As a Christian, you must understand that you can only love those who are against you through Christ enabling you to do it. On your own, you will not be able to do it. But keep looking to Him for help and you will soon find the willingness and changed attitude in your heart toward them. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Philippians 4:13)

Your salvation remains the same and does not change whether or not you love everybody. However as long as you do not do what God wants you to do, you may not feel at peace with yourself and with God. The Holy Spirit of God within you will keep on reminding you about this. You may even lose the assurance of salvation and feel, "Maybe I am not saved" as long as you do nothing about it. In 2 Peter 1:5-10, God’s Word tells us-- "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

All of this means that abortion, or the killing of an unborn child is sinful and morally wrong. It may not be considered as cold-blooded murder, because the mother who wants an abortion does not know the unborn child yet and usually does not deliberately seek its life out of hatred, but it does violate the sanctity of human life, and is deserving of some punishment.

But is there any situation where abortion is not immoral? Historically Protestants have made one exception: the life of the unborn can be taken when a continued pregnancy would put the mother’s life in jeopardy. This is justified on the basis of self-defense and also on the basis of choosing the lesser of two evils. Due to rapid developments in medical science however, this situation has become very rare.

The other exception that is sometimes considered is when the pregnancy is a result of rape. In this case the new life did not originate form the mother’s choice at all. But this does not remove the unborn child’s right to life. The unborn child is not the attacker but is in fact the second victim who should not receive capital punishment for his father’s crime.

Once again however this situation is extremely rare. A study of 20,000 rape cases in a certain country recorded no pregnancy. Because of physical and emotional factors, pregnancy following rape is very rare. Many women who wanted an abortion in the 3rd month onwards have falsely claimed to have been raped, when they were not. Because this loophole has given them the opportunity to seek abortion without the social stigma attached to it.

The vast majority of abortions however, does not fall under these two exceptions, but are motivated by the desire for their own economic and social well-being. Most women who abort are not married and do so to avoid the shame of being an unwed mother and the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. They are just like king David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and this act ultimately led him into murdering Bathsheba’s husband in order to protect his reputation -- in trying to cover up one sin, those who abort commit a sin far worse than the first one!

There are some married mothers who abort because they have found out that the unborn child is handicapped or not of the desired sex. A pregnant woman who undergoes amniocentesis might be disappointed to find out that the child has Down’s syndrome, or lacks an arm or a leg. And they think that the child’s life will be miserable, so they justify abortion as mercy killing. But physical or mental handicap does not necessarily mean a life not worth living. And besides that, a handicapped fetus also has a right to life. So abortion is still wrong in such cases.

Is there an alternative to abortion? Yes, if the mother is willing to face the consequences her past choices and make sure that the child is wanted either by herself or by others who stand in line waiting to adopt children. A mother who does not abort but goes through with the pregnancy will at least live with a clear conscience, and the consolation that she has helped to bring a new life into the world.

In these verses Solomon describes his sojourn into the deep waters of philosophy. He sought to investigate the value of human wisdom, and also what advantages wisdom had over madness and foolishness. And Solomon’s mind amassed so much wisdom that according to 1 Kings 4, he was wiser than all men, he invented 3000 proverbs, composed 1005 poems, and he was able to give lectures on any subject, including botany and zoology. Kings, queens and philosophers came from far and near just to hear Solomon speak and they were astounded by the wealth of his knowledge of these things and of philosophy.

About 400 years later, the Greeks began to develop philosophy into a science. Then from Socrates down to 20th-century thinkers like Bertrand Russel and Jean Paul Sartre, have devoted their lives to trying to determine what constitutes the good life for humans both as individuals, and as social and political beings. This resulted in a whole series of different schools of philosophy: Some adopted Platonic ideas. Others applied Aristotelian principles. Some were Stoics, some were Skeptics and others were Epicureans. The 17th century brought Rationalism and Empiricism, and later on, Hegelianism, Pragmatism and Existentialism came on the scene. In the east there were philosophers like Confucius, Mencius and Lao-Tzu.

Volumes and volumes of books have been written on philosophy. And Solomon himself tells us about this endless but futile pursuit when he wrote in Ecclesiastes 12:12 -- "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Isn’t it significant that Solomon, the greatest philosopher who ever lived on this earth tells us that philosophy has very little value, and that it brings grief and sorrow instead of happiness? Instead of accomplishing what it set out to do, namely to determine what constitutes the good life, the pursuit of philosophy has left mankind more confused than ever, and nowhere nearer to attaining the good life.

There is only one kind of knowledge that can enable us to have happiness and attain the good life: and that is the knowledge of Jesus Christ, who is described by the Apostle Paul as the "Wisdom of God." According to Colossians 2:3, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ. Therefore, if you want to have true wisdom, and one that leads to a real, deep and lasting happiness and peace, you must seek to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

The image of a monogamous marriage was in the minds of those prophets who represented Israel as the one wife chosen by the one and only God, Jehovah (and later on in the minds of the apostles who represented the church as being the bride of Christ). From the time of the Return from exile onward (536 BC) there is no reference to polygamy among God’s people to be found in any of the post-exilic books of the Old Testament. Malachi 2:14,15 - "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

By Christ’s time monogamy was the rule among the Greeks and Romans as well as among the Jews, and Christ’s affirmation of the "one flesh" principle of marriage (which makes sense only in a context of monogamy) found ready acceptance among His countrymen (Matt 19:5-6). The apostle Paul stated that a church office bearer must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6). If the higher standard required of leaders by God excluded polygamy, it could hardly be viewed as ideal.

While polygamy was contrary to God’s intention and ideal, nevertheless, because of what Christ called "the hardness of men’s hearts" (Matthew 19:8) it was ENDURED by God - especially in the case of a king whose dynasty would fail if he produced no son by his first wife. A state of civil war might well ensue from such a situation, with resulting bloodshed and disruption to the state. In Ancient Near Eastern cultures monarchs often had a large harem of wives and concubines as a display of their greatness. Perhaps David and Solomon were "following the trend of the times." But there is implicit disapproval from God on the kings’ polygamous marriages in Deuteronomy 17:17 - "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away"

In almost every case of polygamy described, there is a resulting situation of family strife, jealousy, unhappiness and spiritual failure. Jacob’s wives quarrelled with one another for his love and favour even though they were sisters. In David’s case: the rivalry between his sons by different wives caused them to kill one another. In Solomon’s case: it led to his own downfall into idolatry (1 Kings 11:3). Elkanah’s one wife was considered as a "rival" or adversary by the other, who "used to provoke her sorely, to irritate her . . ." (1 Samuel 1:6). No husband has the capacity to love all his wives fully and equally, and no wife has the capacity to receive a rival to the husband’s affection and attention.

Monogamy is best!

There are various degrees of love. This fact is recognised by all. A man who is married must love his wife. If he has children, he loves each child. If his parents are living, he also loves them. And if he has very close friends, he would also love them. But the degree of love he has for each of them may not be all the same. If all of the people he loves are in danger at the same time - who would he help first? And who would he help last? The fact that he helps all of them shows that he still loves them all.

Therefore when the Bible says ‘love thy neighbour’ - Yes, the Christian’s love for Christians (whom he is naturally closer to) would be different from his love for non-Christians, but it is a difference of degree.

People naturally have more love for those who share the same views, beliefs and attitudes as they have. Although Christians also love non-Christians, they have to be careful that their love for non-Christians must not make them compromise their own views, beliefs and attitudes, or else they may be drawn away from God by non-Christians.

To love God is more important than to love one’s neighbour. Jesus said: "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Mark 12:28-31)

Therefore, there is a priority that Christians must keep: I must love God first, and then love my neighbour. If my neighbour loves God like I do (e.g. other Christians), there is no problem. But if my neighbour does not love God, there may be a problem, especially when he wants me not to love God, but to become just like him. That neighbour may love things that God hates and he wants me to love him enough to love these things as well. He may say "If you don’t love the things I love, how can you say that you really love me?" or "If you love God whom I don’t love, how can you say that you really love me?" Then my love for God must come first. I can still love that neighbour, but now that love must necessarily be limited. I must first try to convince that neighbour to love God. If he responds well and loves God like I do, then I have no limitations to loving him. But if he refuses to love God after all my efforts to persuade him, then my love for him will have to be limited.

Someone may then argue then, that theoretically, nakedness can become an acceptable norm in modern society and there would be no lust and no sin, just like in these tribes. But this is not true, because modern society does not have the natural simplicity of the tribal people. Modern civilised living is complicated with a much more influences, history and culture than those who live in a tribe roving the forests. I do not think that nakedness can ever become morally acceptable in a civilised environment because of this.

However, in the times before Moses, there was some tolerance for such marriages. e.g. the children of Adam and Eve probably had to marry each other, since there was no one else for them to marry. Hence Cain and Seth must have married their own sisters and had children by them. God permitted this only at the beginning, out of necessity. As more and more people lived on earth, there was no more need for this practice, and hence it became sinful for anyone to marry his own sister.

Today, it is also known that incestuous relationships bring the problem of genetic defects and retarded children. This is due to the genetic depletion that has taken place over hundreds of generations since the time of Adam and Eve. Many different types of genes have been lost due to death and disease. The total number of gene types in the world today is much less than the total number of gene types that existed in the world at the beginning. This is true not only of human beings, but of animals as well. Hence any species that goes through a few generations of ‘inbreeding’ i.e. marrying within its own family, will soon manifest serious weaknesses, mental and physical problems.

This is the result of the Fall. It would not be true today if man had not sinned, because death and disease would not have depleted the genetic pool. In the first few generations, brothers and sisters could marry and have children without worrying about their children being retarded or abnormal, because their genes were perfect. Now, our genes are not so perfect. This may be the reason why God now disallows close marriages and wants us to consider them as immoral. It is for our own good.

Our concern would be primarily for children, since they do not know yet how to exercise discernment. And sometimes even adults who accompany them, not having seen the show before, may only discern that a show has negative value after viewing it for a while and the only thing they can do then is to walk out of the cinema and not mind the loss of the money spent on their tickets.

Thus it is helpful to publish any warnings from other Christians about negative values that are a known about movies that are currently being shown, so that people won’t have to waste their money on them.

A better option is to recommend that Christians do not go to cinemas to watch movies at all, and exercise discernment when watching movies on videotape, VCD or TV shows. The problem of cinema entertainment is that the viewer has no control whatsoever over what he (and his children who are with him) sees on the cinema screen. Much of the advertisements contain unwholesome images that can stick in the child’s mind. An even if a ‘good’ movie is being watched in the cinema, there may be some shots of other shows that are going to be screened soon, and these may be bad.

In contrast, watching a ‘good’ movie at home gives the adult viewer control to cut out advertisements, change the channel or even stop viewing the show altogether without loss if it is discovered that the show is actually bad. An adult can also preview a videotape or VCD to evaluate its material before the children watch it.

We would encourage Christians to buy or borrow good wholesome videos, VCDs and DVDs, and even to get those that are produced by Christians and which teach good biblical values. There are some Christian media ministries that distribute such material.

Now, while all movies have some negative values, some, like Harry Potter have much more of it than others. Witchcraft and occultism are portrayed as good things. The greater the potential harm, the more urgently we need to warn people about it. And especially when the movie is very popular among children like this one. It may lead them to experiment with the occult world. Some who experiment with occultism by using Tarot cards, the Ouija board, or role playing games like ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ have been known to get trapped in the occult world. We should watch out for the devil’s devices (I Thess 5:22).

But for the second question, the answer is that the Christian is doing nothing wrong or unwise if he serves in areas where he is not gifted. There is no prohibition concerning areas of God’s service, except those prohibiting women from usurping the man’s authority. Those who are not gifted for a particular ministry may have to serve in that particular ministry, simply because of his availability and the lack of willing helpers. He may relinquish that ministry when someone else who is gifted for it is found.

There are also areas of service where all believers are to serve, even though they may not necessarily be gifted for them. E.g. evangelism. Even though there is the spiritual gift of an evangelist, all of us must still be witnessing to people around us whenever there is opportunity. Another example is the gift of Faith. All of us are called to exercise faith. But those who have this gift are able to exercise it more effectively than others.

Animal cloning does not violate the ‘after their kind’ principle of Genesis 1:25. In fact some creatures do reproduce asexually or by a natural cloning process (e.g. the phenomenon of parthenogenesis in bees and other insects).

I don’t see anything wrong with transplanting animal organs to save a person’s life. It is the same as slaughtering a pig or cow to eat its flesh. Getting an organ transplant from a living and willing human person whose life is not taken by the loss of the organ, or from a brain-dead person is also all right as no human life is taken at all. But when a human embryo has to be created from a person’s cell by cloning, that human embryo must be regarded as a person, for it has the potential to develop into a full-grown person under the right conditions. It is not just a mass of tissue. It is not right to treat it the same way that animals are treated.

Some people have bad dreams and they firmly believe that this dream will come true. I have had my share of such dreams, which for a while made me worry if they will come true. But I realised later on, that they do not mean anything at all. They are merely the result of our worst fears working on our minds.

The Bible does not speak directly on the subject of premonition, but it emphasises that our faith should always be based on the revealed word of God, and not on our subjective feelings. E.g. Elijah felt so fearful of Jezebel when she sought for revenge, that he fled to Mt Horeb. He should have trusted in God to defend him against her. But he trusted his feelings which kept convincing him that Jezebel will succeed in having him killed. Simon Peter denied Christ three times because he was convinced by his subjective feelings that he would probably be arrested and executed with Christ if his identity was known.

I think that premonitions may sometimes be used by Satan to convince people that they can be like God. It is God’s prerogative alone to know the future, or secrets of the spiritual realm. Everyone wants to know the future. But God alone knows the future. Instead of consulting God, they try to consult someone who can tell them what the future will be. If we believe that our premonitions are correct, we would be usurping God’s prerogative. Isaiah 46:9,10 - "for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure."

Some years back someone wrote a book challenging this view, and proposing that there is not just one person that a Christian can marry to be in the perfect will of God, but several, who meet all the biblical criteria for Christian marriage. The Christian can therefore choose to marry anyone within this ‘pool’ and still be in the perfect will of God.

I tend to take the first view, based on my understanding of the eternal decree of God as given in our Westminster Confession of Faith. However, I would also include that finding that person whom God has chosen for a Christian to marry is not left entirely to that person alone, but God will providentially guide the circumstances for him/her to meet and get to know the person well enough to make an informed decision to marry that person. The Christian must apply biblical criteria to determine if that person is truly God’s choice for him.

I feel that this view provides the best security for marriage. If rough spots are encountered in marriage life, the Christian will not doubt whether the person he married was the right one. He will take it as part of God’s sovereign will for him to press on through the rough spots together and resolve them, since he is convinced that God has chosen this person for him for a good purpose. He will also trust in God’s enablement to help him.

The exception made in this verse is for fornication – i.e. if the wife has slept with another man. To remarry for any other reason is to commit adultery. If the wife is a Christian – Find out what happened to the eloped wife. If she has slept with or married someone else, then remarriage is permissible. If she has died, remarriage is permissible. But if she is still alive and has has not married someone else nor slept with another man, the husband cannot remarry. Instead he should try to love her enough to win her back. In fact even if she has committed fornication, the husband can still decide to forgive her and win her back – e.g. Hosea, who brought Gomer back, instead of putting her away and marrying another.

But if the wife is not a Christian, then 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides one more exception where remarriage is permitted – desertion by an unbelieving spouse, with or without fornication. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." The term ‘not under bondage implies that the husband who has been desserted by the unbelieving wife can now remarry. But once again, this should be done after all efforts have been made to win back the unbelieving spouse.

If he still refuses to repent, but continues to sleep with other women, she should carry out her threat and bring a mature Christian to help as a witness to the wrongdoing and persuade the husband to repent of his infidelity.

If this does not work, she can then seek the church to deal with the husband – He should be excommunicated, as an example to all believers to show the seriousness of this sin. This would be an appropriate time for her to move out and live separately. The church would know that she is not the guilty party and show love and care for her.

If even excommunication does not make the husband repent, she can then divorce him. Matthew 18:17 – "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Even if the husband does not want a divorce, she can sue for a divorce. She would not be sinning against God, because Matthew 19 already states that divorce from a believer is permissible on grounds of fornication.

Another prerogative that is God’s alone is His prerogative to receive all glory. (see Isa 42:8) If we give credit to someone or something else for what God has done, we break the first commandment. For example: Attributing a blessing from God to good fortune or to luck. Some people who do not want to appear religious before their friends will substitute the word God with something else. E.g. Thank goodness! or thank heavens! Let us avoid doing this.