Many Issues have Moral Overtones
Christian vegan Tony Boutros ND /Researcher /Speaker with over 25 years
experience in all areas of natural health, including soil
enrichment,emotional healing, life mastery etc., writes:
"...yes Vasu, we cannot judge anyones motives, everyone is trying to do
the right thing whether they are going about it the right way or not, it's
for God to judge not me."
I responded:
Tony, I understand you're saying we cannot judge, but I feel we should be
consistent about it. Shaking a finger at one person and admonishing him or
her with, "Right now," "dog," "that, too...", etc. while looking the other
way at or glorifying teenage sex IS inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
In the late '90s, my friend Ira said he disagreed with the accounts of
opposition to capital punishment on the religious left, in one of the
political manuscripts I'd sent him, The Next Distraction.
Ira referred to what he saw as the "I'm OK, You're OK" moral relativism of
the liberal and religious left (and I'm thinking he might have been
referring to New Age spirituality?) as "airy-fairy," where we can't judge
one another, so we won't take a stand against abortion, but we will protest
the execution of a murderer, etc.
On USENET, in 1986-88, pro-life student John Morrow at Rutgers University in
New Jersey struck me as a liberal Christian, and he successfully debated
pro-choice liberals. When a satanist said, "Do what thou will shall be the
whole of the law," John Morrow replied, "A moral relativist? What if one is
homophobic, xenophobic, etc.?" indicating that even on the left, there are
moral absolutes.
And there are moral absolutes on the right, too!
Jesus repeatedly upheld the Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17)
as did his apostles (see chapters 10, 15, and 21 of Acts). Even if Paul's
gospel displaces Jesus' gospel, with Paul referring to his previous
adherence to the Law is "garbage," and the Old Testament becomes irrelevant,
Christians often ignore the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his
epistles.
Instead they cite II Corinthians 12:8-9 where Paul claims the risen Jesus
said to him three times, "...my grace is sufficient for thee..." as a
license to do as they please. But I've never heard them cite II Corinthians
12:8-9 to justify the right to an abortion (nor same-sex relations,
either)!
"Choice, choice, choice..."
Christians must not resort to intellectual and theological dishonesty!
At a pro-life demonstration years ago, when Father Frank Pavone of Priests
For Life asked Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King if the
pro-life demonstrations were comparable to the civil rights movement, she
replied, "Father, this IS the civil rights movement!"
If protecting unborn children is a noble cause and calling, a just and
religious cause, like the civil rights movement, why should pro-lifers have
to resort to lies and deception?
The Ten Commandments warn against bearing false witness.
Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: "Let your word 'yes' be yes and
your 'no,' no. Anything beyond this is from the evil one."
(Isn't Satan known as a deceiver?)
Even the apostle Paul, who taught a completely different theology than that
of Jesus, condemned dishonesty (Colossians 3:13).
The apostle Paul said, "If anyone has confidence in the Law, I am ahead of
him."
Does that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who repeatedly upheld the
Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), as did his apostles (see
chapters 10, 15 and 21 of Acts)?
If Christians aren't even following the moral instructions Paul gives
throughout his epistles, if they aren't even following Paul, then no one's
going to take them seriously, what to speak of putting them ahead of Jesus!
Boy, they "believe"!
Paul quotes Jesus as having said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient
for thee." (II Corinthians 12:8-9) Christians sometimes misinterpret this
verse to mean they're free to do as they please—ignoring the rest of the New
Testament, and (especially) Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
The apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not
curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with
food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly
governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the
hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need
(Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts
before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians
6:1)
The apostle Paul wrote in I Corinthians Chapter 7:
"It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because of prevailing
immoralities, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her
own husband.
"The husband must render to his wife the obligations that are due her, and
similarly the wife to her husband...
"Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a time to devote
yourselves unhindered by prayer; and come together again, so that Satan may
not tempt you on account of your lack of self-control."
(The apostle Paul's words here suggest regulated or restricted sexual
activity, even within marriage!)
"I say this by way of concession, not as a regulation. I wish all were as I
am (celibate), but each person has his own gift from God, the one in this
direction, the other in that.
"To the single and the widows, I say that it is good for them to remain as I
am (celibate); but if they cannot restrain their passions, let them marry,
for it is better to marry than to be consumed by passion.
"To the married couples I command -- not really I but the Lord -- that the
wife must not leave her husband; and in case she does separate, she must
either stay single or make up with her husband. And the husband must not
divorce his wife.
"...if the unbeliever wants to separate, let there be separation..."
(Jesus forbade divorce, except in the case of unfaithfulness. And here
we see Paul forbidding divorce, except in the case of an unbeliever
demanding separation!)
"Regarding the unmarried I have no divine injunction, but as one who has
received mercy from the Lord to be trustworthy, I give my opinion... it is
good for a person to remain in his present situation.
"Are you united to a wife? do not seek release. Are you unattached to a
woman? Do not seek a wife. But in case you marry, you do not sin; nor does
the unmarried woman sin if she marries...
"The single person is concerned with the Lord's affairs, how to please the
Lord, but the married person is concerned with things of the world, how to
please his wife; he has divided interests.
"The unmarried woman or the virgin is interested in the Lord's affairs, that
she may be dedicated to Him in body and spirit; but the married woman is
concerned with things of the world, how she may please her husband."
"I mention this for your own good, not to throw a rope around you but to
promote proper behavior and undisturbed devotion to the Lord."
Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality.
"This is God's will—your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from
sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity
and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of
God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)
Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I
Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27)
and incest (I Corinthians 5:1).
"Make no mistake," warned Paul, "no fornicator or idolater, none who are
guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or
grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom
of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 [NEB])
Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, murder, quarreling,
deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30),
drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality,
magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy
(Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul
speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32),
dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit,
avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)
Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice
self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7;
II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray
constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)
Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness
(Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with
humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms
and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19;
Colossians 3:16)
Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshiping, and
that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14)
According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and
are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive
clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)
The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), author of God's
Covenant with Animals (it's available through People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, or PETA) says Christians citing "three times..." are
quoting Paul out of context. Paul was very strict with himself:
"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by
any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
(I Corinthians 9:27)
Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's
salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).
Christians who focus only on II Corinthians 12:8-9 MUST be quoting Paul out
of context, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense: on the one hand,
Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, etc. will not inherit
the kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying if you call on Jesus
three times... you can do whatever you want?!
Boy, not all Christians are pro-life! Couldn't pro-choice Christians
cite "three times..." to justify their right to abortion?!
The traditional interpretation of II Corinthians 12:8-9 is that Paul had a
"thorn" in his side, and asked the Lord what to do about it. The response
was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee." This was a response to a
specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul
himself have given so many other moral instructions throughout his epistles?
Reverend Frank Hoffman, a retired pro-life vegan Methodist minister, and
owner of the www.all-creatures.org Christian
vegan website says he agrees with the traditional interpretation.
The apostle Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to
practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I
Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12).
But even conservative Christians distinguish between victimless crimes and
crimes with victims.
If a pregnant teen goes into a Crisis Pregnancy Center, the Christians there
will not judge her for the sin of fornication, nor equate the victimless
crime of fornication with the sin of killing an unborn child.
Even conservative Christians distinguish between crimes with victims and
victimless crimes.
Paul was never one of Jesus' original apostles: he never met Jesus nor knew
him in life during his earthly ministry. The late Reverend Janet Regina
Hyland (1933 - 2007), author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's
available through PETA) once said to me in a phone conversation, what makes
Paul's revelation any more valid than Mohammed's (or Joseph Smith's, etc.)?
Even Oral Roberts in 1987 claimed to have had a vision of a 900-foot Jesus!
We cannot judge. I appreciate you not being self-righteous. But does
this mean we cannot take a stand against racism and/or abortion? How can we
end any social injustice unless there is moral outrage? And how can we
distinguish truth from false doctrine without judging, or at the very least,
without having a set of scriptures and core beliefs and values?
In a debate over abortion found in The People's Almanac #3 (1981),
the pro-choice side argues:
"The Catholic position allows abortion only if the death of the fetus is an
'indirect consequence' of surgery, such as the removal of a cancerous
uterus. Otherwise, the life of the fetus is considered more important than
that of the mother, even if she has ten other children. And why? Because of
the belief that original sin dooms the unbaptized fetus to eternal
punishment. The Catholic Church is trying to put its religious beliefs into
law so that they will be imposed on everyone. The Methodists and others
tried to do something very similar with Prohibition."
The pro-life response:
"Many issues, like civil rights and welfare reform, have moral overtones. A
right-to-life amendment would be more like the 13th Amendment, which
abolished slavery, than like the 18th Amendment, which outlawed liquor.
Catholics are not the only people against abortion. We count in our number
Protestants, Jews, and atheists."
"Many issues, like civil rights and welfare reform, have moral overtones,"
yes.
Birch Bayh authored two amendments to the Constitution!
After Eisenhower's health concerns in the 1950s, Congress began studying the
Constitution’s vague provisions for presidential disability and vice
presidential succession. The 1963 assassination of JFK brought a new urgency
to the matter.
The resulting 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in
1967, created an orderly transition of power in the case of death,
disability, or resignation of the President, and a method of selecting a
Vice President when a vacancy occurs in that office.
Bayh also authored the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age from 21
to 18.
As I told Catholic pro-lifer Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life about a decade
ago, as a political liberal myself, I don't think pro-lifers should be
packing the courts with conservatives in the hopes of overturning Roe v.
Wade, but rather pushing for a Constitutional Amendment.
(A narrow liberal majority on the Supreme Court has preserved Miranda
rights, privacy rights, ruled favorably for LGBT rights, etc.)
Jim didn't think a Human Life Amendment is politically feasible at this
point in time, saying it's damn near impossible to add amendments to the
Constitution. But Birch Bayh proves otherwise.
If there really is a "pro-life majority" out there, pro-lifers should be
pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn.
That's democracy!
Go on to: Many Vegans are Deeply Spiritual
Return to: Articles