Moral Issues in the News

For those who are, perhaps, reading this publication for the first time, the goals and purpose for it are laid out on the front page. In these two inside pages are a sampling of various types of subjects that are dealt with from time to time.

January 22 was the 47th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that struck down the laws of 46 states to allow abortion to be legal in this nation. Since that time about 65,000,000 infants have lost their lives, which would be equivalent to the entire population of Texas, New York, and Florida. If a foreign power had bombed into oblivion these three states, we would be outraged. It has taken this long for people to be educated enough to know that a human life is at stake. We already knew this fact Biblically, since God refers to the child in the womb by the same term as the child out of the womb (Luke 1:41,44; 2:12, 16).

But we now know it scientifically and medically as well; therefore, laws are now being introduced with more safeguards for babies in certain states, but not all efforts are successful. For example, according to the Orlando Sentinel of April 17, 2019, legislators in North Carolina passed a bill requiring doctors and nurses to take care of babies who are born alive during an unsuccessful late-term abortion (A4). Of course, one might think that a law would be unnecessary, but apparently it is. And the story does not have a happy ending. The Democrat governor vetoed the bill, and not enough support could be mustered to override it.

So, now what happens to an infant born alive under these conditions in North Carolina? Presumably, the child is murdered. Does that language sound too strong? Well, what would you call it when an innocent human being is either put to death or allowed to die\\—if it is not murder? If an innocent child, guilty of not harming anyone on the face of the earth, can have his life terminated, then where does anyone else stand, if an official governing body decides he is inconvenient or unwanted? What safeguards will eventually be done away concerning the elderly or those with incurable diseases?

Reportedly, various states are proposing "comfort rooms" for babies who survive an abortion attempt. They would more appropriately be named, "Death Closets," where they would be allowed to starve to death. Propagandists have learned, that, if the right description is used, people will not object. How many would be offended if Nazi death camps had been called "Transition Zones"?

So what if no child emerges alive from a "Comfort Room"? At least many people will have a clear conscience. Will well-chosen words, however, really hide the gruesome event occurring inside? Are we capable of self-deception that powerful?

A Comeback for Casting out Demons?

In the Scriptures, Jesus and the apostles cast out demons, which God allowed to possess some individuals during that time period. Those who were cleansed were profoundly grateful, and everyone knew that they could safely listen to those who had the power to cast them out. As the New Testament ends, however, no letter mentions exorcising demons or provides a procedure by which they could be cast out.

In other words, they ceased to be a problem. The miracles would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10), and that means no one would have exorcising power, either. Yet, along came William Peter Blatty's novel, made into a movie (The Exorcist), and suddenly a great interest developed regarding the subject. Some have really tried to capitalize on the success of the practice. In July of last year, according to Timothy Meads' TownHall article, a House of Representative's Chaplain (who is a Roman Catholic priest) in Washington, D.C., prayed "to cast out the demons inside Capitol Hill." Considering what has happened there since then, he was apparently unsuccessful.

But Bible believers knew that his efforts were futile because, despite what things may look like, there are no demons inhabiting anyone anywhere. Thus, no one can cast out what is not present. But he did modernize what he was doing. He tried to cast out the spirit of darkness, the spirit of discouragement, the spirit of sadness, and the spirit of divisiveness. Since these things still prevail, he failed to eradicate even modern "demons."

A Catholic bishop took the practice more literally. He rented a helicopter to sprinkle holy water over portions of the Columbian city of Buenaventura. Those familiar with the Scriptures know that the Bible does not mention "holy water." Where would one find such a thing; how would it be made? It is just ordinary water that has been blessed or sanctified by a priest.

Monsignor Ruben Dario Jaramillo Montoya, who lives in Columbia, said a prayer "intended to purge the area of demonic infestation." His efforts bore as much fruit as the attempt to cleanse Congress did\\—none. So many false concepts have been taught in religion that many people find it difficult to know what to believe, which is the reason we should always demand to see just where in the Bible a doctrine is taught.

In Genesis 6:5, the text says of man that "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Demons had nothing to do with it. Man did not control his desire to sin. Likewise, Satan possesses people, but it is through his ideology as it was in the days of Noah\\—not through direct contact. People still fall for the same temptations (1 John 2:15-17).

Killer Correspondence

Ever receive a mushy letter from a stranger that was better (or worse) than anything else you'd ever been mailed? According to the Orlando Sentinel (December 30, 2018), Christopher Watts got one. A woman wrote to him, "I found myself thinking about you." She went so far as to enclose a photo of herself, dressed hardly at all, in a bikini. She added, "I hope I put a smile on your face."

He hears from other women, also. One of them explained that she was just drawn to him "when she watched him take a deep breath as the judge read out his murder charges" (A3). No, your eyes are working fine. Watts has admitted to "murdering his pregnant wife and young daughters, loading their bodies into his truck, and dumping them at an oil work site."

This is just too bizarre. Why would anyone correspond with a confessed killer in this manner? If any woman desired to write to him, she should have offered him a Bible Correspondence Course rather than personal photographs. One woman was able to convince Jeffrey Dahmer to obey the gospel. So far as we know, he was Scripturally baptized before he was murdered in prison while serving a life sentence. Her actions did some good, but corresponding with a killer just because he is infamous is neither wise nor helpful.

Speaking of Bikinis

The life and death of Jeffrey Epstein has become of great interest to many people. ABC ran a two-hour special with interviews from several victims who were 14 at the time they became acquainted with him. They showed the picture with Prince Andrew's arm around the waist of a 17-year-old girl, which is their prerogative to show. One wonders why they did not mention that Bill Clinton was a frequent flier on the Lolita Express (26 times). His name appears on the flight manifest a number of times. Or is it only open season on Royals?

In the course of the broadcast, it was pointed out that Epstein would have girls sent to his quarters and pay them for taking off some of their clothes. A few of the girls were offended and protested. Others apparently co-operated and were given $200. When one was asked why she did it, she answered in a way that agrees with what preachers have been pointing out for decades. "I had just as much covered with my underwear as when I am on the beach." Hmm.

She is right; the disturbing thing is that people are incensed when young women are seen by a lecherous old man for money, but they see nothing wrong in dressing with even less of their bodies covered\\—and where all kinds of men can ogle them. Congratulations to this girl for noticing there is no difference.

Alcohol is another moral issue, which will not be mentioned here, but see last week's article and next week's to see what the Bible has to say about it.

Bible Passages

In addition to moral issues, time is spent looking at doctrinal matters, also. Just a few weeks ago, the idea of there being two different gospels\\—one for Jews and one for Gentiles was debunked. The New Testament clearly teaches the (meaning one) gospel is for all nations and all peoples. In the course of all of these moral and doctrinal teachings we have but one thought: What do the Scriptures teach? It does not matter what our point of view might be; the only concern must be, "What is God's perspective?"

For example, some have claimed that Genesis 1 is an allegory and that it is not intended to be taken literally. Is that the case? Well, how does it begin? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If it were an allegory, what does each noun represent? Does God stand for something besides Himself? If so, what? Are the heavens and the earth something other than what they appear to be? And has anyone noticed that this introduction is far more specific and literal than, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"?

Some have alleged that a huge gap\\—perhaps as long as millions of years\\—exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Why would anyone say that? Verse 2 picks right up where verse 1 left off. It continues seamlessly: "The earth was without form and void…." Why would anyone assume what is not stated?

Next, many have alleged that the days are millions of years long rather than being of 24-hours' duration. Then why are they said to have an evening and a morning? Nor is the evening and morning vaguely hinted at, but it is stated for each and every one of the six days (Gen. 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

God states what He created on each of the days; He created land animals and man on the sixth day. Mankind consisted of male and female, and, unlike the animals, they were made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). These are matter-of-fact statements\\—not symbolic sentiments. Nothing in Genesis 1 indicates figurative references; it is straightforward, accurate prose.

"But isn't there another creation account in chapter 2?" It is not "another"; it clarifies the details of the first narrative. Genesis 1 provides a summary of what occurred each day\\—not the details of it. They are provided in chapter 2:3-25. God created man in His own image, but the details are that He created Adam first out of the dust of the ground and then created Eve out of Adam's rib. He also married the two of them, and they became the first couple and then the first family. None of these details contradicts Genesis 1; they just provide additional information.

We trust you have enjoyed our run-through of the types of things that are found in these pages. The goal is to glorify the Word of God, honor Jesus, and clarify what is true and what is false. Hopefully, accomplishing these goals will challenge you to want to go to Heaven.