Awake!, January 22, 1971

Download: PDF — Awake!, January 22, 1971

Awake! — January 22, 1971

Source: jw.org

Contents

Where Shall Man Look for Guidance?

Can You Pray with the Psalms?

“My, What a Change!”

Your Skin

Dress Right for Cold Weather

Appreciating the Tonsils

The Heart Muscle

The Problem of Pornography

Effects of Caffeine

Can Lima Ever Forget?

Youthful Bank Robbers

Visiting the Lake Dwellers of Dahomey

Where He Found Real Brotherly Love

Why Serve Jehovah

Watching the World

Will Mankind Ever Enjoy a Paradise Earth?

How Strong Is Your Faith?

Where Shall Man Look for Guidance?

DOES man need guidance? He most certainly does. This is very obvious from the confusion, strife and violence that now fill the earth. For many years certain men of science, by making a study of the animals, have been seeking needed guidance on how man should live. And they say that what they have learned helps them to understand men better.

Konrad Lorenz, a noted authority on animal behavior, for example, has made and published some very interesting findings regarding the social habits of certain geese. These habits, he points out, seem to resemble human traits. According to him, there is a striving for supremacy among living creatures and “this always applies when you put five boys [or] five cockerels [or] five canary birds [or] five cichlid fish” together. He looks to the insight that natural science provides to help man to overcome his tendency to wage wars. He claims that “the problems of behavior, motivations, and the like” can be solved only by such kind of learning.

Is this true? Is that the place to look for guidance? Concerning such efforts to understand man and provide guidance for him by studying animals, noted American author Arthur Koestler observes: “Speaking in all humility, it seems to be of doubtful value to attempt a diagnosis of man entirely based on the analogies with animal behavior. . . . By the nature of things they do not go far enough, because they stop short of those exclusively human characteristics—such as language—which are of necessity excluded from the analogy, although they are of decisive importance in determining the behavior of our species.”—New York Times Magazine, October 19, 1969.

Author Koestler’s points are well made. And, interestingly, his conclusions are similar to what the Bible says. On the one hand, the Bible shows that certain things definitely can be learned by observing animals. It tells the lazy one to go to the ant and note its wisdom in storing up food for the winter. But, on the other hand, the Bible stresses the fact that animals, moved by instinct, are without understanding and reason. Thus the psalmist counsels: “Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter before they will come near to you.” Yes, you cannot give reasons to a horse or a mule as to why he should do this or that. Other methods must be used.—Ps. 32:9; Prov. 6:6-8; 2 Pet. 2:12.

How can man learn to solve the problems of human behavior by studying animals, when man’s problems involve his higher and more complex faculties? Man alone of earth’s creatures has reasoning ability and imagination. Only he has the power of conceptual thinking, of abstract thought. He uniquely has a moral sense that gives him an awareness of right and wrong. And none but man has the instinct of worshiping a higher power. As anthropologist Loren Eiseley once so well observed, evolutionists, in their zeal to find physical similarities between man and beast, have ignored the vast and weightier difference between the brains of men and of animals.

Neither can we look to mere man himself. The wisdom of imperfect man is contradictory. How many different philosophies there are! In apostolic times the wise men of Greece largely belonged to two radically opposed schools, the Stoics and the Epicureans; yet both claimed to be wise. Up till the present time philosophers have continued to disagree radically with one another.

The same applies to political ideologies. To whom will one look for guidance? In the United States there are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Conservatives, and various militants. Who is to say which party or group is the best for the people, not to say anything about getting others to agree with it? And what about the even greater and more numerous differences in religion?

Why all this confusion? The Bible answers: “The wise ones have become ashamed. . . . They have rejected the very word of Jehovah, and what wisdom do they have?” Yes, “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” Man, by reason of his original transgression, is imperfect, weak, selfish. In fact, his inclination “is bad from his youth up.” Because of this the Creator of man, Jehovah God, has provided his Word to be a light and a lamp to man’s pathway, and to equip him completely for all good works.—Jer. 8:9; 10:23; Gen. 8:21; Ps. 119:105; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

This is what we should expect from a wise and loving Creator, and that he does exist is apparent from creation all about us. Has he not made abundant provision for all our material needs? Then should we not expect that he will supply our need for guidance? Those who study his Word with open minds and honest hearts and who look to him for guidance will be rewarded with enlightenment. More than 1,400,000 persons throughout the world have found this to be true. As a result they are living at peace with one another and enjoy contentment and peace of mind. They appreciate the value of the rules and principles of God’s Word.—Rom. 1:20; Phil. 4:19.

It is the Bible that instructs us to love Jehovah God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. It also sets out the command of Jesus to ‘love one another as I have loved you.’ What a different world this will be when all on earth obey these commands and the earth is “filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea”!—Isa. 11:9; Mark 12:29-31; John 13:34, 35.

Can You Pray with the Psalms?

What kind of prayer does God hear?

MANY have marveled at how the voices of astronauts on the moon were transmitted across hundreds of thousands of miles and were heard in all parts of the earth within a very short interval. This feat was made possible by the functioning of radio waves.

These dramatic developments in space travel and sound transmission suggest to unprejudiced minds that it is by no means impossible for human creatures to communicate with the One who created the moon and all the stars spread across the immensity of space. Yes, prayer directed to the Creator should appear all the more credible and desirable.

But how to pray for best results is the vital question. Men have always felt the need to pour out their troubles into the ear of a powerful listener, one who can help them overcome their problems. Thus it is that peoples of all religions—Buddhists, Hindus, worshipers of Allah, members of Christendom’s religions—engage in prayer. Some address themselves directly to the god they worship. Others pray through various intermediaries, such as “saints,” images and relics.

However, there is no book of religion that has so much that is sensible and instructive to say about prayer as the Holy Bible. From beginning to end it tells how men of former times, men who had faith in the one true God, prayed. It tells what they said in their prayers and the attitude in which they approached the Great Hearer of prayers. (Ps. 65:2) It tells what they prayed about and why.

Superstitious Prayer

Many persons in Christendom, as, for example, in some Caribbean lands, indulge in superstitious prayer, perhaps unwittingly. In what way? Some seem to think that just because a certain prayer is in the Bible it has great weight with God. It becomes to them a sort of magic formula.

One portion of the Bible that comes in for special attention along this line is the book of Psalms. It contains many prayers uttered by King David and other faithful men under a great variety of circumstances. But what is often overlooked is that these are much more than personal prayers of individuals. In fact, many of them are clearly prophetic and have to do with Jesus Christ and his role in God’s purposes. Note, for example, that the apostle Paul applies Psalm 40 to the Lord Jesus Christ.—Heb. 10:5-10.

But superstitious persons believe that they can use each specific Psalm to meet some particular problem in their lives. One particular Psalm is said to promote success in business, another to drive away evil spirits, another to obtain a job, and still another to ensure success in fishing. You may even hear some such person inquiring: “Which Psalm do you advise me to use in such and such a situation?” There are even specialists to consult if one is in doubt.

Are you out of work? They will tell you to stand at a crossroads and recite Psalms 21 and 22. Are you having trouble with your marriage mate? Then, say they, all you have to do is recite Psalms 1 to 9 during nine days; Psalm 1 the first day, Psalms 1 and 2 the second day, and so forth, until all nine are recited on the ninth day. You are not having much success in business? Then Psalm 25 is recommended.

Psalm 109 is said to have the power, when recited, to protect against enemies, to remove them or even destroy them forever. It is supposed to be said while facing the rising sun and holding a lighted candle in one’s hand. People will even leave the Bible on their bed or other piece of furniture, the pages open, perhaps even with a lighted candle set on this particular page! It is thought that wicked spirits can thus be kept at bay or prevented from entering the house.

Alas! All those superstitious uses of the Psalms have not solved unemployment or the many other problems. Enemies are not reduced. Wicked spirits still appear to haunt the lives of the superstitious. Misery and poverty are still afflicting the very lands where these Psalms are recited for relief.

What then? Is this the kind of confidence that people should put in the Bible? Is this the proper way to approach God in prayer? Is it to be expected that God will hear any of such prayers?

God’s Word Counsels

The Bible itself furnishes God’s answer to those questions. Not only does it contain many samples of prayer, but it also has instruction for worshipers as to how they should pray. Prayer occupied an important place in the life and ministry of God’s own Son, Jesus Christ. He taught his followers to imitate his example and he taught them how to pray. Said he, at Matthew 7:7, 8: “Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened.”

However, did Jesus mean by those words that anything we asked would be granted? Not at all, for his disciple James writes of those who do not obtain answers to their prayers ‘because they ask for a wrong purpose.’ (Jas. 4:3) And Jesus himself dramatically pointed to the danger of praying for something not agreeable to God’s will, for, as he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, he said: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matt. 26:39) One cannot pray as at Psalm 25:4, “Make me know your own ways, O Jehovah; teach me your own paths,” while making no effort to study God’s written Word, the Bible, to find out more about God’s will.

Then, there is the matter of praying for disaster to our enemies. Should a Christian do that? Jesus Christ taught his followers: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens.”—Matt. 5:44, 45.

Is it impossible for humans to follow that principle? Jesus himself held to it at the crucial point of his execution, for he cried out as he was being impaled: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) And Stephen, while being stoned to death by the Jews, prayed, saying: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60) Christians should not allow hatred or ideas of personal revenge to influence them. Vengeance belongs to God.—Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19.

It is quite evident that one cannot properly pray to God for mercy while at the same time denying mercy to personal enemies. (Matt. 6:12) Then what about Psalm 109 and Psalm 83? Do they not reveal a vindictive spirit? No, not if we understand them for what they are. They are completely in harmony with God’s purpose to punish and destroy the incorrigibly wicked, those who are willfully wicked, those who are really God’s enemies. (Ps. 83:2) And it should be noted that the first of those Psalms is a prophetic prayer that involved circumstances connected with the life of Jesus Christ. It is so applied by the apostles. (Acts 1:20) Those prayers primarily expressed the desire for God’s name to be treated with respect as a result of his acts in connection with his people.—Ps. 83:16, 18; 109:21, 27.

Right Use of the Psalms

The Psalms are part of the Holy Scriptures about which the apostle Paul wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Thus it is good to study the Psalms together with all the rest of the Scriptures so as to draw out of them those just principles of God by which to discipline our lives. If our thoughts and our deeds are in harmony with those principles, then Jehovah will grant our earnest prayers. But if someone is using the Psalms in a superstitious manner while ignoring the rest of the Scriptures, possibly living in fornication or adultery, what then? Proverbs 28:9 answers: “He that is turning his ear away from hearing the law—even his prayer is something detestable.”

One who leans upon the prayers in the book of Psalms exclusively, while failing to take into account the teaching of God’s Son in the matter of prayer, cannot be favorably heard by God. One must accept and apply the instructions and principles given by Christ Jesus, namely, to refrain from prayer that is engaged in just to be seen by men, to refrain from repetitious prayers, to offer prayers in the name of Christ Jesus. (Matt. 6:5-8; John 14:13) As Jesus himself testified: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father [even in prayer] except through me.”—John 14:6.

The prayers that are agreeable to God are not memorized ones, or prayers written by someone else in advance. Rather they are those that are spontaneous, not necessarily expressed in perfect grammar, not necessarily spoken fluently, but issuing from the heart. One Bible psalmist said: “I have called with my whole heart. Answer me, O Jehovah.” (Ps. 119:145) Could he have said that if he had just read some written prayer? Surely not.

The one whose prayers are a delight to God is the one who has studied to know God and his will and his principles of righteousness, and whose heart has thereby been filled with appreciation and gratitude to the Creator. Then the prayers of such a one are not merely petitions for something from God, but include praise and thanksgiving to the Great Giver of “every good gift and every perfect present.”—Jas. 1:17.

Jehovah’s witnesses are a people who have full faith in God and who fully value prayer as an avenue of approach to God. They accept the Holy Scriptures, including the Psalms, as the Word of the only true God. However, they do not attribute to the Psalms any supernatural, magic power. They were written, as were all the Scriptures, for our comfort and to build up our hope. (Rom. 15:4) Many of those Psalms in the Bible contain prophecies about God’s kingdom under Christ. That kingdom, about which Jesus taught his followers to pray, saying, “Let your kingdom come,” is the kingdom that Jehovah’s witnesses are proclaiming in all the world as the hope for all who would enjoy God’s gift of life.—Matt. 6:9, 10.

“My, What a Change!”

By “Awake!” correspondent in Iceland

MANY are the changes taking place in the world. In Iceland, as elsewhere, folks have talked about these things. If older persons were to share their thoughts with the younger generation, the conversation might go like this:

“You young folks can hardly imagine how greatly things have changed since I was born. Not even novelist Jules Verne could have imagined so many changes, even though he lived close to our time. Do you see that Vesuvius-like volcano over there on the tip of the peninsula? That was the place where he had his ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ begin by letting his heroes descend through its crater on the trip that took them right through our globe and out to Stromboli in Italy. He penned that fantasy about a century ago. But much has changed since then.”

“Oh, please tell me more; it’s always so fascinating to listen to what you tell about the old days.”

“Some younger folks probably won’t believe that things have ever been much different from now, but these past five or six decades have brought unprecedented changes.

Housing

“Take housing, for instance. See those modern apartments over there? They’re made of reinforced concrete, and have steel and aluminum frames around the doors and windows. On the inside, there are deep-pile carpets, electric stoves, refrigerators and other modern gadgets. And look! No chimneys—they’re heated with water from the hot springs! Well, the house I was reared in was much different.”

“Didn’t you live in one of those old-fashioned farmsteads?”

“You’re right. And if you want to see one, you can go to the little outdoor museum over there on the other hill. My home was such a torfbær, a house built from sod or turf, both the walls and the roof. It was lined with planks on the inside. The gables were wooden structures with doors and had the only windows in the house. The floor was just the good old earth itself!

“Practically every farmstead was built that way, even houses in the towns. They didn’t have any electricity, running water or other facilities. We had a big open fireplace in the kitchen. Aside from that there was no heating device, but we got some heat from the cowhouse. This was built alongside the house and connected with it, so we didn’t have to go outside in the winter to feed and milk the cows. Really, it was quite cozy!”

“But why did they build the houses like that? Couldn’t they just use wood for the whole house?”

“Wood was simply too scarce. It had to be imported, every splinter of it. Those living near the sea often used driftwood. That was all they had, and it was necessary to save it for the most urgent needs.”

“My, what a home! Didn’t you ever long for something better?”

“No, we knew nothing better. And despairing or protesting wouldn’t have gotten us anywhere. People, the younger ones too, were a more humble lot then, more content with life. They didn’t make a big noise protesting this and that. Youths then had no time for such monkey business. Speaking of toil, do you see those people working over there in the hayfield?”

“Oh, yes; they really work at it, don’t they?”

Work

“By modern standards, I’d say so. With that tractor and modern equipment, they should be through by evening. But in my day we mowed everything with scythes and turned and raked it all by hand. With our damp climate, it often took us weeks for jobs that now can be finished in one day with machinery. That’s a big change—mechanizing almost everything.”

“But isn’t that a good thing—to let the machines work for you?”

“Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But work doesn’t harm you either. We learned to work quite early in life and at varied tasks. On my father’s farm we had to learn to do everything. And since the farm could not support all of us children, we also fished a lot. The farmers jointly owned a boat so we could row out and fish. We also used it for going to town and transporting things home.

“Only a few boats then were big enough to carry sails. It could be a dangerous fair when a storm blew up. Many a tragedy occurred when such an open boat capsized or was wrecked, with all hands lost. Small communities could lose practically all their able-bodied men in that way. I remember a fishing boat that was lost, I think in 1911, and twenty-seven men drowned. Their dependents, counting wives, children and old people, were about eighty-five. You can see what a catastrophe that was!”

“I surely can. I don’t believe I would like to go to sea myself, but if I did I’d prefer one of those modern diesel trawlers over there in the harbor. Aren’t they almost unsinkable, with all that radar and sonar equipment?”

“Unsinkable is quite a strong word to use even today. Remember the Andrea Doria? It was a huge, modern ocean liner, but it sank after a collision. But it is true that a steel-built thousand-tonner can weather almost any storm. Besides that, it is a much more efficient fishing machine, so to speak, than anything known in ray youth. But I too would rather stay on land, on a farm, for instance. It was a much cozier place, an almost self-sufficient unit, a small world all by itself. We weren’t off in a motorcar to the nearest supermarket when we thought of food. And as for other goods, we simply made most of them ourselves and had fun doing it.”

Food and Clothing

“But how was that possible? As far as I know, agriculture in Iceland hasn’t ever been very productive. Didn’t you grow mostly grass?”

“Yes, mostly, even though that was not all. But with that we could feed the domestic animals. So, we had most of our needs covered.”

“I don’t quite see that. From the animals you could get meat and some milk, but that would hardly be enough for your needs, would it?”

“Not exactly. But having a variety of meat, from the sheep, cows and even horses, and milk from the cows, we really had much in the way of basic needs. We could get cream, curds and cheese, and also sour whey for preserving meat when salt was scarce. We did grow some vegetables—potatoes, turnips, cabbage and the like—but no grain or other cereals. Such crops, of course, couldn’t be grown in our short summer. We bought it by the sackful in town, together with what is still known as ‘colonial goods,’ such as sugar and coffee, also nails, wood and many other things.

“We usually paid for them with our surplus wool, raw or spun, dried fish and fish oil and eiderdown. We would barter and try to get a good price. And having enough wool at home from the sheep, we would make most of our clothing, homespun and knitted. Socks, sweaters and even underwear of this kind are still the best for our climate.”

“So, you mean you just stayed out there on the farm, making all those things for yourselves?”

“That’s about right. We had our own foodstuffs, and at times we also had fresh fish and birds’ eggs, besides some lichen or Iceland moss and wild berries for various foods. And having food, clothing and a roof over our heads, what else did we need?”

Recreation and Transportation

“Well, what did you do for recreation?”

“Oh, we didn’t have much spare time. In the evenings we also worked. We usually worked with the wool, spinning, knitting and the like, both men and women. It was actually refreshing to sit down and enjoy the company of the whole family after a long day of outdoor activities. We would also take turns reading aloud to the others, from the old sagas or poetry or the Bible—all in the light of homemade candles or lamps lit by seal or whale oil. At times guests would entertain us, telling stories or reciting lyric poetry about events of long bygone days.”

“That may have been fun, but didn’t you ever go places?”

“We did, at times. It was customary to ride to church each Sunday, and often we visited with other farmers en route. Some even started out on Saturday so as to have more time for social activities.

“While you may not think much of life as it was then, don’t think it was dull and dreary. It was really a full life. And I would prefer it any time to the haste and waste-making of the world we have today. We had more time. We could reflect on the handiwork of our Creator. We were not scurrying about in cars and planes; we rode horseback and many walked, not being able to afford a horse. And often they walked for many miles on sheep- and horse-trodden paths among the lava blocks. You youngsters may not understand it, but we enjoyed it very much.”

“My, what a change! I suppose you almost have to live and see it with your own eyes to understand it—and the changes you have seen.”

The Biggest Change—People!

“But, you know, when I think of it, the greatest change is not what science and modern technique have accomplished. It is the change affecting the minds and hearts of people.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“Well, people have changed very much; the barriers are down, so to speak. Nothing seems to stand in the way of most people today; nothing inhibits them. In general there is no respect for authority or the rights of others or their property. You can hardly trust anyone anymore. People do not feel safe. That wasn’t the way it used to be. In my youth a man was a man and a word a word, but that simply isn’t true anymore. Dishonesty, bribing and all kinds of stealing are rampant. But this new lawless trend comes as no surprise to Christians. The mental attitude of most people today was described long in advance, in Bible prophecy. Do you remember the verses at 2 Timothy 3:1-5?”

“Yes, I recall them. That’s where the apostle Paul says that the time will come when men will be ‘lovers of themselves, lovers of money . . . [and] lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.’”

“That’s the one all right. Paul also says that in the ‘last days’ there will be ‘critical times hard to deal with’; this because of the moral breakdown, among people in general. Well, we were by no stretch of imagination perfect people back then, before 1914. But still people had not sunk to the low level described by the apostle Paul. They were more simple, straightforward and unspoiled. Today not a few would have thought them a naïve lot. But life was more unhurried, happier than in this day and age of stressed minds and bodies. The change in people’s attitudes is no less a change than all the material ones together, and I think that even you can see the difference, can’t you?”

“Yes, and when I reflect on your words and what you have told me at other times, I look forward to getting more insight into what the Bible has to say about God’s new system of things.”

“That’s the right way to think for a young lad, and for older folks too, because knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes is most vital now. You can recall the gist of John 17:3, can’t you?”

“Why, yes, that is where Jesus says: ‘This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.’”

“Right. And the knowledge you now have about the changes in the world since 1914 helps you to see that these are, in fact, the foretold ‘last days.’”

Your Skin

● “The average person has seventeen square feet of skin, which weighs a little over five pounds, and from the two or three million sweat glands he perspires about a quart a day.”—GP, June 1969.

Dress Right for Cold Weather

EELS, eagles and elephants representatives of sea, air and land animals have no need for clothing. Their bodies are adequately provided with protective covering against the elements of their respective environments. And well it is for them that they have no need of clothing; they certainly would be unable to provide it for themselves.

We humans, however, are different. Our Grand Creator made us with the capacity for designing and making clothes for many purposes, and for the great variety of conditions under which we live. Yes, we need clothing for more than one good reason.

Even in the hottest weather we need clothing for the sake of modesty—to pacify our sense of shame. This has been true ever since our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God’s command and ate of the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (Gen. 3:7) Another purpose served by clothing—it gives us confidence by enhancing our appearance.

But a principal reason why people in many parts of the earth need clothing right now is to protect their bodies from the cold. The big question for them is, How to dress right for cold weather.

What Kind of Underwear?

Let us start with the clothing closest to the body. It is reasonable to wear warmer undergarments in the winter than in the summer even if you do not feel the need for it. Why? Because the heart must work harder to keep the body warm in winter, and warmer clothing saves it added work. Of course, if you work in a steam-heated room or office all day you will not want to wear the same kind of underwear that the postman spending his whole day outside wears. But what kind should it be if you must be out in the cold? Simply wearing heavier underwear may not be the best solution.

For example, it is better to wear two light cotton-and-wool garments than one very heavy all-wool garment. Why? Because of the air between the garments. Dead air is a poor conductor of heat. That is the advantage of what is called “thermal underwear.” It has a waffle knit that traps air within its layers.

Still another type of garment that employs this principle is that with the “Brynje mesh.” However, instead of trapping the dead air within its layers, it traps the air next to the skin. How does it do this? By its fishnet design; it is something like mesh hosiery.

For very cold weather there is also quilted underwear, but it is rather bulky.

What About Outer Clothing?

Among the things to remember about outer clothing, when dressing for cold weather, is that dark-colored clothing is warmer than light-colored clothing. Dark colors absorb the heat of the sun; white or light colors repel it. Wear light colors in the summer to keep cool; but wear dark colors in the winter to keep warm.

Soft-finished clothing, such as flannels, cheviots and tweeds, have much to recommend them if you are faced with a dry, calm cold. But when it comes to protecting yourself from sleet and snow and a driving wind, then clothing with a hard finish, such as a worsted or a sharkskin, will serve you best. It will not only keep the wind from blowing through but also make it less likely that wet snow will cling to your clothes.

With outer garments also the principle applies that two thin garments are better than one heavy one. Not necessarily two separate garments, but perhaps garments that are lined. Some topcoats have a removable lining—ideal for comfort, convenience and warmth, and also for economy. A lining can be plain or quilted, depending upon the degree of cold with which you must contend. Or you might find that as an added garment a thin sweater or a knitted vest will keep you warm. A cashmere sweater for this purpose—if you can afford one—is tops for warmth and has a minimum of bulk. Otherwise, a thin or medium-thick woolen sweater will do.

Dressing right for cold weather also includes giving thought to collars and cuffs of coats and jackets. They should fit rather snugly to keep the warm air from escaping. Wearing a shawl or scarf around the neck is also the course of prudence. But, remember, you defeat your purpose if your clothing fits too tightly.

The Head, Hands and Feet

Many neglect to wear a head covering in cold weather, but that is a mistake. The blood does not recede from the skull because of the cold, so much blood is chilled when the head is exposed. The knitted stocking type of cap has much to recommend it, and so does the cap with a provision for protecting the ears. Smart, popular and very practical are the Russian types of fur or imitation-fur hats. When the cold is very severe, it is also wise to protect the mouth and nose with a shawl, or a face mask that has openings for the eyes and nose.

What about the hands? While some unlined gloves may look stylish, in cold weather they may cause the hands to be colder than if one wore no gloves at all; especially would that be the case if the gloves fit tightly. For keeping the hands warm, lined gloves are best—lined with either wool, fur or imitation fur. But here again, get gloves that are large enough. If your gloves fit too tightly they will interfere with the circulation in your hands and so you will have cold hands in spite of your wearing lined gloves. Mittens, of course, are the warmest of all. If you wish, you may be able to get some that have not only the thumb but also the index finger in separate sheaths. The big problem with gloves or mittens is to have them as warm as needed and yet let them permit you to do things with your hands.

There is also the very important matter of keeping the feet warm. The feet, being the farthest away from the heart, are the most likely to get cold. Here again it must be noted that two pairs of thin socks or hose will be warmer than one heavy pair. And in wearing more than one pair, let the first pair, next to the skin, be of cotton, and the next or outer pair be of wool. But bear in mind that if your wearing heavy or added socks unduly squeezes your feet you are no better off. If need be, get a pair of shoes just a little large, for use with the added hose in the winter. It need not be an added expense. Your shoes will simply last longer.

If there is much snow on the ground, be sure to keep your feet dry. In some places, rubbers or overshoes are used. Elsewhere, certain shoes are specially made for such weather. To help protect your shoes, keep them well polished. In fact, it would be well to put on several layers of shoe polish as a kind of waterproofing measure. And if you do get your shoes wet, stuff them with crumpled-up paper and let them dry out gradually. Do not keep them close to the heat.

Do not overdo in the matter of keeping warm. This is a point that mothers need to watch in connection with young children. Authorities agree that it is best to keep oneself a little on the cool side. Overheating can cause as much harm as too much cold. When you find yourself getting rather warm, loosen your outer garments or remove some of them. In this regard it is a good habit to listen to the weather forecast on radio or TV so as to learn what the temperature is outside; then dress accordingly.

From the foregoing it is apparent that dressing right for cold weather is largely a matter of using good judgment based on your own and others’ experiences.

Other Factors

The body itself does what it can to meet the challenge of cold weather both by shivering and by stepping up the metabolic processes. This the body does by pouring more adrenaline into the blood. Interestingly, women show a greater increase in metabolic activity and lose 10 percent less heat when exposed to the cold than do men.

Obviously, a well-nourished body can withstand the cold better than can a poorly nourished one. So choose wholesome, nourishing food, being sure to get enough vitamins and minerals.

Another factor to consider is that activity can help you to keep warm. The more you keep active the less urgent will be your need for very warm clothing. To keep warm in cold weather walk briskly, but do not overdo.

Also, if you would keep warm in cold weather do not smoke tobacco. Smoking just two cigarettes will reduce your skin temperature by from 4.5 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit. And after smoking them it will take fifteen minutes to return to its normal temperature.

Further, do not drink alcoholic beverages to keep warm when you are faced with severe weather. Says The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (1970): “The taking of alcoholic beverages to ‘keep warm’ in cold weather is obviously irrational and may be dangerous if the conservation of body heat is essential. Those experienced in polar exploration are well acquainted with the dangers of this temptation.” This is because alcohol causes the blood to rush to the surface, but the end result is a lowering of the body’s temperature.

Yes, how you dress, what you take into your body and your physical activity all have a bearing on the success of your efforts to keep warm when the weather is cold.

Appreciating the Tonsils

THE most frequently performed operation on the human body, next to pulling teeth, is the removal of the tonsils. The operation, called a tonsillectomy, is performed mostly On young children. Is this operation always wise? What is the function of the tonsils?

Actually we have several different sets of tonsils. The two generally referred to by the term “tonsils” are in the back of the mouth just above the throat, below the roof of the mouth and toward each side. These are termed the “palatine” tonsils because of their close proximity to the palate.

Tonsils at times get inflamed and swell. Especially when these become badly infected do they almost completely block the throat, so removal of infected tonsils has long been practiced.

While the medical profession today discourages the removal of the tonsils except in cases where they are seriously infected, the facts reveal a wide difference in attitude toward the practice. Thus the Canadian Medical Association Journal of December 28, 1963, observed that in some areas of Canada hospitals remove proportionately nine times as many tonsils in the course of a year as do others. Obviously this represents quite a difference of opinion as to the indications for removing tonsils.

The tonsils are now recognized as defending the body against infections that would otherwise invade it. They are composed of lymphoid tissue, which forms the white blood cells called lymphocytes, the cells that attack germs in the body. That harm can result from their unnecessary removal is becoming more and more evident. Thus it has been found that there is a much higher ratio of multiple sclerosis in persons who had their tonsils removed than among those of their relatives who did not have their tonsils removed.—Lancet, December 18, 1965.

Also it has been observed that, among children who have had their tonsils removed, there is a higher proportion of polio than among children who were not deprived of their tonsils. Reporting on this matter in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1955), Dr. R. S. Paffenbarger, Jr., stated that his research “leads us to believe that susceptibility to polio is enhanced by tonsillectomy per se.” And writing in the American Journal of Hygiene, September 1959, he gave further reasons why cutting out the tonsils predisposes children to polio-virus invasions. Supporting his position, The Merck Manual (1961) states that “recent evidence indicates that patients who have had tonsillectomy are more apt to develop bulbar poliomyelitis than patients who have not undergone such surgery.”

In both the United States and the United Kingdom the ratio of deaths from complications resulting from tonsillectomies is one in 10,000. To some persons, this may not seem to be many, though in the United States it amounts to upward of 100 a year. But noteworthy is the statement of one authority who says that “more by far die from complications of tonsillectomies than ever die from diseased tonsils.”

What can be done when tonsils are inflamed? Among other things prescribed are rest, hot or cold compresses around the neck, a light diet, possibly aspirin and/or antibiotics. Enemas or purgatives are beneficial, and gargles, sprays and throat lozenges may be soothing. The Australian Medical Journal, January 12, 1963, told of a milk-free diet. A certain doctor has been using this with great success in curing stubborn tonsillitis. But, above all, do not hurry yourself to have your children’s tonsils removed.

The Heart Muscle

● Did you know that heart muscle cells have inherent power of rhythmic contraction? The heart will beat for a while even if it is removed from the body, and pieces of muscle will beat after removal from the heart. The nerves that connect the heart to the brain modify the beat, but do not initiate it.—Encyclopædia Britannica (1959), Vol. 15, p. 972.

The Problem of Pornography

PORNOGRAPHY is the portrayal of behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. The word comes from the Greek pornográphos, which literally means ‘harlot writing’ or ‘the writing of prostitutes.’ So books, magazines, pictures or films that pander to base sexual appetites are considered pornographic.

Some argue that pornography should be outlawed, since it is associated with immorality. Others maintain that pornography is not obscene or immoral in their own minds, and so consider any restrictions an infringement of personal freedom.

In the United States, as elsewhere, there has been much confusion over the matter. Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once said: “In all my years of service on the Supreme Court, the subject of obscenity and how to deal with it has given me the most difficulty.”

Recent Trend

How widespread has the tide of pornography become? In the United States, Cincinnati lawyer Charles Keating, Jr., stated: “The spread of pornography has reached epidemic proportions in our country.”

Writing in McCall’s magazine, Myra Mannes declared: “We have, in short, now reached a state in our society when anything goes, where all is permitted, and where no limits are placed on the appetites of the individual, on the gratification of his desires and fantasies.”

Not only has there been a great increase in the number of pornographic publications available at bookstores and elsewhere, but a flood of such material has been sent through the mail. As an example, an eleven-year-old received an unsolicited advertisement in the mail displaying twenty-six detailed pornographic poses.

There has also been a huge increase in pornographic films, plays and ‘peep shows.’ These feature nudity, suggested or actual fornication, lesbianism, homosexuality and masochism.

Even films and plays for general audiences are becoming more open in their display of nudity and suggested sexual acts. For example, the following comments are from movie advertisements in the relatively conservative New York Times on just one day taken at random, October 16, 1970:

“Preoccupied by the way nude bodies and sexual acts look when photographed sideways, in zoomy long shots, in roving close-ups.”

“Body to body is the name of the game.”

“Erotica—exotica—psychotica.”

“Co-ed orgy baths! . . . The ‘with-it’ sex highs!”

“Straight sex, boisterous carnality.”

“Icy sexuality, perversity in full bloom.”

In the same day’s paper were advertisements for stage plays with suggestive comments, four of them featuring pictures of partially and, to the reader, totally nude men and women.

Court Decisions

In 1957 the United States Supreme Court ruled against obscene literature, defining it in this way: “Obscene material deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.” The word “prurient” means to long for, or to be characterized by lascivious thought.

In the following few years, there were several convictions in prominent cases. But then in 1967 the Supreme Court reversed obscenity convictions in twenty-two cases in thirteen states. The reversal was based on the idea that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution protected such material.

In 1968 the Supreme Court considered a New York law valid when it prohibited the sale of obscene materials to persons under seventeen years of age. However, this was taken as an open invitation by publishers of pornographic material to concentrate on the adult market. Hence the many slogans: “FOR ADULTS ONLY.”

A landmark case was decided late in 1968. It concerned a Swedish film that abounded in scenes of nudity and sexual intercourse. A New York federal court jury declared the film obscene, and barred its importation. But a United States Court of Appeals overruled the jury decision, and the film was widely shown throughout the country.

This ruling was based on the 1957 definition of what was considered “prurient.” Part of that 1957 decision included the thought that pornography was not protected under the Constitution because it lacked “redeeming social importance.” But the appeals court considered the Swedish film to have some “redeeming social importance.” So now publishers of pornographic material often make it a point to claim that their material has some “redeeming social importance.”

In Denmark all prohibitions against written pornography were repealed by law in June of 1967. Prohibitions against pornographic pictures disappeared in July of 1969. About the only restrictions left apply to barring the sale of such material to children under sixteen and forbidding offensive window displays.

A similar legalizing has been proposed in the United States by a commission created by Congress and appointed by the former president. In its report issued at the end of September 1970, a majority of the commission recommended eliminating all legal restrictions on pornography for adults.

Many condemned the report. But it did demonstrate a trend. Senator Robert C. Byrd stated: “This outrageously permissive commission shows how far this nation has traveled down the road of moral decadence.”

What Effect?

Some who favor the distribution of pornography claim that this will have no harmful effect on public morals. The President’s Commission on pornography also contended that there was no evidence that pornography is harmful. Yet, its report admitted the following:

“This is not to say that exposure to explicit sexual materials has no effect upon human behavior. A prominent effect of exposure to sexual materials is that persons tend to talk more about sex as a result of seeing such materials. In addition, many persons become temporarily sexually aroused upon viewing explicit sexual materials and the frequency of their sexual activity may, in consequence, increase for short periods.”

But what about the continued bombardment of all forms of pornography over a period of time? The consequences are far more damaging than the above report suggests. Commenting on this, Dr. Natalie Shainess, member of a New York psychiatric institute, said:

“In advertisements, films and books, pornography washes over us like a great wave of sewage. It corrupts the body, and numbs the mind and senses. So overwhelming is this tide that nobody—not myself, a practicing psychoanalyst—can remain untouched by it.

“From my own professional practice, I know that the more we are exposed to things that are degrading, the more we are degraded. . . .

“With this lowering of self-control, in and out of marriage, the weaker or anti-social individual who cannot get sex when and where he needs it will take it when and where he pleases—by any means. In this sense, pornography is likely to lead to increased sex crimes.”

Law enforcement officials strongly agree with that analysis. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s J. Edgar Hoover blamed the spread of pornography for much of the alarming increase in crimes of sex violence. He said: “Such filth in the hands of young people and curious adolescents does untold damage and leads to disastrous consequences.”

Detroit police inspector Herbert Case stated: “There has not been a sex murder in the history of our department in which the killer was not an avid reader of lewd magazines.” Chicago police superintendent O. W. Wilson said: “Sexual arousals from obscene literature have been responsible for criminal behavior from vicious assaults to homicide.” And Postmaster General Winton M. Blount called its spread the “commercial degradation of the human spirit,” and said that “pornography is a threat to the best interests of our children.”

In England’s famous ‘Moors Trial,’ a husband and wife were convicted of torturing, sexually abusing and murdering three young children and burying the bodies on the moors. They were both ardent readers of the Marquis de Sade’s perverted literature and owned much pornographic material. One reporter doubted that these murders would have been committed if the couple had not had free access to such literature.

Also, pornography encourages permissive sexual behavior that leads to venereal disease. Dr. Murray Elkins of New York’s Queens County Medical Society declared: “I think it’s time the doctors should face up to the health aspect of pornography and smut and do something about it. Pornography stimulates promiscuity which, in turn, is an important factor in the increase of the venereal disease rate.” And venereal disease is spreading rapidly nearly everywhere in the world, including Denmark.

Harmful Attitudes

The reading of pornography leads to unhealthy, damaging attitudes on sex and marriage, since it is separated from moral teaching. In England’s Guardian Weekly of September 19, 1970, child psychiatrist Louise W. Eickhoff stated:

“Sex indoctrination, far from leading to greater stability in marriage has led to increased sexual dissatisfaction, interchange of marital partners, and sexual excesses.

“Sex education, apart from parents, in school is dangerous, for it destroys the inbuilt natural safety devices of personal, private, intimate, love connection that protect the individual from society, from evil and harm.”

While these comments were particularly directed at sex education in school, they are even more valid in connection with learning about sex from pornographic material.

Also, Dana L. Farnsworth, Harvard University’s director of health services, observed:

“Most college psychiatrists have come to the conclusion that the students who ignore sexual standards are not more happy or effective than students who observe those standards; they are, in fact, the ones most afflicted with depression, anxiety, a tendency toward acting-out behavior, and loss of self-esteem. Although sexual restrictions can and do produce emotional disorders, complete sexual freedom produces even more disabling conflicts.”

Thus when sex is taken out of its proper place, mental, moral and even physical degradation result. This is so because true happiness in the use of sex organs can result only within the bounds that their Creator, Jehovah God, purposed. That boundary is in marriage, and marriage alone. Sexual relations should be between husband and wife only, and man’s Creator considers that union sacred.—Heb. 13:4.

Pornography treats something sacred in a loveless and degrading way. It stresses personal gratification, not the unselfish love needed for happy marriage. In this regard California District Attorney Cecil Hicks said: “I’m afraid that by having these shows and books and films, even without letting kids see them, you give young people the idea that sex of any kind is available anywhere at anytime with anyone. Do that and you eventually destroy the family unit as we know it—and the family unit is the basic unit of our civilization.”

Historians agree with Arnold Toynbee’s analysis that the spread of obscenity is an unfailing symptom of a civilization’s breakdown. That breakdown is proceeding world wide. It becomes more obvious each year as a growing wave of mental pollution flows across stage, screen and literature.

Protect Loved Ones

One way to protect your loved ones from this polluting flood is by taking pains to see that they get the least exposure possible to such literature, films or plays. Explain to your children its harmful effects, and at the same time teach them to have a healthy respect for marriage and its privileges.

Even more important is the regular taking into the mind of that which is truly upbuilding. It is only by fortifying the mind with what is wholesome and right that one can withstand the assaults of this world’s filth. That is why Jehovah’s witnesses spend so much time with their families studying the highest standards of morality, those of the Creator of man, found in his Word the Bible. “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.” (2 Tim. 3:16) Never was there more of a need for this discipline.

Without such guidance on the family level, young ones especially will be exposed to the hurricane-force winds of corruption blowing today. So protect yourself and your loved ones from the rising tide of pornography, for it is degrading and God-dishonoring, perverting what He has created sacred.

Effects of Caffeine

● Caffeine is a stimulant that is found in coffee and tea. Taken in small doses, it increases circulation. However, if taken in large amounts, it causes nervousness and loss of sleep and may cause headaches and digestive disturbances.

Can Lima Ever Forget?

By “Awake!” correspondent in Peru

JANUARY 9, 1570! That was a date that brought terror into the life of colonial Peru, the memory of which still produces a chill sensation of fear. Oddly enough, it was under warm sunny skies that a vessel flying the colors of Philip II, King of Spain, entered the harbor at Callao and dropped anchor amid barks and brigantines from many faraway lands. The crew busied themselves making fast the rigging, while passengers put off for shore in a small boat.

One of those passengers, a Spanish man, Serván de Cerezuela, carried under his arm an official portfolio, the contents of which would very quickly cause a sensation among the colonists. It was a royal document, signed and sealed almost a year earlier, one that would let loose upon the inhabitants a three-hundred-year campaign of intimidation and continuous apprehension. The authority of the dreaded “Holy Office,” better known as the Spanish Inquisition, had now been extended to Peru.

Not without reason did Peru’s European inhabitants view this development with great uneasiness. Had they not witnessed the operations of the “Holy Office” in their homelands? All the memories and rumors of horrible, maiming tortures and painful deaths doubtless crowded into their minds.

The Inquisition

This awesome weapon of fear, the Inquisition, was forged first in the early part of the thirteenth century. Its purpose: the searching out and punishing of heretics and unbelievers. It began to take definite form when, in 1232, Pope Gregory IX appointed permanent judges, to be later known as “inquisitors.” Everyone living in so-called “Christian” lands was to be coerced into loyalty to the one Church. No dissent, no exercise of private judgment, no questioning of the doctrines of the Church was to be permitted.

Church representatives insisted that their investigations, including torture, were conducted out of love for the victims. And as to the responsibility for burning countless persons at the stake, they declared that such executions were performed, not by the Church, but by the secular authority.

But as to the real responsibility for a multitude of horrible deaths, we may best determine the matter by reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, where this admission appears: “The predominant ecclesiastical nature of the [“Holy Office”] can hardly be doubted. . . . The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake.” (Vol. 8, pp. 34, 37) Later, the torture itself, authorized in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV, was, for reasons of secrecy, entrusted to the inquisitors themselves.

The lengths to which those supposedly Christian inquisitors went in order to extract confessions or incriminating evidence from their victims chills the blood. Often they were monks chosen from the ranks of the Dominican Order, men whose unnatural family-less life and fanaticism had hardened them to the point where they had no sympathy for the suffering, no hesitation in inflicting the most excruciating tortures.

Lima Under the Scourge

No wonder, then, that Lima’s inhabitants were in consternation. No secret would now be sacred. One’s every utterance could become grounds for accusation. One might be denounced by one’s own wife, husband, child or parent. Indeed, such was the aim of the “Edict of Accusation,” a document that was read each third Sunday of Lent after “solemn mass and sermon.” The following excerpts translated from Annals of the Lima Inquisition speak for themselves:

“We, the Inquisitors against the heretical iniquities and apostasy in the kingdoms of Peru, to all the neighbors and inhabitants of the city of Kings, of whatever state, condition, preeminence and dignity they may be, greetings in Christ.

“Inasmuch as we make known to you that, for the greater advancement of the faith, it is fitting to separate the bad seed from the good, and to avoid all disservice to Our Lord, we command each and every one of you that, if you should know of, or should see or hear tell of, any person alive, present, absent or deceased, that has said or believed any heretical words or opinions, suspicious, erroneous, rash, bad-sounding, scandalous or blasphemous, you should tell or manifest it to us.

“We command you to denounce before us if you know of, or have heard tell of, any persons having kept the sabbaths in observance of the law of Moses. . . . or have affirmed that Jesus Christ is not God, . . . or that he was not born of Our Lady, virgin before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth. . . . or that the Pope or the ministers of the altar do not have the power to absolve sins . . . or that there is no purgatory and that in the churches there should be no images of saints, or that there is no need to pray for the dead. . . .

“We command you to notify us if you have heard it said, or know of, any person having Bibles in [Spanish]. . . .

“Therefore, by the tenor of this admonition, we exhort and require, under penalty of major excommunication, . . . we command each and every one of those who have known of or who has done any of the above declared things, that you come and appear before us, personally, to tell and manifest it within six days of the publication of this edict, or of its having come to your knowledge.”

Is it not evident how that Edict was calculated to set every man’s hand against his brother, to encourage people to spy on one another?

The “Calesa Verde” (“Green Carriage”) might appear anytime of the day or night on Lima’s streets. Sent forth by the inquisitors to bring in the accused, it was a sight to strike mortal fear into the beholder. As it slowly progressed down the street even the ordinary citizen would panic. What had he done now? What indiscretion had he committed? Who had informed on him? And when, in the middle of the night, a rap came on the door, it was enough to transfix the occupants with sheer terror. Could it be the Green Carriage?

Victims of All Kinds

During the colonial period alone it is reported that fifty-nine persons were burned at the stake in Peru. Charges included blasphemy, witchcraft, bigamy, possessing a Bible in the common language of the people, apostasy, professing a non-Catholic faith. Even high-ranking members of the clergy were not exempt. On April 13, 1578, Fray Francisco de la Cruz was burned at the stake for teaching that the Church was guilty of the practice of buying and selling official positions in the Church; that auricular confession should be abolished; that monks and clergymen should marry, and that the Holy Scriptures should be in the common tongue.

On October 29, 1581, English pirate Captain John Oxnem and two members of his crew were burned, no, not for piracy on the high seas, but for being Lutherans. On November 17, 1595, Portuguese Juan Fernando de las Heras and three of his fellow nationals were burned, having been accused as “Judaizing Jews.” They had observed the seventh-day sabbath.

The punishment of those convicted was made a public event, conducted with solemnity and pomp. Begun in the early hours of the morning, the auto-da-fé (literally, act of the faith) would last late into the night. Clergy and prominent citizens would seek “ringside” seats, the better to contemplate the condemned in their final moments of agony in the fire. Shouts and cheers of the fanatical rabble would often drown out the cries of the victims.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, January 22, 1971