Doubletalk and Morality
Ordinarily, your humble editor does not omit the name of someone being discussed, but since this article involves a political figure—but is not about politics—it might be better to ignore who the person is so that everyone can concentrate on what was said. It doesn’t matter whether the facts relate to a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, so far as this article is concerned. We will only acknowledge that the remarks occurred in March of 2023 by one Representative in the U. S. Congress. That individual will be called 435-X.
Most Bible students are aware that God commissioned King Saul to kill all the Amalekites—including their animals (1 Sam. 15:3). Samuel went to see Saul when he returned from the battle, and the king affirmed, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13). But Samuel answered him: “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” (v. 14).
The case presented by both sides cannot be true. Either the animals were killed, as Saul claimed, or they had not been put to death. If they were yet alive, then Saul did not do what he alleged to have done. This issue needs to be resolved. Believe it or not, Saul admits they did bring the animals back—but they only brought them to sacrifice to Jehovah (v. 15).
Samuel rebukes Saul for being disobedient (1 Sam. 15:16-19). The reason the king brought the animals back is irrelevant; he did not destroy them, as he was commanded to do. Saul, however, was not convinced; once again he claims: “But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag, king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites” (v. 20). Then he acknowledges that the people took the animals to sacrifice to Jehovah (v. 21).
Apparently, in his mind, if Saul did part of what God commanded, that was sufficient for him to claim obedience. God and Samuel disagreed: “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (v. 22). Finally, Saul admitted that he sinned (v. 24). He gave up trying to doubletalk his way into pleasing God. That puts him one step above 435-X.
“I’m Pro-Life!”
Abortion activist 435-X claimed to be pro-life. How nice! On what was that claim based? The rationale behind the claim is that 435-X cares about born children. Wait a minute! It’s all right to kill unborn children, but we must respect born children. Sounds like Saul’s doubletalk, doesn’t it? “Since I care for some children (but don’t mind killing others), that makes me pro-life!” In other words, 435-X can be both pro-abortion and pro-life at the same time. Really?
To add to the confusion, 435-X is a “devout” Catholic and is being denied communion. Of course, that is also a contradiction. The Roman Catholic Church decides what is moral and what is not for Catholics. They believe that killing unborn children is immoral (which it is). Thus, they have the right to remove from their fellowship members who support this immorality.
435-X cares about children who have entered this world, but supports killing them before they are born. 435-X wants to be Catholic but does not believe what that church teaches regarding the sanctity of human life. 435-X is a walking contradiction—just as Saul was. One cannot be obedient and disobedient at the same time. The Catholic Church nailed it when they said that this individual needed to repent.
Nevertheless, 435-X claims to be more “Catholic” than the church’s leaders and charges them to be overly concerned about protecting unborn babies from abortion. Well, just how much concern is appropriate? If 15 babies out of 20 pregnant women are put to death, is that a cause for concern? If it is, does it remain a concern if only 10 out of 20 are aborted? Or should society accept 5 out of 20 as not being a cause for concern?
Should a community of 1,000 hire a policeman if it only registers one murder per year? What if one year it jumps to three? Should we be concerned now? And if the rate soars to 10 one year (1 in every hundred citizens), do we now have a cause for alarm. When does murder become wrong—at 10, 3, or 1? Are we overly concerned to try to prevent murders even if the number is low?
435-X says women need to have the “free will” to make decisions about their health care. As this news story points out health care means “killing unborn babies in elective abortions.” Question: “What kind of free will does the baby have?” Answer: “None!” The mother deserves adequate care, to say the least, but so does the baby. He is not part of the mother’s body; biology teaches that the child is a unique individual, with chromosomes from the father and the mother. He has done nothing to occasion his murder.
LGBTQ
One should not be surprised that this topic surfaced. Since 435-X disagrees with the Catholic Church on abortion, where is this person on homosexual issues, which are also a Biblical subject? Need one ask? The church’s stance is “very negative” and “anti LGBTQ.” Could the reason be that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and the Catholic Church is taking this view because of that fact? 435-X said: “Right now, our challenge are [sic] trans kids.” What does that mean—if not helping preteens change their genders?
Fortunately, a backlash against young children desiring to change genders has arisen, and some leftists are actually beginning to make sense in their opposition to such radical ideas. Few, if any, children know of a certainty that they want to change genders at age 8.
435-X claims to see kids all the time on the streets because their families have disowned them. A number of factors could be involved. Homosexuality might be one cause, but drugs could also be another—not to mention stealing (in order to support a habit). Some might also just be rebellious and prefer living on the streets without any rules as opposed to being in an environment where parents have expectations. 435-X also added these words:
All God’s children, they have their own dignity and worth, their own individuality, their own authenticity. And that’s a beautiful thing for us to embrace God’s creation.”
Say, 435-X, don’t you think these words apply to infants in the womb? Have you not read that God “forms the spirit of man within Him?” (Zech. 12:1)? Each child who comes into the world is God’s child. He possesses dignity and worth, his own individuality and authenticity. A baby is a beautiful creation; so why are you so intent on killing them while honoring those who have made bad choices?
Teenagers do have worth, and they came into the world as God’s children, but many of them have turned their back on God. They choose to live outside the parameters of God’s will. It may be with drugs or alcohol; they may be involved in numerous sexual liaisons. Some of chosen same-sex partners, which the Scriptures refer to as vile and against nature. These bad choices do not mean they no longer have worth. Jesus died for them to redeem them from these sins—if they choose to repent.
Jesus would not have gone to the cross if He did not believe each human being possesses worth. But many have given up the dignity they once had in favor of sin’s degrading devices. Repentance is necessary for all of those who have gone astray. Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of our sins when we are baptized. Dignity can be restored. And that truly is a beautiful thing.
435-X, The Evangelistic Abortion Advocate
435-X, the subject of this article, who resembles Saul as he double-talked with Samuel, has made clear past and future objectives. 435-X believes:
Taxpayers should be forced to pay for elective abortions.
Nuns should be forced “to serve the poor and elderly to cover contraception that may cause abortions.”
Late-term abortions are “sacred ground.”
Abortions should not be limited right up to time of birth.
Concerning the first of these, it is estimated that more than 50% of citizens do not believe abortion is moral and that it involves killing a human being. They should not be made to pay for something that so violates their principles. Incidentally, all other 434 of you, if Planned Parenthood has not been defunded, why not? They do not deserve any taxpayer funds.
It is not difficult to see why the church leadership of the Catholic Church does not like 435-X, who wants nuns to distribute products that would cause abortions. This is not a difference of opinion with church hierarchy; it is an outrageous attack against the institution 435-X wants to be part of.
This third point is nothing less than blasphemy. Providing later-term abortions is sacred ground? What god does 435-X serve—Baal? Certainly, it is not the God of the Bible. One wonders what God thinks of someone who would presume to be a “Christian” while undermining, objecting to, and attacking the morality God sets forth in the Scriptures?
It is beyond belief to call something holy ground that is, in reality, a field of blood. Is Ramah holy ground because Herod put to death all the infants there two years old and under (Matt. 2:18)? Was Moses standing on a mountain where infants had been sacrificed to Baal when God told him he was on holy ground? True, these would have been born, but the desire for the destruction of innocent children is the same. So is the blasphemy.
The fourth one of these concerns a bill that was actually passed in Congress in 2021. The bill would have forced states to legalize killing unborn babies for any reason up to birth (and forced taxpayers to pay for them). That this bill passed the House of Representatives shows what a sad condition this nation is in. Had it not failed in the Senate, it would be a law by now.
Citizens cannot probably stop what is occurring in states run by pro-abortion candidates, but Christians must speak out and vote against pro-abortion candidates everywhere else. If a law such as this one would have been passed, it might have taken decades to undo the damage. Think of the innocent blood that would have been spilled—and what a witness it would have been against this nation. Christians have the power to change things.
When Saul said he kept the commandment of God, neither Samuel nor God believed him—because the truth was too obvious to deny. When someone says, “I am Pro-abortion and a Christian,” we know better also. When someone says, “I’m a Christian, and I’m a homosexual,” we know that is not truth, either. Why? The answer is that God has revealed what is moral to us in the Scriptures. Those who oppose God may twist their words in 42 directions, but the truth remains true. Society tries but cannot change the Word.