Therefore what The Lord has joined together, let man not separate. – Matthew 19:6.

First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it is important to remember Malachi 2:16: “I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel.” According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that, since marriages involve two sinful human beings, divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcées, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people's hearts, not because such laws were God's desire (Matthew 19:8).

The Exception to the Rule.

The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus' words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase “except for marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God's permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this “exception clause” as referring to “marital unfaithfulness” during the “betrothal” period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or “betrothed.” According to this view, immorality during this “betrothal” period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce.

(Image via Flickr)

However, the Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” is a word which can mean any form of sexual immorality. It can mean fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations are an integral part of the marital bond: “the two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, any breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce. If so, Jesus also has remarriage in mind in this passage. The phrase “and marries another” (Matthew 19:9) indicates that divorce and remarriage are allowed in an instance of the exception clause, whatever it is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although not stated in the text, it would seem the allowance for remarriage after divorce is God's mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the “guilty party” is allowed to remarry, but they are not evident in this text.

The Controversial Second Exception.

Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave. Others claim that abuse (spousal or child) is a valid reason for divorce even though it is not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God: Allowed, Not Required.

(Image via Flickr)

Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that, whatever “marital unfaithfulness” means, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Even when adultery is committed, a couple can, through God's grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32). However, in many instances a spouse is unrepentant and continues in sexual immorality. That is where Matthew 19:9 can possibly be applied. Many also look to quickly remarry after a divorce when God might desire them to remain single. God sometimes calls people to be single so that their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option.

Divorce is Not the Design, But Forgiveness Is.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer's life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 19:9… (By Jessica Griggs).

http://faithhub.net/what-does-the-bible-say-about-divorce-question/?utm_source=faith-paq&utm_medium=social-fb&utm_campaign=what-does-the-bible-say-about-divorce-question-07132016 

French kiss?

“Youngsters who eat bacon or ham twice a week increase their chances of getting leukaemia by 74%”, reported The Sun. It said that a study in children and teenagers in Taiwan found that those who ate processed meat more than once a week were more likely to have the condition. The newspaper said that other processed meat, such as hot dogs and sausages, also increased the risk, which could be caused by preservatives in the meat.

This case-control study found an association between leukaemia in two to 20-year-olds and eating cured or smoked meat and fish. However, this sort of study cannot prove that one thing causes another, and it has several limitations. This study should be regarded as preliminary evidence of an association. Larger further studies are needed to explore whether there is a causative link. There is an established link between eating cured meat and colorectal and stomach cancer. Other studies have found that a high consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables is associated with a decreased risk of several cancers.

Where did the story come from?

The research was carried out by Dr Chen-Yu Liu and colleagues from the Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Kaohsiung Medical University in Taiwan and Yuh-Ing Junior College of Health Care and Management. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal BMC Cancer.

What kind of scientific study was this?

This population-based case-control study compared 145 individuals with acute leukaemia to people matched for age and sex without leukaemia (controls).

Leukaemia is the most common childhood cancer. This study investigated how nutrition might contribute to its cause in a Han Chinese population in southern Taiwan. Studies have established a link between eating cured meat and colorectal and stomach cancer. Other studies have suggested that a high consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables is associated with a decreased risk of breast, colon, lung, pancreas, bladder, larynx, stomach, oesophageal and oral cancers.

The researchers found new leukaemia cases among residents of the Kaohsiung area, aged between two and 20 years and diagnosed between 1997 and 2005. The cases were identified by searching hospital records and records from the national health insurance system. By using both these sources, researchers believe they have identified all of the cases occurring in the area. Controls (people without leukaemia) were selected through a population registry of the study area. Up to three controls per case were matched for age and gender.

A face-to-face interview was conducted (with the patient or their parent, depending on age). The interview captured information on demographics, medical history, occupational history, smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and exposure to various environmental hazards. The dietary questions were detailed, and they asked about frequency of consumption of various food groups, including fruit and vegetables, bean-curd foods, cured or smoked meat and fish, pickled vegetables and alcohol.

Using statistical methods, the researchers then compared responses between cases and controls to see whether consumption of any particular food group was more common in people with leukaemia. They also combined some food groups to assess the risk of these. They combined the two types of leukaemia for their analyses (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia), and performed separate analyses for two to five-year-olds and then for two to 20-year-olds.

What were the results of the study?

The researchers found some significant results in their analyses. For children aged two to five years, frequent consumption of bean curd food slightly reduced risk of leukaemia compared to rare or occasional consumption (though this was of borderline significance). Frequent vegetable intake reduced odds of leukaemia by 56%.

For two to 20-year-olds, frequent intake of cured or smoked meat and fish increased the risk of leukaemia by 1.74 times, while frequent consumption of bean curd food and vegetables reduced the odds.

What interpretations did the researchers draw from these results?

The researchers conclude that cured and smoked meat or fish in the diet “may be associated with leukaemia risk”. They also say that soy bean curd and vegetables may have a protective effect against leukaemia.

What does the NHS Knowledge Service make of this study?

This case-control study provides some evidence of a link between leukaemia and eating cured or smoked meat and fish.

This type of study, a case-control study, cannot prove causation. The problem with case-control studies is that unmeasured factors that are linked to both diet and leukaemia risk (i.e. confounding factors) can influence the result. The researchers report that they initially adjusted their analyses for age, sex, maternal age, birth weight, breastfeeding, parental education levels, parental and subjects’ smoking history, maternal vitamins and use of iron supplements. These factors were found to have no effect on the outcome. However, there are other factors which can have an effect that could not be measured, such as family history, genetics, medical history and specific environmental exposures.

Case-control studies are particularly susceptible to recall bias, i.e. parents/patients may not accurately remember their exposure (the food they ate) and other variables. The questionnaire asked about things that happened up to two years before individuals were born which, for some participants, would be 22 years ago. Food questions also asked about usual intake for the previous six months.

It is also important to explain further the 74% increased risk as reported in the newspapers. This is actually an increase in odds of leukaemia of 1.74 times (i.e. people who ate cured or smoked meat and fish were 1.74 times more likely to be from the group of leukaemia cases rather than controls). In absolute terms, 25% of people (aged two to 20 years) who rarely ate cured or smoked meat and fish had leukaemia, while 37% of people who ate it frequently had the condition. This is an increase of 12 cases in 100 people.

The increased risk from eating cured and smoked foods was only significant in people aged two to 20 years. When the researchers limited their calculations to two to five-year-olds, no link with leukaemia was found.

Although the researchers looked at bacon among all the other cured meats eaten in Taiwan (Chinese-style sausage, salted fish, preserved meat, ham, hot dog and dried salted duck), it is not clear how many people ate bacon or if the type of bacon eaten is similarly prepared to the bacon sold in the UK.

Overall, while this study provides preliminary evidence of a link between eating cured or smoked meat and fish and leukaemia, the link needs to be confirmed in larger studies.

Summary.

“Youngsters who eat bacon or ham twice a week increase their chances of getting leukaemia by 74%”, reported The Sun. It said that a study in children and teenagers in Taiwan found that those who ate processed meat…

http://patienttalk.org/is-there-a-connection-between-bacon-and-leukaemia/

Oh yeahhhhhhh!!!!

Would You Hide a Jew From the Nazis?

(In 1940, refugees fled Paris in anticipation of the German invasion. Credit FPG/Hulton Archive, via Getty Images).

WHEN representatives from the United States and other countries gathered in Evian, France, in 1938 to discuss the Jewish refugee crisis caused by the Nazis, they exuded sympathy for Jews — and excuses about why they couldn’t admit them. Unto the breach stepped a 33-year-old woman from Massachusetts named Martha Sharp.

With steely nerve, she led one anti-Nazi journalist through police checkpoints in Nazi-occupied Prague to safety by pretending that he was her husband.

Another time, she smuggled prominent Jewish opponents of Nazism, including a leading surgeon and two journalists, by train through Germany, by pretending that they were her household workers.

“If the Gestapo should charge us with assisting the refugees to escape, prison would be a light sentence,” she later wrote in an unpublished memoir. “Torture and death were the usual punishments.”

Sharp was in Europe because the Unitarian Church had asked her and her husband, Waitstill Sharp, a Unitarian minister, if they would assist Jewish refugees. Seventeen others had refused the mission, but the Sharps agreed — and left their two small children behind in Wellesley, Mass.

Their story is told in a timely and powerful new Ken Burns documentary, “Defying the Nazis: The Sharps’ War.” The documentary will air on PBS on Tuesday evening — just as world leaders conclude two days of meetings in New York City about today’s global refugee crisis, an echo of the one in the late 1930s.

“There are parallels,” notes Artemis Joukowsky, a grandson of the Sharps who conceived of the film and worked on it with Burns. “The vitriol in public speech, the xenophobia, the accusing of Muslims of all of our problems — these are similar to the anti-Semitism of the 1930s and ’40s.”

The Sharps’ story is a reminder that in the last great refugee crisis, in the 1930s and ’40s, the United States denied visas to most Jews. We feared the economic burden and worried that their ranks might include spies. It was the Nazis who committed genocide, but the U.S. and other countries also bear moral responsibility for refusing to help desperate people.

That’s a thought world leaders should reflect on as they gather in New York to discuss today’s refugee crisis — and they might find inspiration from those like the Sharps who saw the humanity in refugees and are today honored because of it.

Take Poland, where some Poles responded to Nazi occupation by murdering Jews, while the Polish resistance (including, I’m proud to say, my father’s family) fought back and tried to wake the world’s conscience. One Pole, Witold Pilecki, sneaked into Auschwitz to gather intelligence and alert the world to what was happening.

(Martha Sharp, who helped smuggle Jews out of danger from the Nazis, presented a trainload of powdered milk to the mayor of Pau, France, in 1940. Credit Sharp Family Archives).

Likewise, a Polish farmer named Jozef Ulma and his wife, Wiktoria, sheltered desperate members of two Jewish families in their house. The Ulmas had six small children and every reason to be cautious, but they instead showed compassion.

Someone reported them, and the Gestapo raided the Ulmas’ farmhouse. The Nazis first shot the Jews dead, and then took retribution by executing not just Jozef and Wiktoria (who was seven months pregnant) but also all their children. The entire family was massacred.

Another great hero was Aristides de Sousa Mendes, a Portuguese consul general in France as the war began.

Portugal issued strict instructions to its diplomats to reject most visa requests from Jews, but Sousa Mendes violated those orders. “I would rather stand with The Lord and against man,” he said, “than with man and against The Lord.”

By some estimates, he issued visas for 30,000 refugees.

Furious at the insubordination, Portugal’s dictator recalled Sousa Mendes and put him on trial for violating orders. Sousa Mendes was convicted and his entire family was blacklisted, so almost all his children were forced to emigrate. Sousa Mendes survived by eating at soup kitchens and selling family furniture; he died in 1954 in poverty, debt and disgrace.

“The family was destroyed,” notes Olivia Mattis, president of a foundation set up in 2010 to honor Sousa Mendes, who saved her father’s family.

As today’s leaders gather for their summit sessions, they should remember that history eventually sides with those who help refugees, not with those who vilify them.

Without greater political will, this week’s meetings may be remembered as no better than the 1938 Evian Conference, and history will be unforgiving.

“We must think of Sousa Mendes’s heroism in today’s context,” Jorge Helft, a Holocaust survivor who as a French boy received one of Sousa Mendes’s visas, told me. “I have dinners in Paris where people start saying we have to kick all these people out, there are dangerous people among them.” He paused and added, “I remember being on a ship to New York and hearing that some Americans didn’t want to let us in because there were Nazi spies among us.

“Yes, there might have been Nazi spies, but a tiny minority,” he said, just as there might be spies among Syrian refugees today, but again a tiny minority. “Ninety-five percent or more of these people are decent, and they are fleeing from death. So let’s not forget them.” (Nicholas Kristof SEPT. 2016).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/would-you-hide-a-jew-from-the-nazis.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0