How To Rest In Peace Daily?

February 7, 2020 hepsibahgarden

No person can rest in peace after death if that person isn’t resting in peace daily, when he/she is alive. These days it’s such a trend, that when someone passes away, people are just RIP-ing away. Sad to say, most don’t mean when they say it; and that becomes just another tweet or post for their social media.

Peace is not gazing into an ocean or a landscape. You feel good, that’s not peace. Staying quiet or “keeping calm” isn’t the answer. One aspect of a person full of God’s peace is, he or she is an ambassador of God’s Word. Wherever they go they carry the good news of the gospel of peace.

Did you know a Christian soldier always walks in peace? If you have the peace of God in you, it is obvious you will tell everyone you can about God’s peace in you – Jesus! Who is it that wears the sandals of peace? Soldiers wear the sandals of peace. You are a soldier in God’s army. Peace is full of action. Action that draws people to Christ and encourages others to prepare for the coming of the Lord.

God has given us sandals of peace so we can carry the gospel wherever we go. We are soldiers who carry the good news to others. We are expected to be the peacemakers by uniting people within themselves. Why are people lost? Because they are divided inside. And the peacemaking soldier of Jesus is aware of the state of the heart of mankind. Believers burdened for perishing souls spend quality time in prayer and sharing the Word.

Arise and Shine for the glory of God. Let Jesus rule your heart, the captain of our souls. While we walk with Him, when He appears, we will fly to be with Him forever. Amen!

And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Ephesians‬ ‭6:15

Be blessed 💕

 

Original here

No, It’s Not Time To Give Up On The Nuclear Family To Build Grownup Dorms

Communist-minded pundits see the nuclear family as a cultural anomaly, but living with friends can’t replicate the need for family that is in our DNA.

No, It’s Not Time To Give Up On The Nuclear Family To Build Grownup Dorms

Feb 18, 2020

I love my extended family. David Brooks, not so much. His way of writing about the decline of the American extended family is occasionally hysterical, sometimes saccharine, and entirely lacking perspective. The suggestion that the nuclear family was a mistake strikes this immigrant as un-American.

Brooks uses the 1990 movie “Avalon” as a metaphor for family fracture. In the beginning, we see a large group of kinfolk at a holiday dinner:

As the years go by in the movie, the extended family plays a smaller and smaller role. By the 1960s, there’s no extended family at Thanksgiving. It’s just a young father and mother and their son and daughter, eating turkey off trays in front of the television. In the final scene, the main character is living alone in a nursing home, wondering what happened.

Thus, nuclear family is a station on the way from the tribal “tangled, loving, exhausting glory” to total loneliness.

It’s a flawed, overly dramatic setup because, while it’s the norm for today’s nuclear families to live apart from cousins and grandmas, everyone still gets invited to Thanksgiving dinners. Multigenerational gatherings are so much the cultural expectation that pundits advise starting political arguments around the holiday table: See what happens if the crazy uncle chimes in.

Is the Nuclear Family an Anomaly?

Brooks explains that, prior to industrialization, most Americans lived on farms and worked together within corporate family arrangements. Distant relatives filled in for each other, taking care of the young and the old, smoothing out intra-family feuds.

Brooks tends to overly idealize the extended family, which is not exactly primitive communism where leadership emerges spontaneously and everyone contributes according to his ability and takes according to his need. Clans operate with a clear chain of command, and that chain is not matrilineal. Some family members often end up feeling cheated or alienated, so rivalries abound.

Brooks sees the nuclear family as an anomaly fashioned in the Victorian era and fully realized in the 1950s. Even then, it only existed for about a dozen years and solely because of unique historical circumstances — namely, unions enabled men to find good-paying jobs, women were excluded from the workforce for child-rearing, and a high degree of social trust meant families in geographic proximity could forge tribal bonds.

With its focus on the last 250 years, Brooks’ narrative overlooks the fact that the extreme nuclear family — mom, dad, and minor children living in a single household — has been the Anglo-Saxon ideal since time immemorial. In “America 3.0,” James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus note that Germanic tribes on the outskirts of the Roman Empire lived in dwellings that resembled today’s single-family suburban households. These tribes eventually took over the British Isles, and their descendants have spread across the American continent.

Young families were always expected to move out as soon as land became available. Only economic pressure kept children under the same roof as their parents — not unlike what student loans are doing today. In Bennett and Lotus’s model, the success of the post-war extreme nuclear family is not a step on the way to total disintegration, but a contemporary realization of the age-old dream.

Brooks notes that economically stressed immigrant families are more likely to live in multigenerational households. Coming from an upwardly mobile immigrant subculture, I can assure you something more significant than economic pressure keeps multiple generations under the same roof: tradition. Bennett and Lotus argue that as immigrants assimilate, they adopt the kinship model of their American neighbors. The extreme nuclear family is a building block of a dynamic, mobile capitalist society — our past, present, and future.

What Brooks Doesn’t Get About Community

Brooks would agree with the point about dynamism, but would ask: “At what cost?” The fracture of the “fragile” nuclear family has been debilitating for the lower classes. He chides conservatives for incessantly telling the poor to build stable nuclear families — a pointless undertaking, in his opinion. If he knows conservatives so well, he should perhaps acknowledge that we offer different explanations for the decline.

Where the author sees unions as benign enablers of the short-lived blossoming of patriarchal nuclear families, conservatives argue that the greedy labor establishment destroyed American industry and point out that the working class in right-to-work states is doing fine. Moreover, capitalism isn’t eating into the family. Rather, that’s what welfare state is doing, providing mothers subsidies that enable fatherless child-rearing.

Our lawmakers in all levels of government are putting in place an elaborate set of workplace arrangements that will make it costly for a young mother to disentangle herself from full-time employment to raise children. That said, many conservatives more or less align with Brooks’s idea that societal trust is evaporating, or that we are perhaps too individualistic.

Brooks acknowledges that extended family can be excruciating and repressive. He blames it on the fact that people don’t choose their kin. He then suggests replacing the allegedly failed nuclear family with “families of choice,” which is a dramatic way of saying “friends.” He rounds up anthropological evidence:

The Chuukese people in Micronesia have a saying: ‘My sibling from the same canoe’; if two people survive a dangerous trial at sea, then they become kin. On the Alaskan North Slope, the Inupiat name their children after dead people, and those children are considered members of their namesake’s family.

The first study sounds like a description of a rite-of-passage ritual, or a trial not unlike what young Americans do in fraternities or the Armed Forces, and the second practice is a bit like having godparents or namesakes. Fraternity brothers and soldiers bond and live together for a while until they age out of the communal arrangements. Their close camaraderie is a stage in life following childhood and preceding marriage.

Brooks sees youthful adventure as a foundation of permanent living arrangements. He gives the example of Temescal Commons in Oakland, California, as a functioning, chosen extended family mysteriously bound into a tight-knit community:

[T]he 23 members, ranging in age from 1 to 83, live in a complex with nine housing units. This is not some rich Bay Area hipster commune. The apartments are small, and the residents are middle- and working-class. They have a shared courtyard and a shared industrial-size kitchen where residents prepare a communal dinner on Thursday and Sunday nights. Upkeep is a shared responsibility. The adults babysit one another’s children, and members borrow sugar and milk from one another. The older parents counsel the younger ones. When members of this extended family have suffered bouts of unemployment or major health crises, the whole clan has rallied together.

So, like a dorm, but for life. As a descendent of people who at some point were all crammed into Soviet communal apartments, or kommunalki, I find the description above hopelessly naïve.

Communal Living Isn’t Romantic

Brooks is not the only pundit who has been romanticizing communal living, especially communal kitchens. In a bizarro segment, National Public Radio lauded Soviet communal kitchens for allegedly fostering anti-Stalinist resistance. In reality, those were a constant source of irritation and discontent: the worry about broken dishes, stolen food, noisy drunks, and, during Stalin’s Reign of Terror, the numbing fear that the neighbors may turn to the NKVD to evict an odd tenant to the Gulags.

There was little trust in kommunalki, but plenty of fear and resentment. The 1950s suburbs with high trust and lots of privacy, and where every woman was the mistress of her own kitchen, were the polar opposite of Soviet communal apartments.

Wealthy Americans such as Brooks tend to romanticize food and rituals surrounding it, and this is a mistake. Like living in close proximity does not ensure trust, and scheduling people to break bread with each other is an unnatural way to form meaningful relationships.

Cooking with others and for large groups of people is nerve-racking. Brooks mentions a study showing that women working in extended family kitchens tend to have higher rates of heart diseases because of the stress of cooking for a large brood. Imagine cooking for two dozen non-relatives while sharing the kitchen with random neighbors!

A Co-op Can’t Replace the Nuclear Family

Actually, none of it should be too hard to imagine. Because young Americans typically leave their parents and spend several years living with roommates, we all have a kind of window to the lifelong communal misery. In the short term, hanging out together and meeting new people is fun. Yet once romantic relationships are forged, roommates move out. To move back to a communal arrangement at the point in one’s life when the habits have already formed is an odd sort of midlife crisis.

The reason extended clans work is that individuals don’t chose them. They are bound together by bloodlines for which there are no substitutes. Friendships are optional, and if they go astray or buddies grow apart, there is no shame in breaking them off, or at least stopping friendship maintenance. Glorified roommates are not displacing families because the former are not nearly as reliable.

Nuclear families are not fragile, but friendships are a poor substitute for tribes and families. A co-op may sound better than total isolation, but to spend one’s entire life in one is still a lonely proposition.

The erosion of trust Brooks notes is not going to be countered by arranging diverse families in crypto-socialist dwellings where they are forced to share amenities. That’s a miserable life, and it’s not in our cultural DNA. A better option is to free men and women to form stable nuclear families, have many children, and then organize communities around family needs. Yes, rebuild nuclear families.

Katya Rapoport Sedgwick is a writer from San Francisco Bay Area. She has published at The Daily Caller and Legal Insurrection. You can follow her @KatyaSedgwick on Twitter.
Photo Cottonbro/Pexels

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/18/no-its-not-time-to-give-up-on-the-nuclear-family-to-build-grownup-dorms/

 

She’s Interested and He’s Not Pursuing

What’s up with all the godly Christian men not making a move?

by Godinterest

Houston, we have a problem. It’s a problem that will require all of our effort, courage, confidence and creativity to solve.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world, claiming 2.2 billion of the world’s 6.9 billion people, as of last year and dating is a big deal for most young Christians. However, ask any young woman what the Christian dating scene is like these days.

“Christian men … ugh.”  Grim. Impossible. Slim pickings they’ll  say.

Young Christian men simply won’t commit, they’ll  say and if you’re lucky they’ll  call once — never to be heard from again.

And the churchgoing men who are available? Well, there’s a reason they’re single.

“Usually, he respects or admires the godly young woman (or, other people in his Church think he should admire her more), and yet he’s not physically attracted to her. She’s not his “type,” he says.”

So why are all the single Christian ladies having trouble finding single Christian guys for companionship and romance?  A plethora of Christian dating websites, books, blogs, advice columns, and magazine articles have surfaced in the last few years, attempting to give Christian young women some helpful tips for snagging a godly man and achieving that much-desired state of wedded bliss.

  • Date for at least a year.
  • Don’t kiss before you’re married.
  • Be careful how much time you spend together.
  • Date a bunch of people before getting serious.
  • Don’t unless you are ready to move in the direction of marriage.

It’s not terrible advice– waiting until marriage takes work. But here’s the thing: Relationships take work.  However, while most Chrisitan ladies have internal regulations in the form of our Spirit inspired convictions and knowledge of the Bible, it does not seem to be enough?

Could it be that we screened all the godly young men out of church as boys?  

Probably not entirely, as according to Mark Regenerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas, young single women in the church outnumber young single men by a three-to-two ratio.

That’s right ladies, you’re not imagining it: there’s a severe shortage of single men in the church. Not just here in the U.S., but also around the world.

“There are almost no men in my country who are following Christ. And French men will not marry a woman whose faith in Jesus is so strong. She is a leper in their eyes.” –  Christian woman from France

A young godly man knows he’s a catch — particularly if he’s dedicated to his faith, good looking and works out and there are hardly any other man is his Church. With each week that passes, he’s presented with a congregation full of single women. Most haven’t been on a date in a while. He has his pick of the bunch.

There’s even a joke about the gender imbalance. It goes like this:

“Men in the church are like parking spaces. All the good ones are either already taken, or they’re handicapped.”

Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the supply of young women grows with each passing year.

So whats the solution?

God Will Orchestrate the Love Story

Do you find yourself becoming resentful that God is withholding something from you?

  • Still waiting to find the man of your dreams
  • Your greatest desire is to have a baby
  • You want to experience the joy of being “equally yoked” with a godly husband

Desperation is dangerous because it focuses on self: What I want. What I must have. What I cannot live without. Firstly,  if and when the time comes for you to be married, God will orchestrate the love story. But in the meantime, your focus is to be on serving God and pouring your life out for God, not on getting serious about getting married. The timing is up to God, not you.

Singled Out in Church

Secondly, research shows that single men are more likely to attend churches that fit the following profile:

  • Large
  • Headed by a male pastor who’s bold and outspoken
  • Offers intentional male discipleship
  • Worship service is done in under 90 minutes

Apart from salvation, there is perhaps a way that the concept “God helps those who help themselves” is correct. We’re not suggesting you switch churches over this issue. It probably wouldn’t hurt to visit another church once in awhile — especially if your church offers nothing for singles.

Also remember that there are actually some Christ-men out there who are praying and hoping for a set-apart young woman — one who is not following after the trends of the culture, or who are not wallowing around in discontentment or on the constant prowl for a guy.

Any pastors who are reading, have you ever stopped to listen, really listen, to the women in your church about how they feel they are treated or perceived?

https://godinterest.com/2018/03/18/shes-interested-and-hes-not-pursuing/

4 Characteristics Of God’s People!

February 6, 2020 hepsibahgarden

Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: Exodus‬ ‭6:6

A background about the Israelites — According to God’s unchanging promise to Abraham that He would bless him and his generation and make him great, through Issac (Abraham’s son) and Jacob (Abraham’s grandson) God did fulfil His promise. Through Jacob’s 12 sons the tribe of the Israelites came into being and were a group of people chosen by God to be His own.

Then we see Jacob’s son Joseph going on to become the ruler of Egypt under the leadership of Pharoah and it was during his time that the children of Israel moved to Egypt because of a terrible famine. When Joseph died another Pharoah unknown to the Israelites came into power. He did not like the Israelites because firstly, they weren’t the authentic inhabitants of Egypt and secondly because the Israelites were much stronger than the Egyptians. So, the new Pharoah forced the Israelites into hard labour and that’s how they became slaves of the Egyptians.

Why did God bring them out of Egypt?

He brought the Israelites out of Egypt so that they would be His people and God would be their God. And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. Exodus‬ ‭6:7‬

How does God desire His people to be?

1. Peculiar Treasure – God chose the Israelites to be a peculiar treasure unto Him (Exodus 19:5) but sadly they rejected God because of unbelief and walked out of His ways. Instead of them, God chose us the Gentiles to be His peculiar treasure and He wants us to remain in this way. Romans 9:25.

2. Peculiar People – God desires His people to be peculiar people because He wants them to walk by faith and not by sight — their walk/lifestyle is out of the ordinary. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Deuteronomy‬ ‭14:2‬

3. Special People – They are special to the Lord because their food, clothing, conversations, walk of life etc. everything is special to Him. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy‬ ‭7:6‬. And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. Exodus‬ ‭23:25‬

4. Happy People – God desires us to be happy people because every belong to Him – to theGod Most High. Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places. Deuteronomy‬ ‭33:29‬

Be blessed 💕

 

Original here

Why Wear The Armour Of God? Part-1

February 10, 2020 hepsibahgarden

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord. Isaiah‬ ‭54:17‬

In our lives we will always have weapons formed against us by the Old serpent/the devil. Do you know why? One time before falling, the devil (an Angel then) had desired that place for himself, however, because pride entered his heart God cast him out from heaven and he lost everything. Therefore he always keeps making weapons against us to stop us from getting our inheritance. To fight the devil we should be armoured with the Armour of God at all times!

WHY SHOULD WE WEAR THE ARMOUR OF GOD?

1. To take revenge against all disobedience – 2 Coriander 10:6. In the Eden Garden, the devil used this weapon of disobedience against Adam and Eve and caused them to sin against God. Thus, by wearing the Amour of God daily, we can revenge any craftiness the evil one brings against us.

2. So that our Faith and Good Conscience is not ruined – The enemy uses the weapon of rejecting our good conscience so that our Faith breaks down. 1 Timothy 1:18,19. God desires that we uphold a pure conscience in our mind because that’s where the mystery of faith is preserved.

3. To endure hardships as a good soldier of JesusA fighter who is committed towards his work won’t bother about the track/ways taken to fight the opponent because he has a mindset of winning. The enemy will place mines on our way so that we don’t press forward. But by depending solely on God’s Grace we can win against him. 2 Timothy 2:1,3.

4. To do the will of God – In this aspect many of us fail because we end up doing our own will. By not doing the will of God, we cannot be worthy to receive the place God is preparing for us. Only by having a mind of suffering can one do the will of God, which will keep us away from sin.

 

Original here

Can Healings and Other Miracles Be Lost after They Are Received?

help-drowning-rescue_SI.jpg

Pat Robertson

It is possible to lose a healing. I remember I prayed for one girl who had terrible vision. She was virtually blind. After prayer, her sight improved dramatically. But as she looked around, she thought, I can see, but I am not supposed to see! Her healing went away. There was no way we could get it back. It just left.

When Peter saw the Lord walking on the water, he wanted to walk on the water as he saw Jesus doing. Jesus said, “Come on out.” So Peter got on the side of the boat, put his feet on the water, and started walking. But then Peter looked around and became frightened. He thought, I am not supposed to be walking on water! The minute he started to think that, he started to sink (see Matthew 14:28-30).

Today, some people receive a healing and then think, I am not supposed to have this, and they lose it. The devil has a way of coming to people and saying, “You are not really healed. You still have that disease, and you had better go back and take your medicine and put your braces on.”

I remember one instance involving an acquaintance who was healed of multiple sclerosis. The doctors said he had a remission, but he knew it was a healing in answer to prayer. For a year, he had no evidence of the disease. Then one weekend, the entire force of multiple sclerosis began to come upon him. All the symptoms started to come back, and for an entire weekend he wrestled against it, saying, “Satan, I will not accept this.” In the name of Jesus, he continually proclaimed that he was well. When that weekend of struggle was over, the symptoms left him. He has not been troubled since then. But if he had given in to those symptoms, he would have once again had multiple sclerosis, and he probably would have died from it.

Excerpt taken from Answers to 200 of Life’s Most Probing Questions, Copyright 1984 by Pat Robertson.

https://www1.cbn.com/questions/healing-miracles-lost-after-received

Your Last Convert

 

by Greg Laurie
 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
—Romans 10:14

John Harper was an evangelist from Scotland, headed to Chicago in the spring of 1912 on the RMS Titanic. He was scheduled to preach at Moody Church as a guest speaker. At the beginning of his journey, Harper talked to other passengers and engaged them in conversation, and people noted that he was a very helpful, kind person.

And when the Titanic hit an iceberg and began to take on water, the first thing Harper, a widower, did was put his little daughter into a lifeboat. Then he gave his life jacket away to another man because there weren’t enough.

Harper rushed up and down the decks, asking people, “Are you saved?” and telling them to believe in Jesus Christ. And when the ship sank beneath the water, Harper took hold of some wreckage and made his way to other survivors in the ocean, still shouting, “Are you saved?”

One young man who told him that he wasn’t saved recalled Harper’s response. The preacher quoted from Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (KJV).

Then he disappered into the Atlantic’s icy waves. The young man later said that he believed he was John Harper’s last convert.

Who will be your last convert? When is the last time that you engaged someone in a conversation about Christ? Preaching doesn’t mean you have to yell. Sometimes you have to speak louder to be heard, but you can say it quietly. You can say it in a conversational way.

But in one way, shape, or form, God wants us to reach people through verbal articulation. As 1 Corinthians 1:21 says, “It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (NKJV). God chooses to work primarily through the preaching of the gospel.

Original here