Monthly Archives December 2015

Let It Be, Lyrics By The Beatles


When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Yeah, there will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be

Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

And when the night is cloudy
There is still a light that shines on me
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
There will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

I truely experience this all the time when i seek Mother Mary’s comfort and guidance. Try it sometime, You will be amazed

The Founder

Go To Article Page


And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.  (Galatians 6:9)

Even though we are not of this world and should set our minds on our future home with Jesus, it is important to remember that we are to love our neighbors around the world.  This is taught throughout the Bible  

06-11-2014_OurJob_fullimageWe may be tempted at times to think that we, in ourselves, are in some way above or better than others because we are saved.  Such prideful thoughts weaken our trust in Him and hinder our compassion for those who need it most.  It is only by His grace and His mercy that we are saved.  

Being heavenly minded means focusing on God’s Kingdom which should lead to a desire to be humble servants of our Lord while making our pilgrimage on earth.  Being servants of our Lord means obeying His commands.  And obeying His commands requires that we sacrificially love and serve others – even those who hate us  (Luke 6:27-36).  This is so they can see God’s love in us and possibly come to know Him and share in His future inheritance with us.  

When we demonstrate God's sacrificial love, others may take advantage of us, misunderstand us, "step on" us, etc.  But did not Jesus accept these conditions and more?   Should we aim for less?  See Phil 2:5-11.

Again This is the same as the laws of karma. The difference is where we believe based on our own faiths where we will go when our life on earth comes to an end…

The Founder


WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS   (click on the underlined verses to read them)  –  Old Testament Only

First read the Bible’s precious description of what love is.  1 Cor 13:4-13

No matter what we do, if we do not have love, we are nothing.  1 Cor 13:1-3

Loving God and loving others are God’s greatest commands.  Matt 22:36-40Mark 12:28-31, (see note)

The law is fulfilled simply as: Love your neighbor as yourself.  Rom 13:8-10,   Gal 5:13-15

You must love your brother.  If you hate, you cannot love God.  1 John 4:20-21

Entrance into God’s Kingdom will be based on how we love others.  Matt 25:31-46

He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.  1 John 4:7-21

Jesus asks that we love as He loved – and He gave His life for His friends.  John 15:9-14, Eph 5:1-2

Love means laying down our lives for others.  We must love in deed.   1 John 3:10-23

Love strangers. Deut 10:19-21

Love even your enemies.  Luke 6:27-36Matt 5:38-48Prov 25:22

The Good Samaritan demonstrates love across cultural and racial boundaries.  Luke 10:25-37

Don’t even think evil against your neighbor.  Zec 8:16-17

When we love all people with the God’s love, God establishes our hearts blameless.  1 Thes 3:12-13

We should follow Jesus’ example of serving others.  John 13:12-17

The freedom God gives us should be used to serve others through love.   Gal 5:13-15

James calls loving your neighbor the “royal law” of Scripture.  Showing partiality to people is sin. James 2:8-10

Love one another with a pure heart.  1 Peter 1:22-25

Don’t hold grudges, love your neighbor as yourself. Lev 19:17-18

Give even your enemies the things they  need.  Rom 12:9-21

Our doing good (as bondservants of God) helps put foolish men to silence.  1 Pet 2:13-17

Love covers all sins.  Prov 10:12

All we do should be done with love.  1 Cor 16:13-14



Don’t hold grudges, love your neighbor as your self. Lev 19:17-18

Love strangers. Deut 10:19-21

Don’t even think evil against your neighbor.  Zec 8:16-17

Love covers all sins.  Prov 10:12



Remember, the greatest command of all commands is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul. (see Matt 22:36-40Mark 12:28-31).   That means loving God above any human being.  Jesus made this clear in  Matthew 10:37-39.

This article can be found HERE

Go To Article Page

Do we receive the same body we had on earth at the resurrection?

Often when referring to the resurrection, Christians will speak of receiving their “new” body. That way of speaking is not necessarily wrong if the meaning is that our current bodies will berenewed so that they are “as good as (or, better than) new.” But we should not think of the resurrection as the reception of a new body in the sense that we are given a different body disconnected from the body we had on earth.

Instead, the Bible teaches that the resurrection is a transformation of the same bodies we had on earth. As humans, we are not just spiritual, but physical. Our bodies are a very important part of our identity–they are part of who we are. Therefore, if we deny that we are raised with the same bodies we had on earth, we are denying a significant part of our identity. At the same time, if we deny that our resurrected bodies are transformed, we are left with the depressing idea that we will forever be subject to the weaknesses we now have, such as sickness, fatigue, etc. As Piper has said: “The old body will become a new body. But it will still be your body. There will be continuity. God is able to do what we cannot imagine. The resurrection is not described in terms of a totally new creation but in terms of a change of the old creation” (Future Grace, 372).

We will have the same bodies
There are many Scriptural reasons for believing that we will be raised with the same body that died. First, Christ was raised in the same body He had before He died. We know this because the tomb was empty (Luke 24:1-6) and because His resurrected body retained scars from the crucifixion (John 20:25, 27). Since Christ’s resurrection is the pattern that our resurrection will follow (Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:49), then we will also be raised with the same body.

Second, this is also evident from the very meaning of the term “resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:13, etc.). The phrase means: that which is dead (namely, our body) is made alive. If the same body that died is not the body that was raised, Paul could not call it the “resurrection of the dead.” It would not be a resurrection at all.

Third, the phrase “the dead will be raised” (1 Cor. 15:52) also communicates this. John Piper comments on this verse that, “If God meant to start all over with no continuity between the body I have now and the one I will have, why would Paul say ‘the dead will be raised’? Why would he not say, ‘the dead will not be raised (since they are decomposed and their molecules are scattered into plants and animals for a thousand miles) and so God will start from scratch’? He did not say that, because it is not true” (Future Grace, 372).

Fourth, Philippians 3:20-1 says that our earthly body is transformed into conformity with Christ’s body in the resurrection, not that God creates a new body from scratch: “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”

Fifth, Jesus speaks of the resurrection as involving the coming forth out of tombs, which strongly indicates that the resurrection is the reanimation of the body that had been lied to rest originally: “An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29).

Sixth, Paul’s statement “it is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body” (1 Corinthians 15:42) establishes that there is a continuity between our current body and our resurrected body, for it is the same “it” in both cases.

Seventh, verse 53 indicates that the same body we have now (which is mortal), will become immortal: “For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

We will have transformed bodies
In 1 Corinthians 15:35-37, it may appear as if Paul is teaching that we are raised with a different body than which we had on earth: “…what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow the body that shall be, but mere grain.” But upon examining the whole context, we see that Paul is not denying that it will be the same body. Instead, he is affirming that in the resurrection our bodies will be made better than the state they are now in.

In fact, this passage teaches a continuity between our bodies now and in the resurrected state by using the analogy from agriculture. Paul compares the resurrection of the body to the growth of a plant from a seed. The plant that results is definitely much better than the seed, just as our resurrection bodies will be better than those we have now. But there is also a real continuity between the seed and the plant, for they are the same organism. The same seed that was sown becomes the plant that grows. Likewise, the same body we have now becomes our resurrected body. But just as the plant is a result of the seed being transformed into something with better capacities and qualities, so also in the resurrection our bodies will receive better qualities and capacities. Thus, when Paul says that we do not yet have the body that shall be, he means that our current bodies are not yet in their glorified and improved state (see verses 42-44). They are not as they will be.

Paul also affirms that the resurrection involves the transformation of our current bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” John Piper comments: “He said two things: the dead will be raised (that teaches continuity); and the dead will be changed (they will be made imperishable and immortal)” (Future Grace, 372).

In what sense will our bodies be transformed? Paul tells us in verse 42-44. He says that our current bodies are weak, perishable, unglorified, and natural. But in the resurrection state they will be powerful, imperishable, glorious, and spiritual. Our bodies will be powerful–they will not be subject to stress or fatigue or weakness. Our bodies will be imperishable–they will not get sick, die, age, or become injured. Our bodies will be spiritual–they will be fully oriented to and filled with the Holy Spirit. And our bodies will be glorious. Wayne Grudem comments on the wonder of this truth:


Because the word ‘glory’ is so frequently used in Scripture of the bright shining radiance that surrounds the presence of God himself, this term suggests that there will also be a kind of brightness or radiance surrounding our bodies that will be an appropriate outward evidence of the position of exaltation and rule over all creation that God has given us. This is also suggested in Matthew 13:43, where Jesus says, ‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.’ Similarly, we read in Daniel’s vision, ‘And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever’ (Daniel 12:3). (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 833).

This article was reprinted in it’s entirety with permission. FROM HERE

The Founder

Further Resources

John Piper, Future Grace, chapter 30, “The Rebirth of Creation”

John Piper, “Our Hope: The Redemption of Our Bodies

John Piper, “What Happens When You Die? Part II: The Dead Will be Raised Imperishable

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 42, “Glorification”

John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, “Glorification”

© 2015 Desiring God Foundation. Distribution Guidelines
Go To Article Page

What is the difference between Reincarnation and Resurrection?

The difference between Reincarnation and Resurrection?

The Bible certainly mentions a notion of a resurrection, but this is different from reincarnation in several ways.
Reincarnation is a rebirth into a new form of existence that may be totally different from the first form of existence.  On the other hand, in a resurrection, the human stays as a human.

Both are beliefs of another life at the end of this life. What form we take is not as important as living this life as the best person we can be. So any tool that will help us accomplish a successful life today and our future . Is a tool we should take advantage of.

To say that believing in karma means the belief in reincarnation comes with it, is false.  Karma deals with you personally and you interactions with other beings. Karma is the growth of your inner self, your morals and your character as a human being.

In reality karma is a tool use it to improve the person you are.
There is a very nicely written reference on this subject at the below link.  I normally put the whole article here for ease in reading.  But they prefer I not do that. it is worth your time to go and have a read though.

John 11:25  English Standard Version (ESV)

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

The Founder

Read The Full Article Reincarnation and Resurrection?

Go To Article Page

Does Karma Really Begin At Birth?

IMG_9457-300x263In the article I have re-posted here below for easier reading. Studies were conducted with babies to see if we are born with a sense of morality. This article deepened my thoughts to the real depth of  the importance of karma in social interactions. One thought that occurred to me as I was reading, was notion when a child is seen taking a toy away from a another child, this may not always be selfishness. But that the child has another reason for this action. Also applying this information to how karmic cycles return to us for an action we have taken, for or against another being.  Left me with a insight that return actions for our starting actions are more of a natural feeling ingrained in all of us, Based on how we are treated. More so than a perceived karmic judgement in return action. What are your thoughts on this article?

Do babies know good from evil?

Reprintied from the New York Post, Published 10/26/2013 Original Article Found HERE.
Research says yes — evolution has given us a sense of morality and justice from birth. The downside: We inherently distrust people who don’t look like us.

Psychologist Kiley Hamlin expected the 8-month old to pick the “good” puppet.

Hundreds of studies had already confirmed that infants, 166 of the 188 tested by Hamlin, prefer the helper puppets in experimental “morality plays” (where, for example, the “good” puppet returns a ball to another puppet, while the “bad” puppet steals the ball).

What did surprise Hamlin, the director of University of British Columbia’s Centre for Infant Cognition, was what came next.

In the next scene, the “good” and “bad” puppets played with a new puppet, who either rewarded each puppet with a toy or punished by taking away a toy. Hamlin assumed that babies would prefer the puppet who awarded the good one; but she was shocked to find that babies also favored the puppet that punished the bad one.

She repeated the study with younger children — and even 4-month-olds approved of harming those who harmed others.

The experiment suggests we’re born with knowing more than right from wrong — we’re also born with a sense of justice. Or at least vengeance.

“Quite a lot of what is happening very early is pretty sophisticated and consistent with how adults view the world,” Hamlin says. “This was a surprise to say the least.”


This study — and similar research conducted at Yale, Harvard and others — fly in the face of notions of toddlers as blank slates who come into this world devoid of character or morality. Nor are they, as philosopher Jean-Jacques Rosseau described, “perfect idiots.”

Instead, research now shows that aspects of morality are inborn — and that babies are far more sophisticated in their judgment of the world than ever suspected.

Paul Bloom, author of “Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil” (Crown), out next month, summarizes the advances made in the field — in large part thanks to the Yale Infant Cognition Center that he runs with his wife, Karen Wynn.

“Babies are moral animals,” Bloom writes, “equipped by evolution with empathy and compassion, the capacity to judge the actions of others, and even some rudimentary understanding of justice and fairness.”

The field of infant cognition is a young one, with many of its significant advances occurring in the last decade, mostly because babies are notoriously difficult research subjects. Babies are “even harder to study than rats and pigeons, which can at least run mazes and peck at levers,” Bloom writes.

It was only in the 1980s that researchers developed a way to study infants by tracking the movement of their eyes as “windows to their souls,” or at least a window into their likes and dislikes. Babies often fixate on things that surprise or please them.

With this knowledge, psychologists found that babies adhere to what they call “naive physics,” or a knowledge, however limited, of the laws that govern the natural world (for example, what goes up must come down).

One study out of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign showed that babies are mystified by magic tricks. When blocks float midair or objects disappear and reappear somewhere else (actions that violate our natural laws) babies tend to stare longer, showing researchers that babies “think of objects largely as adults do,” Bloom writes.

Bloom’s wife, Wynn, conducted a follow-up study in the 1990s, testing rudimentary math abilities in infants. In it, two Mickey Mouse dolls are shown and then placed behind a screen. When the screen is lifted and more or less than two dolls are shown, babies tend to look longer. Babies seem to know that 1+1 does not equal 3.

“Naive physics” grew into “naive psychology,” or the ability for babies to “get into the minds” of others.

One study showed that a child of only 15 months can grasp the idea of a “false belief.” In one study, an adult is shown an object in a box. He is then blindfolded as the object is moved to a different box. The baby watches and knows the object has been moved but still will expect the adult to look for the object in the original box, showing an “appreciation of the minds of others,” Bloom writes.


In 2000, Bloom, Wynn and Hamlin, then a graduate student, returned to the lab to take these assumptions one step further with the help of puppets.

One of the first puppet morality play goes as follows: A child watches on as a red ball tries desperately to climb a hill. Meanwhile, a yellow square blocks its path or a green triangle gentle pushes the red ball over the impasse. Yellow square is bad; green triangle is good. (These colors and symbols are all interchangeable, lest you think infants just like green or triangles better than yellow and squares.)

They tested 10-month-olds, then 8-month-olds and eventually 3-month-olds (who could only show preference with eye movements). Babies almost always picked the good guys.

“These experiments suggest that babies have a general appreciation of good and bad behavior, one that spans a range of interactions, including those that the babies most likely have never seen before,” Bloom writes.

The results were published in the journal Nature, shaking up the developmental psych community.

“This was mind-boggling. Before [that study], we had no idea that babies were capable of making these judgments. It just amazed us that we could be uncovering things that could fundamentally change the way we understand the infant mind working so late in the game,” Hamlin says.

Other studies followed. Dr. Felix Warneken, professor of psychology at Harvard, released his “helping studies,” working mainly with toddlers.

Warneken establishes “real life” situations in the lab, where an adult is encumbered in some way. Perhaps they are struggling to pick up an object out of reach or they are trying to open a door when their arms are full. In almost all cases, toddlers will offer to help without any prompting or promise of reward. (When children are offered a reward, helping responses begin to taper off, perhaps because they begin to see it “as a job,” says Warneken. Intrinsic motivation, or something you do for an internal reason, seems to be at work here.)

These studies were replicated with chimpanzees and they, too, helped other people and chimpanzees without a prompt.

There is other evidence to support the idea of hard-wired altruism.

Even a few days after birth, the sound of crying is unpleasant to babies — and they actually tend to cry more at the sound of another baby crying than of video recordings of their own cries. (Babies are not alone in this; rhesus monkeys avoid pulling levers for food if doing so will give another monkey a painful electric shock. So will rats.)

Empathy, it seems, has an evolutionary benefit and is caused by “biological or natural factors that are not due to society and culture alone.”

Interestingly, when children are old enough for society to filter in, Warneken found that children are more picky about whom they help. In one sharing study, 2-year-olds shared with everyone, including those that rudely refused to share with them. By age 3 ¹/₂, children became more discerning, showing higher rates of declining to help if the person in need had been mean to them in the past.


So babies choose the good guys over the bad guys. They also tend to help adults in need. But are they capable of more active responses to what they perceive as a slight or a wrong? Do they have a “moral code”?

These were the questions that led Bloom and Hamlin to pursue more complicated morality plays.

First, they added one more element: After seeing the “good” and “bad” puppet help or hinder another one, babies could decide to give a reward, like a toy or treat, or take one away. Babies almost universally rewarded the positive character and reprimanded the negative one. They were, in effect, dispensing justice.

Similar results were found when justice was administered by a third party.

In a test with 8-month-olds, a puppet was added who either punished or praised the “good” and “bad” puppets. Babies showed preference for the characters who praised the good and punished the bad.

In a third simulation, good and bad puppets played a game of catch with another puppet who either returns the ball or runs away with it.

While the 5-month-olds preferred the good puppet no matter what, older babies, around 8 months, were “drawn to bad actors when those actors were punishing bad behavior.”

“So, at some point after 5 months, babies begin to prefer punishers — when the punishment is just,” writes Bloom. And babies 21 months doled out the punishment themselves by physically taking away a toy or treat.

But can a baby distinguish between a person who intentionally harms someone and someone who unintentionally harms another person — key components of morality?

Hamlin says yes, citing a study she published this year in the journal Cognition.

In her study, a puppet repeatedly shows its preference for a duck. When given a choice between a duck and a flower, the puppet always picks the duck. In the next scene, the puppet tries to get the duck but is thwarted in some way. Another puppet joins in and either helps the puppet get the duck or helps the puppet get the flower. (Landing the duck is a win, getting the flower is a loss.)

Babies will only hold a grudge against the second puppet if he or she was originally present to see the original puppet’s preference for the duck. But if the puppet was not originally there — thus had no intention — then they will not.

“As adults we not only care about who gets harmed and who gets helped, it’s also about, ‘Did you mean to harm? Did you mean to help?’ ” says Hamlin. “Now we are seeing that babies are capable of using that same criteria.”

Babies don’t just like nice puppets. They like puppets with nice intentions, even if the outcome is not positive.

“If you help but fail, [babies] will like you just as much as if you help and succeed. And if you try to help and the character gets harmed, they will like you more than if you try to hurt and the character gets helped,” says Hamlin.

The ends do not justify the means in the world of baby morality.

“Maybe this all shouldn’t surprise us,” says Hamlin. “We are so incredibly complex in our social lives it makes sense that babies are doing some of that, too.”


The wrinkle here is that though babies can identify good from bad, sometimes what’s “right” is skewed.

Babies make distinctions based on what is familiar and what is foreign almost immediately. (Newborn babies, for example, already show a preference for their mother’s face over that of a stranger’s).

This “simple preference for the familiar” extends to gender, language and race. Babies raised by a primarily white family tend to prefer white faces; infants raised by women will prefer female faces. But they don’t just prefer the familiar; sometimes they are actively hostile to the unfamiliar.They are naturally fearful of strangers and generally prefer their “own kind” in all manners, whether its someone who looks the same, speaks the same language, or just likes the same cookies.

Babies can be tyrannical about their preferences — if someone prefers graham crackers over chocolate chip cookies, or is a man rather than a woman, this is often grounds enough for punishment.

“This is not moral at all. Infants like those who are being nice, but they also like punishing those who are different from them,” Hamlin says. “I get the sense that babies go by the saying, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ ”

Picture From The Huffington Post

There seems to be a evolutionary benefit, one that traces back to when humans lived in tribes. Survival depended on knowing the difference between those who are one of us (safe) and those who are other (dangerous).

“Kin has always mattered; it makes perfect Darwinian sense to favor someone who looks like you” or acts like you, for that matter “because that individual is likely to share more of your genes,” writes Bloom. And those who share our genes must be less likely to kill us.

But we do not live in hunter-gatherer units anymore. Which makes our innate moral system severely limited on its own.

Yes, we’re born nice (at least to those who look or act like us), but extending this niceness to those who are different from us?


Another Very good article on this same thought can be found at CBS News.Com

Go To Article Page