Politicians have harvested the votes of folks opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision for three decades. Their resulting ability to name very conservative justices to the Supreme Court has led to the very wealthy gaining ever more power to ignore the fundamental precepts of democracy. Anonymous corporations can now pour millions of dollars into advertising to elect the candidates of their choice, even as those candidates work at making it harder for regular folks to vote. The rich get richer while regular folks often can't afford to buy a house.
(I ask my friends and relatives with whom I have agreed to disagree in the past to read and consider the following)
Please decide whether you think the following statements are true or false:
Is giving the Government the power to force women to bear children consistent with our values? Where does an individual’s right to pursue “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” stop and governments control of a citizen’s life begin?
If we force a women to carry through a pregnancy don’t we owe some duty to that child to insure it has an opportunity for a good life?
Our form of government is in essence an agreement that we will each be free except to the extent our activities impact other persons.
The Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not..” They do not say “Thou shalt not allow others to…” The 10 Commandments are God’s instructions to each of us on what we must do be meet God’s standards.
God is the judge of whether we meet his standards, he did not delegate authority to judge sins to us. Rather like when you leave the house and tell your kids to stay out of the cookie jar, you are telling them each as individuals the conduct you expect from them, you are not deputizing them to prevent their siblings from raiding the cookie jar - because that would surely lead to a fight.
After Moses came down with the 10 Commandments Moses people started coming to Moses with complaints about other people’s behavior and suggesting punishments. Thus began Leviticus, an incredible collection of laws imposed, not as an agreement between the governed, but as laws of God to be enforced by man.
What made Jesus a revolutionary threat in the eyes of the Temple leaders was he rejected that notion that man was deputized to enforce God’s laws. But Jesus could directly repudiate Leviticus because the religious leaders in his time did not want their power threatened and would quickly convict him of heresy and execute him if they had enough evidence.
So Jesus did not directly repudiate Leviticus. Instead he preached what God does want us to do - love your neighbor and live by the Golden rule. His message was focus on your own relationship with God and stop judging others. But occasionally Jesus couldn’t resist pointing out the silliness of all the rules that grew out of the notion in Leviticus that God authorized man to judge what is a sins against God. In the Sermon on the Mount, far from the Temple he let himself go a little and ridiculed a lot of the minor rules that grew out of the Leviticus notion men could determine what God wanted.
When Jesus later arrived in Jerusalem (John Chapter 8) the Temple leaders took a woman who had been found committing adultery to Jesus. They said to Jesus Leviticus says this women should be stoned to death, what do you say we should do? Jesus realized they were trying to get him to directly repudiate Leviticus so they could imprison him. So at first he just said nothing. They kept insisting, demanding an answer. So Jesus gave them an answer that instead of rejecting Leviticus told them why Leviticus was wrong. Let the person who is without sin cast the first stone.
Quite simply, Jesus's fundamental message was the laws of God are to be judged by God, not us. Our job is to focus on our own behavior.
God has no problem with us creating laws among ourselves to create a harmonious society where people are free to pursue their life without interference from others. God gave us a brain, he gave us the ability to be happy and enjoy life. But those laws are rooted in protecting our ability to live the life we choose, not in judging and punishing others for their life choices.
Sometimes our laws overlap with Gods. We have laws against conduct - like murder, or theft - that has a negative impact on other people because when one person commits such an act against another person it creates anger and leads to a like response. And it interferes with the victims right to live their life. But we must guard against doing exactly what Jesus advised against - assuming the right to judge sin.
If a women in your community has an abortion it has no negative consequences on any other person in the community - it does not generally raise the possibility of someone lashing out in anger or seeking revenge. It may be a sin but it is God who will judge that sin.
You may be concerned about the life of the fetus. You think it is somehow your duty to save the fetus. Here are some questions about that view.
1. Is not God all powerful? Does he need your help to deal with an abortion in his own way?
2. Does a fetus have a soul? If you believe the answer is yes ask yourself :
Does the soul of an aborted fetus go to heaven, or to hell?
How can a fetus commit a sin?
If it can't commit a sin do you believe God will condemn the fetus for the sins of the mother?
If an aborted fetus is going to heaven - what are you saving it for?
The chance to live life with a mother than doesn't want it so it can commit some sin and go to hell?
b. If the fetus does not have a soul until, as Genesis suggests, God breathes in the breath of life, it is the mother's soul who is at risk, and you are choosing to stand in judgment and take away the mother's right to make choices in life.
Compare to the issue of control A gun is a tool whose only real purpose is to take life. Tens of thousands of children and adults lose their life each year to gun violence. Regulating guns is a legitimate subject for law because it impacts living souls.
When you focus your efforts using the power of government to force a change in the behavior of women whom you judge are about to commit a sin, you reject Jesus in the same way the Temple establishment rejected Jesus. You are focusing on forcing people not to sin instead of focusing on the Golden Rule and treating others as you would like to be treated.
You may be concerned about the life of the fetus. You think it is somehow your duty to save the fetus. Here are some questions about that view.
1. Is not God all powerful? Does he need your help to deal with an abortion in his own way?
2. Does a fetus have a soul? If you believe the answer is yes ask yourself :
Does the soul of an aborted fetus go to heaven, or to hell?
How can a fetus commit a sin?
If it can't commit a sin do you believe God will condemn the fetus for the sins of the mother?
If an aborted fetus is going to heaven - what are you saving it for?
The chance to live life with a mother than doesn't want it so it can commit some sin and go to hell?
b. If the fetus does not have a soul until, as Genesis suggests, God breathes in the breath of life, it is the mother's soul who is at risk, and you are choosing to stand in judgment and take away the mother's right to make choices in life.
Compare to the issue of control A gun is a tool whose only real purpose is to take life. Tens of thousands of children and adults lose their life each year to gun violence. Regulating guns is a legitimate subject for law because it impacts living souls.
When you focus your efforts using the power of government to force a change in the behavior of women whom you judge are about to commit a sin, you reject Jesus in the same way the Temple establishment rejected Jesus. You are focusing on forcing people not to sin instead of focusing on the Golden Rule and treating others as you would like to be treated.
No comments:
Post a Comment