Encouraging our children to persevere in the faith

In an article discussing why children abandon Christianity after leaving home, Liveway identifies the importance of teaching our children the truth of Christianity. Children don't need to (just) know a set of rules and a collection of common beliefs, but also doctrine; and not just the what of Christian doctrine but the why.

They also summarise a study looking at commonalities of those who remain in the fold versus those who leave.

Recent research out of Fuller Theological Seminary examined the long-term faith of teenagers, and the results were compiled in the book "Sticky Faith: Everyday Ideas to Build Lasting Faith in Your Kids" by Kara E. Powell and Chap Clark.

Three features of children who persevere are

1. Students with sticky faith are raised in a faith culture that emphasizes a relationship with Christ as opposed to an adherence to a set of rules.
2. Students with sticky faith are surrounded by an intergenerational faith community.
3. The most important factor by far in each of the lives of teens who developed sticky faith is a parent who is willing to walk with them through their faith journey. 

We need to focus them on Jesus, church them in community and (to an extent) resist a peer-only environment, and make sure we, as parents, are engaging our children in matters of faith.

While not included here, my pastor would add that children who serve in the church persevere more than those who just attend. We should get our children involved in various ministries. Examples would depend on the child but could include helping with younger age group ministry; sound; church setup; music; food ministries.

Atheist fail

I was discussing with my daughter how she would approach an ambiguous sentence in literature. Specifically if there is sentence that has 2 meanings and one meaning does not make sense (by virtue of intrinsic logic or context) and the other does make sense, which sense should we attribute to the author. She correctly suggested we should give the benefit of the doubt to the author and assume the meaning that makes sense.

I then noted the penchant of some atheists to favour interpretations of Scripture that are obviously errant or create the most difficulties. This diverted to a discussion with a younger child about what atheists believe. To which my daughter stated,

If God didn't exist then they wouldn't exist; so what a fail.

Daughter in exchange for grain

Unplanned pregnancy (possibly in a time of poverty) encouraging people to sell their children. In this case to a childless couple.

My grandfather held his youngest daughter in one arm and his eldest with the crook of the other. When he handed over the baby, swathed in threadbare hand-me-downs, in exchange for the grain, his other daughter asked, “When is it my turn to be sold?” My grandfather, more leathery and grayed than he should have been at fortysomething, looked down at her, and at the twin bushels of grain in his other arm, and laughed. And then he wept.

Christianity and homosexuality. Part 3

Natural law speaks to man's heterosexual design; Scripture declares sodomy verboten. This evidence is enough for obedience, though questions as to why this may be the case can be addressed. To do so we need to ask the right questions such as what is the intent of sexuality? What is marriage? Why do we have marriage? How does the Fall affect these things? What will be the situation in the resurrection?

The original question included the comment,

It’s not a matter of homosexuality means the population won’t grow or be able to look after us in our old age – as was the case in Biblical times.

And elsewhere in the email was the request not to list verses but to explain why this remains the situation millennia later.

I am not certain one can do this staying away from Bible verses per se. Perhaps one can refrain from quoting proof-texts, but defence requires explaining actual texts.

It is not just that we know what God has commanded—though obedience without full understanding is an aspect of faith—he has told us much about why the world is.

Therefore the creation mandates must be considered in any approach to sexuality, we learn much of God's intent for the world. God's creation of humans was the culmination of his all his works of creation; we are made in his image, we are given dominion over the rest of the world, we are told to procreate and fill the earth.

Adam does not find himself a companion amongst the animals, but on meeting his wife:

This at last is bone of my bones/
and flesh of my flesh; (Genesis 2:23)

He recognises his need for companionship. God wants relationship, and shows Adam his need. Adam's need for companionship cannot be meet in caring for animals, it needs to be in something—which turns out to be a someone—who shares the image of God. Yet also we see God's intent in creating a woman. God makes her human to share the imago Dei, but makes her female to compliment him as a person. Jesus confirms God's intent by quoting this passage

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The two were to be one.

This is primary, and without the added consideration of children. Marriage is for complimentary companionship: humans not animals, two not many, male and female. God has created us like this, and the intent of design is such that intimate relationship will occur in such a situation. Of course the Fall quickly affected this and continues to do so, which I will address at a later stage.

So what of children as a part of family? Filling the earth was an early command (Genesis 1:28) and was repeated (Genesis 9:1). Homosexual relationships are sterile and cannot obey this command. Neither can barren women who are married, nor persons who choose not to marry including those who do so for the sake of the kingdom. Not having children can be an acceptable situation and need not imply sin. Of course sin is defined in terms of intent. It is certainly not the intent of a barren woman to fail to bear children. Her situation is usually a source of grief. And the man or woman serving Christ and staying unmarried has chosen a calling where they should not be becoming (biological) parents. I am not certain that married couples voluntary refraining from having children is a reasonable option (in most situations). So the issue of a homosexual couple entering a sexual relationship needs to be compared to, at minimum, heterosexuals who marry with the permanent intent of not having children. And though the dominion mandate includes populating the earth, something that will happen despite not everyone contributing a child or two, it is not lots of people that is the predominant reason for parenthood. Malachi tells us the why of having children,

The LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:14-16)

It is godly children God wants, not lots of people. Failing to have a growing population is not the primary issue, it is not having faithful children.

Caring for parents in their old age is not the primary reason for family, though it is something that is important for children (1 Timothy 5:4). As parental care is not the reason for marriage, a perceived lack of necessity for children in senility is not an argument in favour of homosexual unions.

The difference in the contemporary social situation compared to the ancient Near-East is not an argument allowing homosexual unions. Needing children to care in infirmity was not the reason for marriage; and having children is command for the sake of godly people, a command that cannot intrinsically be obeyed by two people of the same gender.

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

Feelings are like horses

I found this blog post of some interest. Lizzie has 5 children, 4 of which are girls. She writes

But girls are different, and sometimes that difference can leave a person completely bewildered. When it comes to little girls and their emotions, “A”  does not necessarily cause “B.” But, when “B” is what needs to be disciplined, it can feel frustrating to have no clues as to what member of the alphabet actually caused it.

...Say it is someone else’s birthday. Say your child wants a present too. Say they start fussing about it. Imagine then that then you say, “Don’t do that. That is bad. Don’t be a fusser. Deal with it.” How did that help anyone? The child is taught that if the feeling comes over them, they have already failed. That is bad! But what am I supposed to do with it? It doesn’t just go away by itself. Little girls need help sorting out their emotions – not so that they can wallow in them, but so they can learn to control them.

Her post reminded me of similar sentiments from Dennis Prager on a source of unhappiness for women: the lack of teaching on how to control emotions. His take on the current situation

Societies and parents also always knew that it was imperative to teach girls to control their natures – in particular their predilection to be ruled by their emotions. Women who allowed their emotions to rule them not only became destructive (to members of their families first and foremost), they became unhappy women.

However, with the advent of contemporary feminism and other social trends that coincided with the rise of feminism – among them the elevation of compassion over standards, the great emphasis placed on feelings, the rejection of patriarchy and the devaluation of traditional masculine virtues (like subdued emotional expression) – female nature came to be seen as far less in need of discipline than male nature.

I am even more inclined to view Prager's thesis with merit. But the main problem in not that girls have these feelings, nor for that matter that boys are more likely to struggle with aggressive feelings; the problem comes when we deny that girls have to subdue their emotions to their wills, or if we admit this but fail to teach it. We need to acknowledge the emotion, though we can identify it as sin when it is, then encourage them to bring such feelings under the dominion of their will. They are to make sure they choose the right path regardless of what they feel like doing.

Lizzie's solution is to tell the girls that their emotions are like horses,

We tell our girls that their feelings are like horses—beautiful, spirited horses. But they are the riders. We tell them that God gave them this horse when they were born, and they will ride it their whole life. God also set us on a path on the top of a mountain together and told us to follow it. We can see for a long way—there are beautiful flowers, lakes, trees, and rainbows. (We are little girls after all!) This is how we “walk in the light as He is in the light, and have fellowship with one another.”

When our emotions act up, it is like the horse trying to jump the fence and run down into a yucky place full of spiders to get lost in the dark. A good rider knows what to do when the horse tries to bolt – you pull on the reigns! Turn the horse’s head! Get back on the path! We also tell them that God told us that if we see one of our little girls with her horse down in the mud puddle spitting at people who walk by, it is our job to haul them up, willing or unwilling, back to the path.

I think this is a useful analogy to use for girls. But whatever analogy we use, we need to realise that behaviour responding to emotion is detrimental to both the person and to others. Though allowing our will to be modelled by our emotions is the easier path in the short term, it makes life more difficult in the long term. And realise that submitting our emotions to our will can eventually modify our emotions. A broken-in horse is less likely to want to jump the fences. As Elizabeth Goudge wrote

Feeling can be compelled by action not quite as easily as action by feeling, but far more lastingly.

Teaching children about money

Randy Alcorn gives advice on how to teach your children about money. This is an interesting post in that much of what he talks about is not money management per se (though there is that), but how to get them to think rightly about money. His 10 points cover spending time with your children, teaching them about giving, saying "no" to themselves. I thought this gem was useful.

Take a field trip to a junkyard. How can we teach our children the emptiness of materialism in a memorable way? Take them to a garage sale and show them how things that people spent great amounts of money on are now sold for pennies.

Or, take them to visit a dump or junkyard. Show them all the piles of “treasures” that were formerly Christmas and birthday presents. Point out things costing hundreds of dollars, that children quarreled about, friendships were lost over, honesty was sacrificed for, and marriages broke up over. Show them the remnants of battered dolls, rusted robots, and crashed cars. Let them look at the expensive furniture and electronic gadgets that now lie useless. Point out to them that nearly everything your family owns will one day end up in a junkyard like this.

Then read, or ask them to read, 2 Peter 3:10-14, which says when Christ returns the whole world “will be destroyed by fire” and “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” Ask them the ultimate question: “when all that you owned lies abandoned, broken, burned and useless, what will you have done that will last for eternity?”

What will survive the coming holocaust of things? The answer is, only God, His Word and people. Explain to your children how life should be invested in the eternal. Read to them Matthew 6:19-25, where Jesus says, “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Tell them “you can’t take it with you,” but according to Jesus, you can send it on ahead!

Worth a read.

Children stealing from the future?

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald mentioned a suggestion by the Anglican Church in Australia for people to have less children. As the article is brief I will quote it in full.

The Anglican Church wants Australians to have fewer children and has urged the federal government to scrap the baby bonus and cut immigration levels.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church has issued a warning that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine - including the eighth commandment "thou shall not steal", Fairfax newspapers say.

In a significant intervention, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has also warned concerned Christians that remaining silent "is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation".

"Out of care for the whole Creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves, it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent," a discussion paper by the commission warns.

"Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment - 'Thou shall not steal'."

The discussion paper, prepared in March, claims that federal government financial incentives encouraging childbirth should be scrapped and replaced with improved support for parents, such as leave.

Leaving aside the question of the government creating incentives or disincentives to have children, this statement suggests a lack of biblical thinking on behalf of the General Synod. Of course this is not necessarily reflective of all Australian Anglicans. Representatives are more than capable of giving opinions that are not representative. It may be reasonable to ascribe the above statements to a few seated on the Synod.

The eighth commandment as mentioned is, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20). Theft relates to property, and that property owned by another. Theft does not apply to any future potential, real or imagined. Theft also reflects a disregard for another, an attempt to have what is owned by another because of one's own selfish desires. Having children is not stealing anything from anyone directly. And it generally is not selfish. It may be in one's self-interest, though it frequently requires selflessness.

Further, God commands that humans populate the earth, he commanded both Adam and Eve at the beginning of the world, and Noah when the human population was reduced to 8 because of the deluge. Of interest is that associated with the command to fill the earth is the command to subdue the earth.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1)

We are to manage the earth to maximise its potential. This suggests that it is not population that causes ecological degradation but incorrect or absent stewardship. People that manage the earth well can sustain very large populations. Garden's and farms are far more productive and can sustain higher populations of flora and fauna than jungles and forests. There are many examples of arid land becoming productive through the ingenuity and hard toil of those who work it. And there are examples of few people causing destruction through abuse. Degradation is not a population problem, though improvement can be limited by not enough people.

Further, children are frequently identified in Scripture as a blessing. Jesus himself had much time for children, rebuked those who saw them as a nuisance, and had strong warnings for those who would lead them into sin. Children are a good, not an evil.

Email request: God as the Master Builder

PC asks if I could link to a sermon.

Joelee Chamberlain made a Creation audio for children, "The Master Builder", which is on Sermon Audio. It gives the argument for the Creator from cause, design, and contingency for 4-5 year olds in 25 minutes. She also presents the Gospel pointing to the brokenness of the world and that God is the Master Re-Builder. She presents mostly arguments from design of man, the world and the solar system, but at a level that a 4-5 year old could understand but without bringing up any doubts.

I downloaded it and listened with my son. He enjoyed it especially some of the facts it introduced. Chamberlain does quite well, I would agree with most of the sermon. I disagree with the analogy of energy for machines and God's sustaining power she uses, but this is a minor dispute. It is definitely targeted at the age level mentioned.

I am not certain my readership is large enough to modify download frequency but I am happy to provide a link. You do not need to sign up to the newsletter to download. Here are her other children sermons.

Disregarding the rule of law

Since 1961 until recently the law in New Zealand stated that parents could use physical discipline for the purpose of correction but it was illegal to assault a child. The law was both intrinsically reasonable, clear in its intent, and effective in court. In 2007 the law was modified at the behest of a politician who has a philosophical opposition to the use of corporal punishment.

There was significant citizen opposition to changing the law at the time.

The new law is regarded a shambles. Persons on both sides of the debate have variably stated that it allows and forbids smacking children. Some have even claimed that it forbids using non-physical discipline on a child. And legal scholars have stated that the wording is a mess.

This is not clear legislation. In creating this law, Parliament abandoned its constitutional responsibility to say with clarity just which conduct is criminal.

Here is the wording of the law.

In response to the new law there was a referendum to which the vast majority (88%) of New Zealanders (who responded) voted that: A smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence.

The current government claimed to oppose the law when it was enacted 2 years ago. They were not in power at the time. Their response to the recent referendum is to say that the current law is working and there is no need to change it. They have also suggested that they will reinforce to the police not to prosecute minor infractions of the law.

I am not certain one can say the law is working when over 200 people have been investigated by the police for smacking since the law came into place (~2 years). And it hasn't prevented 15 children from being murdered. (The population of the country is 4 million.)

Telling the populace that the police will not prosecute them even though the law states their behaviour is criminal is a request from the state for us to trust them. But a request for trust can only be made by someone that has proven themselves trustworthy. The refusal to change the law despite saying that they didn't like the original law, despite the fact that the vast majority of New Zealanders want it changed, and despite the fact they are asking the police to disregard the law; proves they are not worthy of the trust they are asking for.

However the major problem here is not about parents being able to physically discipline their children for corrective purposes, as important as that is. What is incredibly pernicious is the idea that actions should be criminalised while the investigators of such actions are told to ignore these actions. Such thinking is stunningly foolish for any person, and malevolent for a politician. It utterly disregards the rule of law. It resembles the monarchy of a vacillating king; where men are praised or condemned at his whim.

The government needs to decide what behaviour they consider criminal and make the law clear. Unclear law where people are uncertain whether or not their behaviour breaks the law, and law that criminalises people but denies it will prosecute them (most of the time), are both unacceptable.

Some may claim that the police often use their discretion in prosecuting crime. This is true. There are several reasons why this may be the case.

• A crime is identified but there is insignificant evidence against the perpetrator.
• The criminal has committed several crimes and the police want to concentrate initially on the most severe.
• Delay is being used to identify further perpetrators.
  
• Police lack staff to adequately investigate all crimes so choose to focus on what they consider the most important.

The difference in the above examples are that decisions are being made based on what is possible, or practical. It is not the choice to deliberately ignore criminal behaviour.

This kind of approach to law could eventually lead to all citizens being guilty of criminal behaviour and the state arbitrarily prosecuting individuals it finds inconvenient.

Wisdom supporting liberty

Image source

New Zealand voters do not wish to criminalise smacking

Following from my recent post on whether or not parents who smack should be criminals. The preliminary results to the recent New Zealand citizen's initiated referendum are available. To the question:

• Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

1.6 million of an eligible 3.0 million people (54%) voted by postal ballot.

Vote Yes

• A smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence

got 12%.

Vote No

• A smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence

got 88%.

Results of referendums are not binding for New Zealand government.

Should parents who smack be considered criminals?

My voting papers arrived yesterday. The national postal referendum asks the question:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Much has been written about this so far. Those who have argued "no" I think have put up a good case. The vote NO site explains the issues well and has some nasty stories concerning families who have be negatively affected by the previous law change.

The Yes vote campaign have done less well as their presentations have been disingenuous rather than informative. To constantly use the term "hit" in preference to "smack" intentionally muddies the waters. To talk about parents punching their children, or hitting in anger is irrelevant as their opponents agree with them that this is inappropriate.

Referencing the statements of various organisations seems reasonable, until one realises that many members of any organisation disagree with official positions. In fact organisations should be very careful about supporting any cause outside their field, and even at times inside their field; but that is another post.

Of course one could argue that I find those who I agree with reasonable and those I disagree with unreasonable. There is probably some truth to that, but I am fully capable of dismissing poor arguments that favour ideas actually I agree with; doing so is important as poor arguments are detrimental to good causes.

But what I really wanted to focus on is what the question actually asks and an appropriate Christian response.

If one answers "yes" to the referendum question then they are saying

A smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence.

If you are tempted to answer yes, do you think that parents who use corporal punishment should be criminals? It is not so important whether you would choose to smack in answering this question, rather whether you think that such behaviour should be considered criminal. Are you willing to label a large number of parents criminals because they smack? And it does not matter whether you think they will or will not be prosecuted, it matters what they are considered.

There are things I do not choose to do, but I don't think they are criminal. There are things that I consider morally wrong but I do not want them criminalised. I think smoking is a minor moral failing, but not one that should be criminal. I think drunkenness is a moderate moral failing, but I don't think police should be allowed to arrest men passed out on their couch at home. I think laziness is a significant moral failing, but I don't want laws that fine people who don't pull their weight.

If you answer "no" to the referendum question then you are saying

A smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence.

And many who would choose never to smack their children can reasonably hold this position. Consider the position of those who do smack. Many of them do so because they think it effective. I think a good case can be made that parents should smack in many situations. Let's assume that smacking is the most appropriate punishment in many situations to maximise the chances that one's child grows up well behaved and well adjusted. Even if this were the case pro-smackers would not argue that parents who refuse to smack their children should be considered criminals. Pro-smackers may think them unwise, but to enforce such behaviour through legal methods is inappropriate.

How should Christians approach this referendum?

I think the Bible argues for corporal punishment. This is seen in several proverbs (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13–14; 29:15, 17). The use of physical discipline as punishment of adults in the Mosaic Law would support this. And the incomprehensible danger of things such as roads and water would argue that smacking is the most appropriate form of discipline for the very young. Reasoning doesn't work.

However I think another passage is also appropriate. James says

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3)

James warns us that teaching others means facing a stricter judgment by God. The reason is we stumble in our speech. It is one thing to have incorrect opinions, it is another to teach others wrong doctrine. If we kid ourselves this has negative consequences on our behaviour, but if we mislead others then the damage is much greater. This applies to everyone, including what I write here.

While voting is not teaching, I think the principle is similar. Voting in a democracy affects others. It may only have a small effect, but we are responsible for whether we vote, how we vote, and who we vote for. And God holds us responsible for the same. Thus we should pray about voting, and vote with a humble attitude.

We see from above that voting "yes" is saying that one thinks smacking should make a parent a criminal. If you oppose smacking, do you think it so bad that the state should have the right to intervene in the lives of families where it occurs? If I were to smack my child in a controlled manner as a method of teaching them not to step onto the road, do you think that government officials should be allowed effect changes in my family as they see fit?

The wisdom of youth

Amanda Witt shares a brief conversation she had when her boys were 3 and 4.

"I really don't like you pretending to shoot people," I told them.

"We're not pretending to shoot people," my older son said. "We're shooting pretend people. Dangerous ones."

Green religion

While this does not prove whether global warming is true or false, it is a sober warning about the diabolical nature of the environmental movement.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery. Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

..."Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

...And a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad. "What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."

She is not alone.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

..."I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."

...Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

The first person has an abortion so as not to badly impact the planet. She is then sterilised so that she will never get pregnant again.

The second couple get sterilised because pregnancy would pose a dilemma, keep the child and damage the planet or have an abortion.

It is not for me to forbid these women sterilisation. I would also add that them not raising children is possibly a good thing (though raising children can challenge beliefs).

What is certain is that the conclusions of these people are a gross error. The error is obvious in that their conclusions contradict Scripture.

And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and
subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1)

Logically this means that their reasoning is errant or their premises are false. I am not certain what global false religion will develop—it will likely be one that contradicts Christianity as much Satan can convince men of—but I have wondered for a time whether the environmental movement will be a component of it. There is a suggestion of this in Romans:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1)

The devotion these people have towards the environment is such that they are idolising the earth. Their worship or devotion is not toward God but the creation. It may appear a little more sophisticated than ancient nature religions, though it is just as wrong, and in reality possibly not a lot different for some of these people.

Stewardship of the earth is a command to man. But we are to use the resources to aid man while not causing detrimental pollution, we are not to worship nature for its own sake.

Babies lie

Recent research shows that babies lie from as young as 6 months.

Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old.

Well obviously they did not know of or have any children under 4 years old.

Dr Vasudevi Reddy, of the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, says she has identified seven categories of deception used between six months and three-years-old.

Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention.

By the age of two, toddlers could use far more devious techniques, such as bluffing when threatened with a punishment.

Dr Reddy said: "Fake crying is one of the earliest forms of deception to emerge, and infants use it to get attention even though nothing is wrong. You can tell, as they will then pause while they wait to hear if their mother is responding, before crying again.

This is what we do know from this investigation but this does not preclude deception from a younger age that we have yet to identify.

Kind of gives more credence to those who think Adam's sin had consequences.

Christianity: All men are intrinsically bad but treat them well anyway.

Both the axioms of Christian belief and the behaviour demanded of its adherents excel the secular humanists.