president of the United States could bring the whole edifice of NATO crumbling down at a time when Europe needs the American-led alliance more than ever. America’s allies in the Middle East and Asia are contemplating new years of confusion and uncertainty…

“Of course, winning the Republican nomination is not the same as winning the White House. But the most recent ABC News poll gives President Biden a record 58 per cent disapproval rating… as things currently stand, Trump must surely be regarded as favourite to win…

“For America it threatens a return to division, chaos, even violence. For if Trump does not abide by the country’s democratic rules why should his opponents? As America is forced to face up to the new challenges of the 21st century and a world which suddenly looks a lot more dangerous than it did even a decade ago, the last thing it needs is a geriatric contest between two of yesterday’s men.

“America’s great strength has always been its ability to renew itself, to pass the baton on to new generations and new thinking… That cannot happen in 2024 if the choice is Trump or Biden. For the rest of the world dependent on American protection, the prospects are just as scary. Trump and his supporters have every reason to celebrate this week. The rest of us have just as many reasons to be fearful.”

The Daily Mail added on January 16:

“The historic landslide came despite Arctic temperatures and the Hawkeye State being battered by blizzards that were expected to decimate turnout. It gives Trump a massive boost as he seeks to win the Republican presidential nomination and return to the White House in what would be the most remarkable political comeback in U.S. history.”

Especially Europe, Ukraine and, to an extent, Israel are in panic regarding the prospects of a return of Trump. Netanyahu said he would not allow Trump to end the Gaza war in the way that he has proposed.

Political Uproar in Germany

Life Site News wrote on January 12:

“Amidst a growing sense of national crisis Germany’s vice chancellor [Robert Habeck] has refused to rule out the criminalization of the main opposition party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD)… Habeck’s comments were reported in German newspaper Handelsblatt, which also noted ‘there are supporters of an AfD ban in almost all democratic parties.’ All but one of these parties lag far behind the AfD, which is now the second most popular in Germany… This increase is explained in part by a decade of mass immigration, which has seen figures of up to three million immigrants arrive in Germany in one year. With support at 23 percent – 10 percent higher than Habeck’s Greens – the AfD has now eclipsed all the parties of government in the polls. The increase of their ‘influence’ is an established fact. What is also obvious is the reasons behind their rise – the chaos created by the policies of the German government, and by Habeck himself…

“Habeck’s decision to cut support to German farmers has triggered a wave of national protests [which] have been characterized as ‘far right,’ in a routine description of any organized opposition… The pressure on Habeck and his government is compounded by a growing economic catastrophe in which he and his party are implicated. The man whose management of the state was ruled unconstitutional is hoping to create a case to criminalize a party for the ‘anti-constitutional’ action – of having popular policies…

“It is Habeck’s party who have presented an alternative Germany… Pro-mass immigration, pro-abortion and strongly supportive of so-called ‘LGBTQ rights,’ their entire political platform aims at the total destruction of the German way of life. 

“The reasons for the move to criminalize popular political movements is obvious: the establishment has no solutions for the problems it has created. Both in the U.S. and in Europe, it is resorting to the desperate measure of lawfare to make any alternative to itself illegal.

“The AfD in Germany is anti-war. It proposes to halt mass migration, restart sensible energy policies, and abandon the Net Zero program destroying the economy…  These policies are popular with people generally, as is evidenced by Trump’s commanding lead and the growing support for the AfD in Germany. Both nations have seen narratives of extremism crafted to characterize opposition to the globalist schemes of forever war and the collapse of industrial society as the enemies of democracy…”

A slightly different report was published by the Associated Press on January 11:

“German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Thursday sharply condemned alleged plans by members of far-right groups who supposedly met recently at a mansion outside Berlin to devise a plot to deport millions of immigrants, even those with German citizenship, if the groups take power. The alleged plan, which was published in an article by the investigative journalists’ group Correctiv on Wednesday, has led to an uproar in the country because it echoes the Nazis´ ideology of deporting all people who are not ethnically German…

“According to the report by Correctiv, members of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, or AfD, and the extremist Identarian Movement participated in the meeting in November…  Deportation of German citizens is not possible under to the constitution, which can only be changed by a two-thirds majority in the lower and upper houses of parliament.”

The AfD denied having any such plans, as described in the above-stated article. Reuters reported on January 10:

“[The AfD] said on Wednesday it had no plans to pursue deportation of ‘unassimilated’ immigrants with passports if it wins power, after investigative portal Correctiv said that was aired at a meeting… Roland Hartwig, personal assistant to AfD leader Alice Weidel, and Ulrich Siegmund, party leader in Saxony Anhalt state, met neo-Nazi influencers and wealthy businessmen late last year in a hotel near Berlin. At the meeting, Martin Sellner, an Austrian leader of the far-right Identitarian Movement, had proposed a project of ‘remigration’, whereby some immigrants could be forced to leave Germany – even if they had citizenship…

“The AfD confirmed that Hartwig was present at the meeting but said that the reported proposals were not party policy… ‘The AfD won’t change its position on immigration policy because of a single opinion at a non-AfD meeting,’ the party told Reuters. Sellner confirmed he was at the meeting but denied proposing anything illegal…

“Alexander von Bismarck, a descendent of Germany’s 19th century founding chancellor, was also named by Correctiv as a participant…”

Protests Continue

Deutsche Welle wrote on January 15:

“German farmers converged on Berlin on Monday for demonstrations that filled the streets around the city’s famous Brandenburg Gate… The protests drew some 10,000 farmers, with some 5,000 tractors and trucks, along with others from across Germany… Monday’s rally is the culmination of protests that have lasted for more than a week… German lorry drivers and freight forwarders are also supporting the demonstrations.”

Pistorius to Replace Scholz?

Focus wrote on January 9:

“Boris Pistorius [Germany’s defense minister] is the most popular politician in the country, much more popular than the Chancellor. This emerges from various surveys. According to the latest Insa survey, almost two thirds of Germans would like Pistorius to replace his SPD party colleague Olaf Scholz as Chancellor.

“The wild debate about Scholz’s twilight of the chancellor was triggered by the Italian daily newspaper ‘La Repubblica’. The renowned newspaper reported that the Chancellor was about to be replaced – by Pistorius. The sensational article is about speculation surrounding… suspected Russian spy and ex-company boss Jan Marsalek… In the subsequent survey commissioned by ‘Bild am Sonntag’, 64.3 percent of those surveyed were in favor of Pistorius as chancellor… Even among SPD supporters, more respondents are for than against such a change of chancellor (47.9 to 47.1 percent)…

“In any case, it would not be the first time that an incumbent Chancellor in Germany is replaced by another from the same party during a legislative period. Konrad Adenauer (CDU) resigned in October 1963 and was replaced by Ludwig Wilhelm Erhard (CDU). In 1974 Willy Brandt (SPD) also resigned. Helmut Schmidt (SPD) took over the office of Federal Chancellor…. The Italian daily newspaper’s theory is also somewhat reminiscent of the Guillaume [spy] affair, which toppled Chancellor Willy Brandt. Like Brandt, Olaf Scholz would have to resign as chancellor to make way for Pistorius.”

Focus added on January 12:

“Scholz is lonelier than ever, surrounded by a dwindling following and internal party intrigues. What was still satire two years ago is now on its way to becoming reality. The words ‘resignation’ or ‘overthrow of the chancellor’ are already making the rounds, at least in the mild version… They say the time is now for personnel renewal and a new beginning. That sounds less brutal, but in the language of party politicians, it means the same thing.”

Stranger things have happened.

France’s New Prime Minister

The Washington Post wrote on January 12:

“This week, France became the world’s most important country with an openly gay head of government. The French didn’t want to talk about it. French media trumpeted the fact that Gabriel Attal is the country’s youngest-ever prime minister; at age 34, his youth and hypersonic ascent as President Emmanuel Macron’s protégé are no doubt remarkable.

“Yet most news coverage in France mentioned the fact of Attal’s sexual orientation only in passing, or omitted it altogether, until some journalists noticed it had made headlines elsewhere, especially in the United States. That stirred some belated commentary, including a headline… ‘The prime minister is gay, but not too much.’…”

Iran Behind Houthi Attacks

Newsmax wrote on January 11:

“Secretary of State Antony Blinken has admitted that Iran was behind the ‘biggest attack’ by Yemen-based Houthi rebels targeting U.S. interests in the Red Sea… Blinken said the attacks, using unmanned aerial vehicles, were aided by Iran with ‘technology, equipment, intelligence, information, and they are having a real-life impact on people’… “

Newsmax added on January 17:

“The recent series of Houthi rebel attacks on ships in the Red Sea is the most unprecedented assault on merchant shipping since World War II and the Battle of the North Atlantic.”

Further Escalation

Reuters and the Algemeiner wrote on January 17:

“The US military carried out new strikes in Yemen on Tuesday against anti-ship ballistic missiles in a Houthi-controlled part of the country as a missile struck a Greek-owned vessel in the Red Sea. Disruptions to Red Sea shipping caused by Houthi attacks will push up prices of consumer goods in Europe in particular… The Iran-allied Houthi militia has threatened to expand its attacks to include US ships in response to American and British strikes on its sites in Yemen…

“British oil major Shell has suspended all shipments through the Red Sea indefinitely after the US and UK strikes triggered fears of further escalation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. Shell declined to comment…

“European diplomats said member states of the European Union had given initial backing to creation of a naval mission by Feb. 19 at the latest to help protect ships. The existing US-led coalition meant to safeguard commercial traffic in the Red Sea is weak because regional powerhouses Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt have not taken part, Yemen’s vice president said on Tuesday…

“Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister underlined the link between Houthi attacks on commercial ships to the war in Gaza. Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said the kingdom’s priority is finding a path to de-escalation through a ceasefire in Gaza.”

America’s Unconstitutional War on Yemen

Ron Paul wrote on January 15 in his weekly column:

“Late last week President Biden started a new US war on the tiny country of Yemen. US warships and fighter jets launched more than a hundred missiles at the country in a massive escalation that the Administration bizarrely claimed would ‘de-escalate’ tensions in the Red Sea. Taking the US to war without a Congressional declaration of war is a grave crime against the Constitution. Not only did Biden show no interest in coming to Congress for a war declaration, he didn’t even ask for authorization. Together with Washington’s reliable junior partner in war, the UK, Biden attacked Yemen. It seems the US Administration consulted more with the UK government than with the US Congress on the attacks.

“But that’s not really the worst part. Far from taking action against this illegal move by an out-of-control president, Congress as a body couldn’t even see fit to criticize the Administration. On the contrary, Congressional leadership in both bodies actually applauded President Biden for brazenly violating US law!…

“To their credit, several Members of Biden’s own party joined with a handful of Republican colleagues to denounce a US president taking the country to war without the authority to do so…

“The Framers of the Constitution gave war-making power to Congress because they understood that leaving such power in the hands of one person was a recipe for disaster. The role of the president is to make the case for a war declaration. Congress deliberates and either authorizes or refuses the proposed action.

“Washington has obviously not learned the lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and all the other failed US interventions over the past 20 years. Why do we keep losing wars? Because we do not go into wars according to the US Constitution. This war will be no different.

“The Houthis in Yemen withstood years of attacks from the Saudis using the latest US weaponry and came out on top…

“So we are left with the strange and sad spectacle of Congress asleep at the wheel as a Defense Secretary launches military strikes from his hospital bed in the service of a president clearly not in his prime. All this in pursuit of a policy that makes no sense and is leading us closer to a major war in the Middle East that will only harm, not serve, the US national interest.”

Paul’s legal analysis seems to be correct.

Russia Will Never Recognize Ukraine

Newsmax wrote on January 17:

“Russia will never recognize Ukraine as an ‘independent state’… even if a diplomatic solution is reached to end the war, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, said in a social media post… ‘No matter who stands at the helm of the cancerous growth called Ukraine, it will not make their rule legitimate, nor will it make the “country” legally viable. Therefore, the likelihood of a new fight will persist indefinitely.’

“The statement led a source close to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to say that ‘the Putin regime doesn’t recognize Ukraine’s right to exist’… ‘The existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians, and I don’t mean only the current state…’ Medvedev further referred to Ukraine as an ‘artificial country’ and that Russia will never consider it a legitimate nation.”

Russia and Ukraine will unite.

No Palestinian State After October 7

Israel Today wrote on January 12:

‘While there are many lessons to be learned from the October 7, 2023 Hamas invasion of southern Israel, chief among them is that a Palestinian state must never be established in the Land of Israel. That was the conclusion of the ‘Nation, Land & Sovereignty’ conference held in Jerusalem on Thursday…

“According to a poll presented at the conference, 74% of Israelis now oppose the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria…”

Lying Fauci

The New York Post wrote on January 11:

“In recent years, we, the public, have lost faith in institution after institution. Often with very good reason. We’ve seen a multi-tiered justice system. We’ve seen the politicization of every government agency. And we’ve had profound doubts cast — by Democrats and Republicans alike — on the security of the voting system… Research shows that public faith in scientists has fallen off the cliff since the pandemic… And no one is more responsible for that than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

“This week he appeared before a closed House select subcommittee on the coronavirus… His performance was by turns superior, shameless and suspicious… in February 2020, Fauci prompted the drafting of a paper to debunk the lab leak conspiracy theory… anyone suggesting the virus might have come from the laboratory was pushing a ‘conspiracy theory.’… [Fauci] claimed before members of Congress that he in fact never rejected the lab leak theory. That is a bald-faced lie. And unfortunately for him, there are dozens of interviews from that time in which he did exactly that. He said on every available platform that the evidence ‘strongly’ suggested the virus’s ‘natural occurrence.’

“… this week, giving testimony, flanked by his four lawyers (two personal, two government), Fauci is reported to have said ‘I don’t recall’ hundreds of times. He might as well not have been there, considering the number of things he just doesn’t remember. Or claims not to remember. But… what Fauci did remember and commented on this week is damning.

“Questioned by the subcommittee about the 6-foot rule — that we were all ordered to live by — Fauci had one of the most bizarre answers of the whole hearing… Fauci said that the 6-feet-of-distance rule ‘sort of just appeared.’ Without any scientific input.

“Which is nice to know. After all, it wasn’t like it was something that put the public to any kind of trouble. It wasn’t like all those signs on every shop window and every floor actually had any impact on our lives. Or on the people who were kept from seeing loved ones and stood at a distance from them, unable to get nearer than 6 feet…

“It was the same on issue after issue. Back at the height of the virus, Fauci was one of the people advocating for stronger and stricter mandates to push people into having the vaccine. Now he acknowledges that this policy actually caused a huge increase in suspicion of vaccines among the American public. And not just the COVID vaccines, but all vaccines. If we see the spread of old and unfamiliar diseases in the coming years, we will be able to thank this expert in disease control…

“So yes, there is a problem with faith in institutions. And faith in science… It is the direct result of the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci and ‘evidence’ of the kind he rolled out again this week.”

But Fauci was not the only one responsible for the chaos and harm caused by scientific “experts” and mindless politicians regarding their “analysis” of Covid.

War – a Crime Against Humanity

Reuters wrote on January 14:

‘Pope Francis said on Sunday war was ‘a crime against humanity’… In the prayer, he urged people not to forget those suffering due to the “cruelty of war” in several parts of the world… ‘Let us pray that those who have power over these conflicts reflect on the fact that war is not the way to resolve them, as it sows death among civilians and destroys cities and infrastructure,’ the pope said.”

Francis is right.

Pope Francis and Communism

Life Site News wrote on January 11:

“Hosting a Marxist-Christian dialogue group at the Vatican on Wednesday, Pope Francis urged them to ‘be open, in dialogue, to new ways,’ while avoiding reiterating the Church’s consistent condemnation of Marxism… In his address, the pope urged the Marxist and Christian attendees to ‘never lose the ability to dream.’… the pope did not mention Christ, Christianity, or the Church’s condemnation of Communism and Marxism at all.

“Catholic teaching against Communism is very clear… Pope Pius XI warned the entire Church about ‘the impious and iniquitous character of Communism.’ Describing Socialism as slightly less violent, Pius XI firmly prohibited any attempts to marry Socialism and Catholicism… ‘Socialism… cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth… Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever…’

“Pius’ words merely built on the constant teaching of his predecessors. Pius IX’s 1846 encyclical Qui pluribus described Communism as ‘a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law,’ which would usher in ‘complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself.’ Pope Leo XIII’s 1878 encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris condemned Socialism as a ‘deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction…

“In recent years, Francis has increasingly aligned himself with globalist entities such as the U.N…, the International Monetary Fund; the COP climate agenda; and the World Economic Forum.”

The rift in the Catholic Church caused by Francis and his liberal supporters will have wide-ranging consequences.

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.

After looking at a sample of the criticism of the godly-ordained family where there is so much antipathy towards this institution, let us now look at those who contend earnestly with the opposite view – that of preserving what God has designed although many approach this from a human point of view, resorting to human reasoning, and, often, without any references to God’s instructions on the matter.

In the Daily Mail newspaper in May 2022, excerpts were published from the new book “The Case Against The Sexual Revolution” by feminist Louise Perry.  We will quote, selectively, what she has to say about marriage.

“Monogamous marriage is by far the most stable and reliable foundation on which to build a family.

“But while the monogamous marriage model may be unusual, it is also spectacularly successful. When monogamy is [adopted by] a society it tends to become richer and more stable, with lower rates of both child abuse and domestic violence. Birth rates and crime rates both fall, which encourages economic development, and wealthy men, denied the opportunity to devote their resources to acquiring more wives, instead invest in property, businesses, employees and other productive endeavours.

“A monogamous marriage system is successful in part because it pushes men away from cad mode, particularly when pre-marital sex is also prohibited. If a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially acceptable, he has to make himself marriageable. That means holding down a good job and setting up a household suitable for the raising of children. In other words, he has to tame himself. [The need to “tame” oneself applies of course also to a woman, not just to a man.]

“The monogamous marriage model is also the best solution yet discovered to the problems presented by child-rearing.

“There was a wisdom to the traditional model in which the father was primarily responsible for earning money while the mother was primarily responsible for caring for children at home. Such a model allows mothers and children to be physically together and at the same time financially supported. In an age of labour-saving domestic devices it has become more feasible for mothers of young children to do paid work outside of the home, as most of us do and take pleasure from. But not during the early months of a baby’s life.

“I know full well that I was irreplaceable as mother to my new born child – not only because I was the only person who could breastfeed, but also because children have a relationship with their mother that cannot be handed over without distress to both mother and baby. If we want to keep that maternal bond intact, the only solution is for another person to step in during these times of vulnerability and do the tasks needed to keep a household warm and fed.

“Perhaps we could call that person a spouse. Perhaps we could call their legal and emotional bond a marriage.

“Which is why – as a feminist – the most important piece of advice I can offer to the young women of today is this: get married and do your best to stay married. Particularly if you have children. And if you do find yourself in the position of being a single mother, wait until your children are older before you bring a stepfather into their home [We would not necessarily agree with this advice at all].

“These directives are hard to follow because we no longer live in a culture that incentivises perseverance in marriage. But it is still possible for individuals to go against the grain and do the harder, less-fashionable thing.

“The critics of marriage are right to say that it has historically been used for the control of women by men, and they’re right to point out that most marriages do not live up to a romantic ideal. The marriage system that prevailed in the West until recently was not perfect, nor was it easy to conform to, since it demanded high levels of tolerance and self control. Where the critics go wrong is in arguing that there is any better system. There isn’t.”

As we pointed out in part 1 of this series, we realize, of course, that the comments above by a “feminist” are extremely “optimistic” and “idealistic” and are in many cases impossible to carry out today. This is especially true for the idea that the man alone can be the breadwinner today while the wife can stay at home. That would be somewhat ideal, but almost far from being doable in today’s societies. Still, the comments above can serve as guidelines to do what we can do under the best of circumstances.

On dailycaller, dated 27th November 2022, Liz Wheeler wrote an article headed “Twelve Republican Senators Betrayed The Institution Of Marriage,” and below are just a few comments from a long article:

“On November 16, all 50 Democratic senators and 12 of their Republican counterparts voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, circumventing the filibuster and paving the way for the bill’s imminent passage.

“In what should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the insidious tactics utilized by the Marxists currently in control of our government, the goals of this bill are being completely misrepresented. It’s time we cleared up exactly what this bill means and break down the sinister ramifications of its potential passage.

“At its core, this legislation would force the federal government to recognize any marriage that was performed according to a state law. If a same-sex couple gets married in a particular state— California, for example — then the federal government would be required to recognize that union.

“There are at least three major problems that would necessarily result from this.  First, the bill amounts to a direct assault upon religious liberty. The anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-religion, anti-God, secular mob will undoubtedly use this law to target people of faith. They will target non-profit organizations. They will target churches. They will target religious schools. You won’t be able to conduct business under the premise of the biblical definition of marriage or you will likely come under fire.

“Which leads us to the second problem: this bill gives government the power to redefine words. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation or sexual attraction. It’s about the definition of the word marriage, and whether government at the federal or state level has the right to redefine what marriage is, and has always been, since before the inception of our country.

“After all, if the federal government can be forced to recognize a same-sex union, what would the limitation be upon recognizing polygamous marriage? What about a marriage between an adult and a child? Once definitions become malleable and subject to political whimsy, they cease to have any meaning, and can be wielded against society at will. There are no limitations.

“Our government does not have the right to redefine words. That is a core tenet of authoritarian rule.”

“Third — and perhaps most importantly — the bill will inherently become a legal catch-all for the Democratic Party’s radical progressive agenda, which hinges upon the deliberate Marxist goal of destroying the nuclear family and ultimately deconstructing our society’s moral fiber.

“Ultimately, this bill is not about equal rights or codifying gay marriage into law. This is a radical leftist agenda that assaults the rights of religious people and institutions, grants government virtually unlimited power to define truth and morality, and provides protection for perverted, anti-American individuals and organizations.”

There are others who have written eloquently about the value of marriage.

Michael Ayling wrote in the Australian Spectator in June 2017: “The Left needs to destroy the family unit to succeed in the long-term. Over the last few years, we have seen numerous attempts to make the meaning of the word ‘family’ whatever anyone wants it to be, to strip it of any collective meaning. The Left needs to attack and to destroy the family as the basic building block of society in order to progress its goals.”

Mr Ayling then goes on to give an account of his schooling and how his school was taken over in 1980 by a highly ideological left-wing couple, calling themselves co-principals where he, and the other students, were exposed to their teaching which was based on their political leanings. Today, in so many areas of education, that same approach continues apace.

Without the protective influence of the family, we are left with “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” as Benito Mussolini once said. The radicals seek to own the idea of the family, by redefining it out of existence.

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

A new Member Letter (January 2024) has been written and posted. Eric Rank reports on details concerning our efforts to publish and proclaim the gospel–especially, our current booklet advertising campaign. He also addresses the fact that we look to God for help in accomplishing the Work given to us and reminds us of the tremendous resources we are making available through our websites.

“UFOs—Außerirdische, Engel oder Dämonen?” is the title of this Sabbath’s German sermon, presented by Norbert Link. Title in English: “UFOs—Aliens, Angels or Demons?”

“Kann Begierde denn Sünde sein?” last Sabbath’s second split sermon presented in German by Jens Herrmann, is now posted. Title in English: “Can Desire be Sin?”

“Bleibe standhaft,” last Sabbath’s first split sermon presented in Germany by Robert Indlekofer, is now posted. Title in English: “Stand Firm.”

“Is Your Heart Poisoned?” last Sabbath’s sermonette presented by Eric Rank, is now posted. Here is a summary:

Poison is a destructive substance that does damage to those exposed to it. Spiritual poison takes the form of destructive emotions and ideas that lead us away from God, toward the way of sin. How can we tell if our hearts are spiritually poisoned, and what can we do about it?

“Deceived? Not Me!” last Sabbath’s sermon presented by Dave Harris, is now posted. Here is a summary:

Is there a chance that you have been deceived about what you believe—especially when it comes to the Word of God? Is there a way to know what deception is and to avoid it?