Dear Friends,

     Greetings. Because events happening in the world today can be quite disconcerting, we have decided to publish excerpts from a letter by David Berg called "Freedom from Fear" as our introduction. We hope you will find it a blessing.

                                             Freedom from Fear
by David Brandt Berg

First published April 1975

     Just as "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10), fear of Satan is really the beginning of death! Fearing God is a form of worshipping God. To be afraid of God and to fear Him is really to give Him the respect that He should have, as most of us showed respect to our own natural fathers. (See Hebrews 12:9.) Therefore, to fear Satan, to fear the Devil is giving him just the kind of worship that he wants. It's a form of worshipping the Devil!

     The Devil himself is in charge of death, as you can see by this Scripture: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He [Jesus] also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil." Jesus, however, is more than able to "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14,15).

     So you must rebuke that kind of fear just as Jesus did when the Devil tried to get Him to worship him on the mount of temptation. Jesus said, "Get thee behind Me, Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Luke 4:8).

     The implied meaning from the original is: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou fear!" You're only to fear God! "This," Solomon said, "is the whole duty of man; to fear God"--only God--"and keep His commandments!" (See Ecclesiastes 12:13.) When we are sinful or have done something wrong, we should be afraid of God.


p>      But you're not to be afraid of the Devil, ever! "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou fear." (See Matthew 4:10.) God's Word says about other kinds of fear that "fear hath torment" (1 John 4:18).

     We are therefore to "fear not them which can kill the body but after that have no more that they can do, but rather fear Him [God], Who can cast both body and soul into Hell!" (See Luke 12:4,5; Matthew 10:28.) We're not to fear Satan, who only has the power of death over the body, but we're to fear God, Who has the power of death over the soul.

     So fear of the Devil is not of God, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind!" (2 Timothy 1:7). And, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee" (Isaiah 26:3).

     Fear is the exact opposite of faith. Fear of the Devil, fear of death, fear of the Death Angel--this is the total opposite of faith! That's the kind of fear that will destroy you if you continually harbour it and are always afraid. It's damaging and disastrous to you, and will wear you down, wear you out, give you a nervous breakdown, drive you out of your mind and even kill you if you keep letting it torment you.

     And believe it or not, that kind of fear and that spirit of fear is extremely contagious, just like a disease! Others who live with you, people whom you come in contact with, are apt to be afflicted with that same horrible fear. It's just as possible to catch things in the spirit as it is in the physical, in fact even more so! It's even more dangerous and easier to catch if you're not inoculated with the Spirit of God, because then you have no resistance against these spiritual diseases. Now with physical diseases you can become immune to a certain disease because you've either had it, or you've had a little touch of it through inoculation and your body has built up resistance against it so that you can no longer catch it.

     Well, this same principle is also true in the spiritual: All of us are sinners, and in the past all of us have had a touch of the spiritual disease of fear, fear of Satan, fear of death, naked horrible fear of the Devil himself and the Death Angel. All of us have been afraid of the Devil at some time. But we must face our fears. There's no use beating around the bush any more, there's no use trying to deny that they're there.

     The only cure is to call on Jesus, call on the Spirit of God! Call on the Lord and ask Him to deliver you!--To be thoroughly inoculated by the Spirit of God so that you have built up a genuine spiritual resistance to this fear so that you can't catch it any more. "I sought the Lord and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears" (Psalm 34:4).

     It says in Hebrews 2:13, "I will put my trust in Him"--In Whom?--In God! So tell the Devil that. Say: "Be gone, Devil, get thee behind me Satan! I'm putting my trust in God, in Jesus!" Verse 14 goes on, the idea being that He, Jesus, "that through death He might destroy him who hath the power over death, that is, the Devil." Now who is this Death Angel? It tells us right here that it's the Devil. So, if you're afraid of the Death Angel, it means you're afraid of the Devil, and that's a terrible thing to be. We're not to be afraid of the Devil; we're to pin our faith in God and to fear God and not to fear Satan. And verse 15 gives the promise: "And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." So God is able to deliver us, who through fear of death were all our lifetime subject to bondage of fear!

     God's Word says, "Resist the Devil and he will flee from you!" (James 4:7). You have power over the Devil, you can order the Devil what to do. The demons and evil spirits are subject unto us; they have no free will of their own. They cannot do as they please. (See Luke 10:17,20.) They have to do what we tell them to do in Jesus' name, and to get the Hell out of here! Praise the Lord!

     If you know that you love God and that He loves you, you know that He's going to take care of you; you know that everything is all right because God loves you, so why should you be afraid? There's no reason to fear! His "perfect love casts out all such fear" (1 John 4:18).


10,000 apply for 90 factory jobs -

- By Jere Downs -

In the latest sign of weakness in Louisville-area employment, about 10,000 people applied over three days for 90 jobs building washing machines at General Electric for about $27,000 per year and hefty benefits.

The jobs dangle medical, eye care, prescription and dental benefit packages, as well as pension, disability, tuition assistance and more, said GE spokeswoman Kim Freeman. And despite the recession, no union workers have been laid off from Appliance Park since the company negotiated lower wages with workers in 2005.


The fire-sale flop: Gordon Brown's plan to sell £16bn of assets sends pound plummeting

By Tim Shipman

13th October 2009

The pound fell to its lowest level in six months last night on news of Gordon Brown's £16billion asset sale to ease the growing national debt.

Sterling plunged after the Prime Minister announced the plan to sell central and local government assets over the next two years.

Yesterday's announcement confirmed that the Tote bookmaker, Royal Mint, Met Office, Channel Tunnel rail link and student loans will all be hived off.

Mr Brown also said that he wanted to offload the Government's one-third share in Urenco, a nuclear company that enriches uranium, and the Dartford Tunnel river crossing in Kent.

Government sources suggested 'backroom' civil service functions, such as IT and HR, could be sold off to private firms.

It will fuel speculation that Whitehall functions could be transferred overseas.

Sources said the sale of national assets will raise £3billion, while another £2billion will come from sales of land and property owned by Government departments.

This leaves £11billion to come from local government sales, raising fears that town halls could be forced to sell libraries, leisure centresand school playing fields.

Critics expressed concern that some of the assets already raised money for the Treasury through taxes and tolls - meaning their sale would see revenue tumble.

The Queen Elizabeth II bridge at the Dartford crossing. The Government is to stage a £16billion asset sell-off as part of moves to stabilise the public finances

Up for grabs: The Channel Tunnel rail link and Tote betting shops will also be sold

David Cameron said: 'If you sell something it can help you in the short term, but it does not actually help you live within your means in the long term.'

The Tory leader added: 'This is the Prime Minister who sold our gold reserves and if he'd sold them later he could have got four times the quantity.'


The Times UK

I will not sign Lisbon Treaty, says Czech President

October 13, 2009

David Charter, Europe Correspondent, in Prague

The President of the Czech Republic has no intention of signing the Lisbon treaty, a move that might allow David Cameron time to hold a British referendum on Europe.

President Klaus, the fiercely Eurosceptic Czech leader, is the last obstacle for the agreement after its ratification in the other 26 EU states but he has told supporters that he will never sign, The Times has learnt.

Asked during a walkabout on Sunday not to put his name to the treaty, Mr Klaus replied: "Don't worry, I won't."

After a crisis Cabinet meeting yesterday, Jan Fischer, the Czech Prime Minister, avoided a direct confrontation with Mr Klaus, bowing to his demand to reopen negotiations with the EU on an eleventh-hour opt-out.

However, he called on the unpredictable President to guarantee his signature if EU leaders agreed to his conditions and if the Czech Constitutional Court raised no new objections.

Mr Klaus is demanding an opt-out for the Czech Republic that would prevent German families expelled after the Second World War from lodging property claims at the European Court of Justice.

He raised the stakes on Friday, putting a dampener on EU celebrations over the Irish referendum decision to back the treaty. The President argued that the charter could whip up an avalanche of property claims from German families expelled from Czech territory after the war.

Mr Fischer's refusal to face down his President now throws the problem back at EU leaders at their summit in Brussels on October 29-30, when they had hoped to celebrate the completion of the treaty.

They had also hoped to appoint the EU president and foreign minister, roles created by the treaty, but will now have to be content with a discussion about candidates, including Tony Blair.

The treaty has been passed by both Houses of the Czech parliament but the Prime Minister, acting in a caretaker role after the collapse of Mirek Topolanek's Government in May, ruled out any attempt to bypass the President.

"I would not like to talk about constitutional crisis," Mr Fischer told The Times. "The Government is in a position to negotiate the extra conditions revealed by our head of state. We are ready to go to the European Council to put it on the table."

Hinting at a breakdown in relations between himself and President Klaus, he added: "The Government would like to have clear and sound guarantees from the side of the head of state that this is actually the last step from his side and no other additional conditions will be added."

Mr Fischer, who will be in Brussels for talks today, said he hoped that the treaty could still be concluded by the end of the year. The lack of agreement from Mr Klaus will infuriate other EU members, particularly France and Germany, which are pushing hard to wrap up the Lisbon treaty saga.

Telegraph UK

Daniel Hannan

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free.

The EU turns its hideous strength against Václav Klaus

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: October 12th, 2009

Can this really be true? The French and German governments attempting to oust the head of state of a neighbouring democracy? Czech politicians being told to bring impeachment proceedings against their President - not on grounds of corruption or abuse of office, but because he is sticking to a position that he had very publicly adopted prior to becoming President?

Klaus himself has written of the intolerant, authoritarian nature of the doctrine he calls "Europeism". Now he is all that stands in its way, and is sustaining its full force. I have written many times of what I call the EU's "hideous strength": the way in which, as well as being undemocratic in itself, it requires its member nations to sacrifice a measure of their internal democracy; the way in which it makes otherwise good people do bad things. I hope that Klaus's stand will convince people - not just in Czech Republic or Britain, but across the EU - of the nature of what we are dealing with.


(Edited from longer article)

The Observer UK

Ukraine fears for its future as Moscow muscles in on Crimea

As Ukraine prepares for its first presidential election since the Orange Revolution, there are signs that its giant neighbour to the east will not tolerate a pro-western outcome. Luke Harding reports from Yalta

Luke Harding

11 October 2009

A man holding a Russian flag speaks with a girl during a naval parade at the Crimean Peninsula port of Sevastopol, Ukraine, May 11, 2008. Photograph: Sergei Chuzavkov/Associated Press

From the terrace there are views of the Crimean peninsula, with fir trees, dark green cypresses and a shimmering bay. Inside - through a pleasant Italian courtyard - is the room where Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt sat together around a wooden table and divided up postwar Europe.

But almost 65 years after the "big three" met in the Crimean seaside resort of Yalta - now in Ukraine - the question of zones of influence has come back to haunt Europe. Russia has made it clear that it sees Ukraine as crucial to its bold claim that it is entitled to a zone of influence in its post-Soviet backyard.

Last month, a group of east European leaders and intellectuals gathered in the Livadia Palace, where Britain, the US and the Soviet Union held the Yalta conference in February 1945. The idea was to discuss Ukraine's strategic future. But the discussion was overshadowed by one question: will there be a war between Russia and Ukraine?

The scenario is not as daft as it seems. In August, Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, gave his Ukrainian counterpart, Viktor Yushchenko, an unprecedented diplomatic mugging. In a seething letter, and subsequent video message, Medvedev reprimanded Yushchenko for his "anti-Russian" stance. He told him that, as far as Russia was concerned, the pro-western Yushchenko was now a non-person.

After reeling off a list of grievances, Medvedev said he would not be sending an ambassador to Kiev. He also said he was reviewing Russia and Ukraine's 1997 friendship treaty - a hint that Moscow may no longer respect Ukraine's sovereign borders. The message was blunt: whoever wins Ukraine's presidential election in January has to accept Russia's veto over the country's strategic direction.

"The letter was most unfortunate," Volodymir Gorbulin, Ukraine's former national security adviser, said. Gorbulin, now the director of the National Security Problems Institute in Kiev, wrote an article last week suggesting that, 18 years after Ukraine got its independence, Russia may be ready to dismember it. "We have to find a way of mutual coexistence," he warned.

The flashpoint, Gorbulin says, is Crimea, the lush peninsula beloved by 19th-century Russian writers and Soviet tourists. It is Ukraine's only Russian-majority province. It is also the home of Russia's Black Sea fleet - anchored just around the coast from Yalta in the historic port of Sevastopol. Under the terms of a lease agreement with Ukraine, Russia is supposed to vacate the base in 2017. But it doesn't want to.

In recent weeks, pro-Kremlin newspapers have been speculating that Crimea might soon be "reunited" with mother Russia, solving the fleet issue. The best-selling Komsomolskaya Pravda even printed a map showing Europe in 2015. The Russian Federation had swallowed Crimea, together with eastern and central Ukraine. Ukraine still existed, but it was a small chunk of territory around the western town of Lviv.

Ukrainian diplomats are worried. One said: "We are seeing [from Moscow] a resurrection of re-integrationist rhetoric and ideology." He added: "It isn't just about replacing Yushchenko, but about changing the trajectory of Ukraine's [western-leaning] development. Russia thinks we are a half-sovereign country."

Medvedev's video was an ultimatum, the diplomat added: accept Russian domination, voluntarily renounce plans to join Nato and renew the lease on Russia's naval base. Under these conditions Ukraine's new president - lame-duck incumbent Yushchenko has no chance, according to opinion polls - would be little more than a Russian puppet, the diplomat suggested.

Last month, Ukraine's nervous intellectual class complained in a letter that the west had abandoned it. Other eastern European countries also share a strong sense of betrayal following Barack Obama's decision last month to cancel America's planned missile defence shield in Poland - a key Ukrainian ally - and the Czech Republic. The shield was seen by many east Europeans as a guarantee against future Russian aggression.

"A lot of people in this part of the world are seriously shitting themselves," one analyst in Yalta admitted bluntly. "We don't know what Obama's deal [with Moscow] was. They think that Russia will take it as a green light," he added. Washington insists it dropped the shield following a new assessment of Iran's nuclear threat. But many in Ukraine believe the White House sacrificed its commitments to eastern Europe in order to "reset" relations with Moscow. The reasoning is clear: Washington needs Russia's help on Iran and other issues. The Bush administration strongly rejected Russian attempts to pressure Ukraine. Obama, in contrast, is preoccupied with Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. Few are under any illusions that he is prepared to wade in to help Ukraine should Russia choose to attack.

The Europeans, of course, disapprove of Moscow's imperial muscle-flexing. But so far Brussels hasn't offered its own clear alternative. It has indicated that Ukraine has no hope of joining the EU in the foreseeable future.

In May, the EU invited Ukraine and five other post-Soviet states to join a new "eastern partnership" - a scheme scathingly described by one EU thinktank as "enlargement-lite". But the EU, unlike Russia, has refused to liberalise its visa regime for Ukrainians. Moscow, meanwhile, says the partnership is a cack-handed attempt by the EU to build its own rival influence sphere.

"I'm disturbed that the EU didn't rebuff Medvedev's letter," Dr Olexiy Haran, the founding director of Kiev University's school for policy analysis, said. He continued: "I'm afraid that the absence of a reaction combined with some elements of Obama's 'reset' policy can be read as a message - that the west is giving a free hand to Russia in dealing with post-Soviet space."

Others go further. According to Gorbulin, Europe's apparent abandonment of Ukraine is as pernicious as America's. He points out that Nato countries have "stopped the struggle" for Ukraine in order to preserve good relations with Russia. France and Germany, especially, have rebuffed Yushchenko's attempts to join Nato. Gorbulin dubs the Europeans' informal deal with Moscow "Munich Agreement 2", comparing it to the notorious September 1938 Anglo-French deal that allowed Hitler to seize the Sudetenland, the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia.


Telegraph UK

Israel threatens to quit peace talks over UN war crimes vote

Israel has threatened to pull out of Middle East peace talks if Britain and other European nations fail to back the country in a key vote at the United Nations.

Published: 7:00AM BST 16 Oct 2009

Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly urged Gordon Brown to oppose the resolution, saying that it could derail the peace process Photo: EPA

A furious Israel said it would not continue with the peace plan if the UN Human Rights Council endorses a controversial report condemning the Jewish state for war crimes during the Gaza offensive in January.

Britain is planning to abstain in the vote, the Times reports, prompting a heated telephone call between Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown on Wednesday night.

Mr Netanyahu reportedly urged the Prime Minister to oppose the resolution, saying that it could derail the peace process.

During what officials described as a "robust exchange", Mr Brown said Israel could avoid censure if it held its own inquiry into the Gaza offensive Today's vote in Geneva could prove a major headache for President Obama, who has made Middle East peace a pillar of his foreign policy.

The resolution that chastises Israel for failing to cooperate with a UN-ordered fact-finding mission into the December-January war in Gaza.

In the report circulated last month, the investigators led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas of war crimes in Gaza, but were overall more critical of Israel than Hamas.

Israel has rejected the charges in the report and says the Human Rights Council resolution - drafted by the Palestinians with Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Tunisia, on behalf of non-aligned, African, Islamic and Arab nations - threatens peace efforts.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not be able to take "risks for peace" if it could not defend itself from attacks on its citizens.

"It's important for the principle countries, outside of this automatic majority of the United Nations, to say we are not taking part in this.

We know we should act otherwise," he said.

US officials said last night that as the resolution stood, they would vote against it. With no state in the 47- member council holding veto power and the majority lined up behind the Palestinians, the resolution looked set to sail through.


Science & Technology

Microchip Implant to Link Your Health Records, Credit History, Social Security

Jim Edwards - BNet - October 11, 2009

Novartis and Proteus Biomedical are not the only companies hoping to implant microchips into patients so that their pill-popping habits can be monitored. VeriChip of Delray Beach, Fl., has an even bolder idea: an implanted chip that links to an online database containing all your medical records, credit history and your social security ID.

As this presentation to investors makes clear, the chip and its database could form the basis of a new national identity database lined to Social Security and The VeriMed Health Link homepage describes the chip:

... a tiny, passive microchip (the nation's first and only microchip cleared for patient identification by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration) and a secure, private online database that links you to your personal health record. Your Health Link is always with you and cannot be lost or stolen.

That database can be accessed by doctors and nurses:

About the size of a grain of rice, the microchip is inserted just under the skin and contains only a unique, 16-digit identifier. The microchip itself does not contain any other data other than this unique electronic ID, nor does it contain any Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capabilities.

And unlike conventional forms of identification, the Health Link cannot be lost, stolen, misplaced, or counterfeited. It is safe, secure, reversible, and always with you.

But VeriChip's ambitions don't end there, as this diagram indicates:

Yes, it shows your Health Link chip linked to Google, Microsoft, employers and insurers. The company also sees the VeriMed Health Link linked to your "identity security services," through a separate VeriChip product, PositiveID. This slide show states:

PositiveID puts people in control of their personal health records and financial information, bridging the gap between secure medical records and identity security

PositiveID dovetails with Health Link:

Cross marketing opportunities: cross-sell the customer base the Health Link personal health record and vice-versa

Differentiates PositiveID as the only personal health record that offers identity theft protection

It's a future in which your doctor tags you like a dog with a microchip that allows anyone with the right privileges to look at your medical records, credit history, social security number (see slide 6), and anything else that stems from that.

Suddenly, storing medical records on paper in locked cabinets inside a single doctor's office starts to look like something we may not want to rush to give up.



Judge Halts Flu Vaccine Mandate For Health Workers

New York Health Care Employees Won't Be Forced To Get H1N1 Vaccine...For Now

October 16, 2009

A state Supreme Court judge issued a restraining order Friday against the state from enforcing the controversial mandatory vaccination.

The order came as the Public Employees Federation sued to reverse a policy requiring vaccination against the seasonal and swine flu viruses, arguing that state Health Commissioner Richard Daines overstepped his authority.

Three parties - the Public Employees Federaion, New York State United Teachers, and an attorney representing four Albany nurses - challenged the order and for now the vaccination for nurses, doctors, aides, and non-medical staff members who might be in a patient's room will remain voluntary.

The health department had said the workers must be vaccinated by November 30 or face possible disciplinary action, including dismissal. PEF said it encourages members to get flu vaccinations, but opposes the emergency regulation requiring the vaccine as a condition of employment.

A judge granted a temporary restraining order Friday morning, PEF spokeswoman Debbie Miles said. A court hearing is scheduled for October 30.


Challenging Questions as Glorious Opportunities

By Steven C. Wright, October 12, 2009

Sometimes, the answer one receives to a question can be a turning point. On a mundane level, the answer you get from the gas station attendant whom you ask for directions to the symphony hall may help you arrive at the concert on time. Some questions are much more serious and their answers much more significant. A recent interview with best-selling novelist, Dan Brown, provides an example of such a question. In describing his religious views, Brown related the following story:

I was a very religious kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, "I don't get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?" Unfortunately, the response I got was, "Nice boys don't ask that question." A light went off, and I said, "The Bible doesn't make sense. Science makes much more sense to me." And I just gravitated away from religion.

The question about the origin of the cosmos is a perennial one, and a multitude of answers has been supplied throughout human history.

As a young student, Dan Brown sensed a tension between what he was reading in science books and what was taught in the Bible. He went to a minister seeking some resolution. It was an opportunity for a religious leader to affirm the sufficiency of Scripture and to demonstrate that the Christian worldview has answers to such questions. It was a moment to take one small step in passing on the faith to the next generation.

This glorious opportunity was squandered with a dismissive response that sent the message that Christianity was a matter of blind, unscientific faith. Is it any wonder that Dan Brown took this non-answer as a cue to turn away from religion and to look to naturalistic science to provide answers to ultimate questions? Little did that minister know that the young man whose question he casually brushed off would grow up to write The Da Vinci Code, a best-selling novel that would promote heretical views of Christianity to millions of readers. That encounter was a turning point for Dan Brown.

But there is nothing unique about Dan Brown's experience. Most people have serious questions about big issues. For some, these questions become objections to the Christian faith. Your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow students have question like these:

How can the Bible's account of creation be reconciled with the scientific fact of evolution?

If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?

Aren't all the world's religions basically the same--equally legitimate paths to God?

The Bible is full of contradictions. Why should I trust it?

If you have not heard such questions from your non-Christian acquaintances, that may just be because they don't feel free to ask them. Perhaps they don't want to appear weak by admitting they haven't figured it all out, or perhaps they think (rightfully or wrongfully) that you would look down on them judgmentally for bringing such things up.

The good news is that Christianity has good and sufficient answers to all of these questions. The bad news is that many Christians have no idea what those answers are. Even worse, many would not even be willing to seek out answers. They would give some variation on the response of Dan Brown's minister--"Nice boys don't ask that question."

Francis Schaeffer, the great Christian apologist of a previous generation, stressed that we must be open to questions in our interaction with a non-believer: At all points in the conversation, we must allow him to ask any question he wants. We cannot say, on the one hand, that we believe in the unity of truth and then, on the other hand, suddenly withdraw from the discussion and tell him to believe on blind authority. He has a right to ask questions.

We would do well to adopt one of Schaeffer's guiding principles: honest questions deserve honest answers. But that places responsibility upon us to be prepared to provide answers.

The Apostle Peter declared that you are always to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Preparation for this task will involve two things: (1) knowing the questions; (2) knowing the answers.

In order to make a defense, you must know what points of the faith are at issue. If unbelievers around you are not raising such questions, you can take the initiative in drawing them out. As we said above, many people don't feel free to ask these things out of the blue. But most would be more than willing to answer if you inquired, "Who do you think we really are as human beings, and why are we here?" Or, "What is your view of religion?" There are many ways to start discussions that will help you learn about the big questions on their minds.

Depending on the issue, you may be able to draw on your knowledge of the Christian worldview and provide an answer on the spot. Quite often, you'll be able to affirm that it is a good question, give a brief initial response, and promise to look into it more and get back to them. The key at this point is identifying the questions and treating those who ask them with love and respect. The second step will require you to do some study in order to find Biblical answers.

Questions can be glorious opportunities. The Lord may cause your conversation to be a positive turning point that will change someone's life forever.


You can have "freedom from fear" in Jesus! Ask Him to free you now from any and all fears of the Devil, in Jesus' name!--Amen!

Dear Jesus, I accept You as my Lord and Saviour. Please come into my heart, forgive me for all of my sins, and give me Your free gift of Eternal Life. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit so that I will have the power to share Your Love with others, and to take a spiritual stand against any fears in my life. Please free me from any fears of the Devil. Amen.

Almondtree Productions