Q: Is Capital Punishment and the idea of Eugenics OKAY? Are they accepted and allowed?

Your question on capital punishment has been previously reviewed and answered so feel free to check it out at http://sploxa.blogspot.com/search?q=capital+punishment

“Eugenics” literally, meaning normal genes.  It can be defined as developing strategies for attempting to improve the gene pool of a species either by halting the transmission of unwanted characteristics or increasing the transmission of desired characteristics.  This can involve issues related to eugenics, human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia.

Eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein's sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics. The Nazis notoriously engaged in negative eugenics by genocide.  The word "eugenics" was coined by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to denote scientific endeavors to increase the proportion of persons with better than average genetic endowment through selective mating of marriage partners.

The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped, the mentally ill, and ethnic minorities (particularly people of mixed racial heritage), and the adopting out of their children to non-disabled, Caucasian parents. Similar programs spread widely in the early part of the twentieth century, and still exist in some parts of the world. It is important to note that no experiment in eugenics has ever been shown to result in measurable improvements in human health.

In Canada, the eugenics movement gained support early in the 20th century as prominent physicians drew a direct link between heredity and public health.  Eugenics was enforced by law in two Canadian provinces. In Alberta, the Sexual Sterilization Act was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women's Group.  Individuals were assessed using IQ tests. This posed a problem to new immigrants arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. As a result, many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who were unfairly categorized. The province of British Columbia enacted its own Sexual Sterilization Act in 1933. As in Alberta, the British Columbia Eugenics Board could recommend the sterilization of those it considered to be suffering from "mental disease or mental deficiency."

The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the Depression when sterilization was widely seen as a way of relieving society of the financial burdens imposed by defective individuals. The eugenics excesses of Nazi Germany diminished the popularity of the eugenics movement.

Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased call for caution.  Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical.

Consider the following principles and issues with modern new technologies and genetic engineering:


1.  The Bible states that all things were created by God and for Him (Colossians 1:16). As individuals we are made in God’s image and therefore should be subject to His plan (Genesis 1:26,27;Matthew 22:20,21). God designed all living things after certain “kinds” (Genesis 1:11-25). Too much manipulation of the genetics (altering species) could be delving into issues reserved for the Designer, Creator and God of the universe.



2. Creation was affected by the events recorded in Genesis 3 (mankind’s rebellion against God’s plan). Death entered into the world, and man’s genetic make-up and that of the rest of creation began a change toward demise. In some instances, genetic engineering could be seen as an attempt to undo this result called the “curse.” However, God has said that He has a remedy for this—redemption through Jesus Christ, as described in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15. The creation anticipates newness associated with the culmination of God’s promise to restore things to an even better state than the original. To go “too far” to fight this process may compete with the responsibility of individuals to trust in Christ for restoration (Philippians 3:21).



3. It seems evident from general scriptural study that God has a plan for the process of life. It seems evident that the process is unique and purposeful. There is concern that if humanity interferes with that process, something could go terribly wrong. For example, Psalm 139 describes an intimate relationship between the psalmist and his Creator from the womb. Would the use of genetic manipulation to create life outside of God’s plan jeopardize the development of a God-conscious soul? Would interfering with the process of physical life affect the prospects of spiritual life? Romans 5:12 tells us that all humanity sins because Adam sinned. It is understood that this involved the transference of the sin nature from generation to generation so that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). Paul explains the hope of eternity through the conquering of Adam’s sin. If all that are in Adam (from his seed) die, and Christ died for those in such condition, could life created outside of that “seed” be redeemed? (1 Corinthians 15:22, 23). 



4. There is also the concern that such bold strides in genetic engineering are motivated by a defiance of God. Genesis 11:1-9 discusses what happens when the creation attempts to exalt itself above the Creator. The people in Genesis 11 were unified, yet they were not submissive to God’s design. As a result, God stopped their progress. God certainly recognized that there were some dangers involved with the direction in which the people were headed. We have a similar warning in Romans 1:18-32. There God describes individuals that have become so enamored with the creation (actually worshipping it rather than the Creator) that those individuals spiraled down to destruction. There is a danger that genetic engineering could foster similar motivations, and ultimately, similar results.



5. Finally, if humanity was created, then there must be a Creator, and humanity is therefore subject and accountable to that Creator. Although the world’s thinking would have one believe that man is accountable to no one but himself and that man is the ultimate authority, the Bible teaches differently. God created man and gave him responsibility over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29, 9:1-2). With this responsibility comes accountability to God. Man is not the ultimate authority over himself, and he is therefore not in a position to make decisions about the value of human life. Neither, then, is science the authority by which the ethics of eugenics, human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia are decided. According to the Bible, God is the only one who rightfully exercises sovereign control over human life.

As a follower of Christ, one needs to seriously consider these questions and issues before making too speedy a decision to accept all benefits that science promises.

Check out the article by Church Colson and his view on eugenics: “War on the Weak - Eugenics has made a lethal comeback”.  He says, “We are reminded that every life at every stage is precious in God's design. We must help our neighbors understand that this aspect of the Christian worldview—the conviction that all life is sacred—provides the only defense for the weakest in our midst.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/15.72.html

Check out the article on “What is the Christian view of human cloning?”
http://www.gotquestions.org/cloning-Christian.html

HOPE THIS HELPS!  THANKS FOR ASKING!

[Answered by Ray Lee, Summer Intern]

Q: Is the downloading and viewing of Anime Series a sin?...

...Anime are Japanese-language cartoons, it is a very large cultural export of the nation, and is enjoyed by many Chinese-Canadians. Unlike North American ones, they are very professionally created within studios and enjoy very high viewership and fanbase. A common problem for English-speaking people is that Anime is in Japanese, dedicated groups translate Anime into the English language for all to enjoy. The question of ethics arises from the fact that while Anime Series do not have copyright protection outside of Japan, the more popular ones are 'licensed' to companies in North America such as Viz Media and Bandai for dubbing (i.e. voice overs), thereby gaining a 'license' to distribute the Japanese-copyrighted work.

The rationale for fan-subbing groups are that their work is purely voluntary (for free) and most of them (except for a few more audacious ones) drop projects once they are licensed for fear of possible legal implications (no one has yet bothered to send a cease-or-desist e-mail) and their desire is true to support the original authors and studios who created them in Japan (they are willing to post notifications to purge all traces of their hard work on their websites and IRC channels). Fansubs are however preferred, as it is universally accepted that they contain more accurate translations (passing through multiple rounds of quality checks) and do not adulter the original content, so to fit the English-translation into the animation. What they do is not too different than recording television shows onto V.C.R. tapes and then redistributing translations of them to another people of another country - free of charge, it is in my opinion very different than the downloading of movies, as Anime is never (or exceedingly rarely) released into D.V.D. format for sale. According to Wikipedia (which is contrary to popular belief very very reliable), the North American companies handling the translations are actually in support of these groups, and have never been in conflict with them. Would their actions, and our acceptance of them be considered sinful?

A.  I see where you see the gray area in this.  But first, I think that you could get a more black and white answer about downloading in a previous post that deals with downloading.  Click HERE.  This post deals with licensed music or movies that are available for purchase yet people are essentially stealing from the companies that own the rights.


Basically, it's like any other digital copy out there.  If a company owns the rights to the specific Anime series and also has the English subtitled version for it...and you go out and download an unofficial fansub of that series, than you are technically stealing from the company.  Those fansubbers have not received permission from the Japanese creators to translate and distribute those shows/movies.

On the other hand, if no such license exists, than there technically is nothing wrong with downloading the fan sub.  This then becomes a matter of the heart and your personal conviction.  The actual law says that it's okay, but the spirit of the law (Biblically, your conscience, your conviction), may say otherwise. This decision is for you to make with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  In any case, if you like the series and appreciate the art of Anime or Manga, than you should support the creators by purchasing their products.

This answer was answered in consultation with Liane T., who is an Agape counselor.  In my correspondence with her, she brings forth this noteworthy challenge:  "Whether or not that it's sinful [downloading], I'll leave it up to you. I think God would find some of the content more offensive than the actual act of acquiring it."

[answered by Pastor KJT, with the help of LT who enjoys Japanese culture very much]

Q: Is abortion a sin?

In order to answer this question we need to answer two preliminary ones: What is abortion? and What is sin? Let’s take the second one first.

What is sin? One way to answer this question is to appeal to Romans 14:23b where the Apostle Paul says, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” That’s quite a comprehensive answer. Anything we do that doesn’t come from faith in the Triune God of the Bible, Paul says, is sin. So, we should ask, does abortion proceed from faith or lack of faith? The answer should be obvious.

In case it’s not, J. I. Packer, one of the most influential evangelical theologians of the last one hundred years, writing about the Puritan pastor John Owen, offers us another way to think about sin. This is a lengthier quote, but well worth reading and contemplating:

John Owen . . . in his monumental work on sin, wrote a paragraph in which he summarizes God’s view of sin. Read with care the words that Owen used to describe how the creature acts toward his Creator: disgrace, fraud, blasphemy, enmity, hatred, contempt, rebellion and injury, poison, stench, dung, vomit, polluted blood, plague, pestilence, abominable, and detestable. Sin is essentially the resolve—the mad, utterly blameworthy, but nonetheless, utterly firm resolve—to play God and fight the real God. Sinners resolve to treat themselves as the center of the universe and so they keep God at bay on the outer circumference of their lives—or so they think. They won’t allow the Creator to rule over them as he wills to do. . . . They . . . resent the claim to dominion that he makes. This is why people like Luther, Calvin, and Owen say, roundly and without question, that sin wills the fundamental abolition of God. Sin wills that God should not be there. Sin plays God, sin fights God, and sin wishes that God didn’t exist at all.

We’ll return to this quote in a moment. Let’s turn now, however, to the other preliminary question: What is abortion?

Wikipedia’s got a fine definition: “Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.” Strictly speaking, miscarriages are abortions in the technical sense. For the sake of the response to this question, however, they won’t be considered as “abortions” (what are, more precisely called elective [or procured] abortions).

Notice, now, that the definition says abortion results in the death of a fetus or embryo. Death is a very important word here. The clear implication is that the fetus/embryo is alive before it’s aborted. It’s living. Science, in fact, confirms this. All fetal physiologists and embryologists agree, regardless of their religious views, that human life begins at conception. They disagree on the value of this life and on whether or not it should be considered a person, but they all agree that when a male sperm fertilizes a female ovum, human life begins. The science is indisputable.

The Bible tells us, however, what science cannot; namely, that you are very much a person known and loved by God even in utero. In Psalm 51 David says that from the time his mother conceived him he had a sinful nature (v. 5). In other words, personhood is attributed to the initial stage(s) of life.

A second text that informs this question is Luke 1:39–45. Mary has just been told by the angel, Gabriel, that she will be pregnant with the Messiah. She immediately leaves her hometown of Nazareth to visit her cousin Elizabeth in Judah. The Gospel writer tells us that she went immediately (v. 39). Given the distance between Nazareth and Judah this would have been a three-to-four day journey. So, three or four days after Gabriel has announced the big news to Mary, she meets her cousin, who, by the way is herself six months pregnant. (Her son is John the Baptist.)

As soon as Mary arrives, Elizabeth recognizes that something astounding has happened. “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to me ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (vv. 42–44). So, Mary is already pregnant by this time. To be more precise, she’s (only) three or four days pregnant, yet Elizabeth recognizes that the embryo she’s carrying is “my Lord!” We forget sometimes that Jesus didn’t come as a fully formed baby wrapped in swaddling clothes. He came first as a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a single cell. He had/was a body/soul at conception. His body was only a cell, but it was a body, nonetheless. He was already the Lord as an embryo.

Let’s return, then, to our definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in . . . its death.” From science we’ve established that the embryo/fetus is alive, and from the Bible we’ve determined that the embryo/fetus is a person, a full-fledged human being. What, then, does that say about abortion? I hope you see that when definitions call abortion “the termination of a pregnancy” what they’re describing is the putting to death of a living human being. That’s not politically correct, but it is correct. In any other context we call that murder. Murder is most clearly a sin (Exodus 20:13).

And, therefore, to answer the original question, abortion (that is, elective, or procured, abortion) is a sin.

Let’s go back to our lengthy quote from Packer/Owen, above. “Sin is essentially the resolve . . . to play God and fight the real God.” Isn’t that what abortion does? Abortion says to God, “I don’t care what You’re creating inside me. I’m going to decide my own fate, and that of my child.” Abortion is not only a sin against the unborn child, it is, ultimately (as with all sin), a sin against God.

Let me make three closing remarks:

1. Abortion is a grievous sin. The church, throughout its history, has always called abortion murder; some saying it’s even worse than murder. The most defenceless human beings are being killed by the very people entrusted to care for and protect them. 

2. Abortion is a sin that can be forgiven. If you’ve had an abortion or been complicit in one (for instance, encouraged a girlfriend to have an abortion), you need to confess your sin to God and repent. The Bible says you can be and have been forgiven. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Rest in that and turn from your old ways.

3. Nevertheless, abortion has devastating consequences. I know many women (and men!) who are crippled with guilt over killing their unborn children. In most cases, that guilt never goes away. Legally, before God, that guilt is gone if you know and trust Jesus. You can have the assurance that He paid for even this sin on the cross. But, if you’ve had an abortion, you will very likely carry the emotional and psychological scars and wounds from it for the rest of your life. This underscores the seriousness of sin. There are real and devastating consequences. Perhaps, though, if you’ve had an abortion, God will use you in your tears and your testimony to change people’s lives; even, to rescue unborn children.

I know this response may have left you with even more questions. I blog about abortion on a regular basis at tubytu.wordpress.com and you may find additional help there. There are also lots of great web sites. Start with abort73.com. Then, if you are bold enough, go to silentscream.org and watch a video of an abortion done at 11 weeks after conception. I must warn you, it is very graphic and heartbreaking. I pray God will move you to consider how you can be involved in the efforts to protect the unborn.

[Answered by Dr. Stephen Tu, Trinity Pacific Church, Vancouver. Dr. Tu is a close friend of Pastor HM's & has recently completed his doctoral work on this very issue]

Q: God kills?

One of my Facebook friends put this up regarding Christianity:

God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

So my question is: Is this true? This is scientific research. But I'm a believer and I don't think that's true. What's your opinion?

Thanks for this question. When we are faced with such bold claims, we often find ourselves doubting our Christian faith. However, if we carefully examine these claims, we'll find that they are not as rock-solid as they appear to be. Your friend's quote comes from a website - www.evilbible.com, so it's not his/her own writing. This is a clear example of propagating something that sounds true, but is untrue if you carefully examine the facts. The good news is there are plenty of sites that have already refuted the claims presented on this website. For instance, take a look at this website.

Since this particular quote talks about the God of the Bible and the killing of "innocent people," let's focus upon this issue. The first thing you'll notice is that you can really make the Bible say whatever you want it to say if you don't read things in CONTEXT.

For instance, the quote mentions 1 Chronicles 21 - God kills 70, 000 innocent people. If you actually read this passage, it tells us that though God did allow for sickness to come upon 70,000 men, he spared the rest of the city ("...but as he was about to destroy [Jerusalem], he relented" - v. 14).

Another example: Isaiah 13:16; Psalm 137:9 and Hosea 13:16 all talk about babies being thrown against rocks. What the authors fail to understand is that these verses were spoken by prophets. Prophets were charged with telling the hard truth to people and to call them to change their evil ways. If people did, judgment would be averted. A similar story is found in Jonah. Jonah is told to go and tell Ninevah they are doomed. The people repent and are spared. Jonah is even upset because of God's mercy (for more on this particular topic, read this thoughtful post).

Evilbible.com also talks about Exodus 21:1-11. But again, the authors take everything out of context and leave out the passage in the Bible that talk about the proper treatment of slaves (you can read more about slavery in the Old Testament here). The law explicitly condemned all of the following:

• Rape (Dt 22:25-27)
• Prostitution (23:17-18)
• Sex outside of marriage, whether consensual or not (Ex 22:16-17, Dt 22:28-29)
• Sex with a slave who was betrothed or married to someone else (Lev 19:20-22)

Therefore any forced intercourse would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the law.

The lesson here is to always make sure you read the passage in historical context, instead of picking verses of your choosing to support your idea. This is exactly what the authors of www.evilbible.com have done!

---

That being said, we must acknowledge that there was killing in the Old Testament and it was allowed, condoned and commanded by God. There are several important things to understand:

1. As the universal Creator God is also the universal judge, to whom all people are accountable. This means that god has the right to bring whatever judgement he wants on people.

2. Since all people are sinners, we are all subject to the God's perfect judgment/justice. The folks at RationalChristianity.com offer this explanation:

The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16, Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).

In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance, there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same evil acts (Dt 7:1-4,20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).

Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).

3. There is a tension between God's sovereign will and human freedom. Just because God allows for things to happen does not mean he approves of these actions. Matt Slick (from CARM.ORG) writes:

It is worth noting that the Old Testament records many atrocities. The fact is that God allowed people their sinful desires and he worked within their culture, even as he does now, as he permits all kinds of bad things to happen. Nevertheless, God introduced what is called the Apoditic Law (Exodus 21:24): an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The Apoditic Law was instituted to prevent the increase of blood revenge, a practice where revenge would escalate out of control between two parties. Since the hearts of the fallen are so wicked and the harsh environment and culture produced difficulties for survival, God has a few options to counter their proclivity towards evil. He can run roughshod over their free will and force everyone to obey him, or he could wipe them all out (he had already done this with Noah's flood), or he could work within the situation at hand. In the case of this psalm, and it's Babylonian captivity context, God chose to work with people and through them instead of violating the freedom he had given them and forcing them to act in a manner that he instructs.

---

Hope this helps. Friend, don't buy into these false claims. Again, they may seem credible, but if you really do some research, you'll be able to refute them as many have done in the past. So I encourage you to do your research, and articulate your points well if you do encounter someone who has been influenced by these claims.

Lastly, remember to look at the person and work of Jesus. Jesus came to pay the penalty of sin FOR US. On the cross, Jesus absorbed the rightful judgment of God. And he did it because he loves us. That is a God worthy of our worship!

Pastor HM

For more information, please do read the following articles carefully. They have much more detailed explanations than I can provide and are worth your time!

1. Genocide in the Old Testament

2. Why would God order the destruction of men, women and children in the Old Testament?

3. Murder in the Old Testament

4. EvilBible is Dead

Q: Is capital punishment justified?

This article from the fine folks at Got Questions is worth the read.

There are three traditional views regarding Capital Punishment (CP). In order to keep this article brief, we will examine the last one: Retribution.

1. Rehabilitate – No CP for any crime
2. Reconstruct – (reconstruction OT laws) CP for all serious crimes
3. Retribution – CP for some capital crimes

In the "retribution" view (#3), CP is legitimate for some crimes, namely capital ones. The primary purpose of CP is to punish. Unlike view 2, this one does not believe that civil governments today are bound by the Mosaic law. While it also protects innocent people from repeated violent crimes or acts as a deterrent, this is not its primary purpose.

Examples of CP in the Bible include:

1. It was given to Noah (Gen 9:5-6).

2. It was given to Moses as a penalty for capital crimes including murder (Ex 21:12), avenging a death, causing a miscarriage (Ex 21:22-23), false testimony in a capital case (Deut 19:16-19), and owning an ox that killed people (Ex 21:29). In each case the person who received CP was responsible for the death of an innocent person or persons.

3. In the NT, it is also given in the context of capital crimes. Government has the sword for capital crimes (Romans 13:4). Jesus acknowledged Rome’s authority over his life (John 19:11) where alleged crime was a capital crime namely, treason (Luke 23:2). Paul’s alleged crime for which he was willing to receive capital punishment if guilty was treason (Acts 25:11; 17:7).

The Biblical Basis for CP:

1. The need for CP is implied in man’s nature

2. Human beings are created in God’s image (Gen 1:27). They both resemble and represent God on earth. Killing them is an attack on the God who made them. It is a rejection of his sovereignty over human life (Deut 32:39). For this capital crime God explicitly declared that he demanded a CP (Gen 9:6).

3. Such a punishment is also implied in the very nature of the crime (as in the case of Cain when he killed Abel).

4. Cain deserved and expected capital punishment. Gen 4:10 “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” This cry for blood vengeance is a clear indication that justice demanded a life in return.

5. God gave the power of CP to human government. There was CP before the time of Noah, but it was left to relatives to avenge the murderer (Gen 4:14). By instituting CP in Noah’s time Gen 9:6, God took justice out of the hands of the families of the deceased and placed the sword in the hands of human government. In this way justice could be more objectively exercised by eliminating the personal revenge factor and the emotional anger.

6. CP was incorporated into the Mosaic Law. It was given before. But in Ex 21, what Mosaic law did was to incorporate it and extend it to many other noncapital crimes, including religious and ceremonial ones. These reasons for CP were not intended for other nations but only Israel. God through Moses extended CP to noncapital crimes for Israel, his chosen nation, not to all the nations. CP was already prescribed for capital crimes. Therefore, if CP for capital crimes was not given with the law of Moses, then it did not pass away with the Mosaic law. Mosaic law passed away.

7. CP is reaffirmed in the NT. 
CP was given to the whole human race through Noah (Gen 9:6, 9-10). This is not abolished so is still in effect.

CP was given to Israel through Moses for noncapital crimes (Deut 4:9, Ps 147:19-20). This has been abolished.

The sword that was divinely given to human government for CP (Gen 9:6) is explicitly reaffirmed in the NT (Romans 13: 4, John 19:11, Acts 25:11)

Summary

1. CP for capital crimes is stated before the law of Moses. Gen 9:6 says: "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

2. Additions were given for noncapital crimes in Mosaic law. These have been abolished.

3. It is stated in the NT (Romans 13:4).

[Answered by Pastor Quang, with a little help from Pastor HM]

Q: Is war ever justified?

Many people misquote the ten commandments and say that killings is wrong when it actually says murder is wrong. Also, the ten commandments refer to human relationships and not government. Based on that understanding, is war ever justified? Is it justified to defeat evil? Does a government have that right? Examples: The American invasion of Afghanistan to defeat terrorism, World War II.

Though war is a terrible thing, and innocent lives are lost, sometimes war is required to restrain evil. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm is by going to war with them. If Hitler had not been defeated in World War II, how many more millions of Jews would have been killed? If the Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African Americans have had to suffer as slaves? Therefore for the Christian, going to war would be a valid option, and a part of submitting to the ruling authorities as required in Romans 13.

However, the most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to the conflict, and praying for minimum casualties – on both sides of the conflict.

Also read this article concerning your very question.

[Answered by Pastor Quang and Pastor HM]

Q: Is it okay for a Christian to be a soldier in the army or be a police officer?

Examples of military service are found in the Bible. The first example of military service is found in the Old Testament (Genesis 14), when Abraham's nephew Lot was kidnapped by king of Elam, and his allies. Abraham rallied to Lot's aid by gathering 318 trained men of his household and defeating the foreign forces.

King David was in the army and led his forces into battle. Although Solomon's reign was peaceful, he further expanded the army, adding chariots and horsemen (1 Kings 10:26).

Many Centurions mentioned in the New Testament are praised as Christians, God-fearers, and men of good character (Matthew 8:5-13, 27:54, Acts 10:1-2, 22). The titles and places may have changed, but the armed forces should be favourably valued as the Centurions in the NT.

[Answered by Pastor Quang Nguyen]

Q: In any situation, can lying be acceptable?

"For example, if you're holding a surprise birthday party for a friend and s/he ask if you guys are planning to throw her/him a surprise party and say no?"

Christians have dealt with this issue of lying in 1 of 3 ways:

(a) Never lie. No exceptions.
(b) Doing the lesser evil.
(c) Doing the greater good.

The last two options (b and c) can be a bit confusing, so please read carefully (these are actually notes adapted from a class I taught).

1st View: No Exceptions

i. What does it say

1. God gives us moral laws (not lying, no adultery) to follow
2. His moral laws flow from his unchanging nature
3. Since he never changes his laws never changes
4. Therefore one should never lie.
5. No exceptions even to save someone’s life. Trust God.
6. There are no real moral conflicts we face ie lying vs saving a life (they are just apparent not real)

ii. What is good about it

1. A belief in absolute moral laws or else we are left with moral relativism.
2. It shows trust in God’s providence. God made the rules. We follow them and leave the results in God’s hand.
a. Dan 3:17-18
3. It holds there is a third way to avoid sinning
a. Dan 1 – eat the royal food and wine or face the consequences. The third way was not a or b, but to eat vegetables.

iii. What problems it has

1. God blessed the midwives and Rahab because of their deception. One cannot separate the lie from the act of mercy. The lie was an act of mercy.
2. By believing this we are guilty of the sin of omission. (James 4:1). Some believe by telling the truth, it is the offender who is threatening to do the killing who is sinning. But there is also a duty to save innocent lives, or to show mercy. If we know the right we have to do and do not do it, that too is sin.
3. God does not always save us from moral dilemmas or give us a 3rd alternative. Many have died or have persecuted throughout history (for not recanting their faith).
4. There is a basic inconsistency. Some people might condemn others for lying to save a person, but they may intentionally deceive to save their property (eg leaving the lights on while away to deceive potential thieves.)
5. Tendency to legalism. We miss the spirit of the law to avoid breaking the letter of the law. When lying and lives are weighed, what is more important?

2nd View: Doing the Lesser Evil

i. What does it say

1. We live in a fallen world. In such a world, real moral conflicts do occur.
2. When they occur, we are morally responsible to do both duties but since we cannot we have to break one.
3. In such cases we should do the lesser evil.
4. God’s law cannot be broken without guilt. Hence it is still a sin that we’ve committed so we need to confess and ask for God’s forgiveness.

ii. What is good about it

1. It preserves moral absolutes
2. There’s a realism (not found in option 1). We do face real conflicts not apparent ones.

iii. What problems it has

1. It seems strange that to say we have a moral obligation to do what is wrong. Does God command us to sin?
2. Can you be guilty for doing what is unavoidable?
3. This view holds that Jesus must have sinned. If Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are (Heb 4:15), then when he faced conflicting moral laws, he must have sinned. But this can’t be! (2 Cor 5:21). Jesus did face moral dilemmas in which 2 or more commands of God came into conflict. How did he respond?
• At age 12, he faced a conflict between his earthly parents and his heavenly Father (Luke 2)
• Matt 10:37 – he says to love God more than parents
• He chose mercy (healing a man) over the Sabbath
• So what does this mean for us?


3rd View: Doing the Greater Good

i. What does it say

1. Moral duties sometimes do come into conflict.
2. In such cases we are obligated to do the greater good not the lesser evil. This is not a word game.
3. When 2 moral duties clash, the believer is exempt from his duty to do the lower law by obeying the higher.

ii. What is good about it

1. There are higher and lower moral laws.

a. Matthew 23:23 – tithing vs justice, mercy and faithfulness (more important)
b. Matthew 23:36 – the greatest commandment
c. Matt 10:37 – love God above parents
d. Matt 5:19 – anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
e. Some sins call for excommunication (1Cor5) some for death (Gen 9:6, Ro 13).
f. 1 Sam 15:22 -Obeying vs sacrifice
g. There is one sin so great as to be unforgivable (Mark 3:29)
h. There are levels of reward in heaven (1 Cor 3:1-12)

2. There are unavoidable moral conflicts we face

a. Gen 22 – Abraham & Isaac – do not murder vs obeying God (Love of God over Love of man)
b. Ex 1 & Josh 2 – lying vs saving lives (mercy over truth)
c. Dan 3, 6 – obeying government vs obeying God (Obey God over government)

3. People are not held guilty for doing the unavoidable. We are following the example of Jesus by doing the greater good and we are not sinning.

a. In lying to save a life, it is not the lie that is good, but it is the act of mercy to save a life that is good. (despite the fact that lying was necessary to accomplish this good.)
b. Mercy is an attribute of God Even though lying to save a life cannot be based in God as truth, it can be based in God as merciful. When truth and mercy conflict, then the necessary act of mercy (in this case lying) finds its basis in God’s nature as merciful.
c. God looks at the whole picture not the parts by themselves. (Cutting off a human leg by itself is wicked – it is called mutilation. But cutting off a leg because it is gangrous and to save a life is right – it is called amputation).

Summary: We argue that the 3rd view is the best. There are times when there is moral conflict. In those times, we must do the greater, moral good (not the lesser evil). A good example is when we lie in order to save a life (i.e. the greater good is another person's life).

Thus, to answer your question directly: "lying" about your friend's birthday party is not sinful b/c you are doing the greater good. You are lying because you are doing the greater good of loving another person. However, to be clear, this does not mean you should use this excuse to lie as frequently as you want. Lying because you were lazy or because you want to gain something easily is NOT the greater good.

[Answered by Pastor Quang, from the English Congregation, with a little help from Pastor HM]

Q: Why did God allow the Israelites to kill other people?

"God made us all equally and He loves each of us. In that case, why does He allow the Israelites to kill other people (such as Philistines and Canaanites)? This happens a lot in Joshua and Judges. Did God give up on them? They are, after all, still His children."

Every person does indeed have equal value because we are all created in His image. However, God is not just a creator, but a sustainer of his creation. Thought it sounds unjust and barbaric to kill other people, we must understand that God only orders the taking of lives to protect his people. Listen to what is recorded in the book of Deuteronomy (12:29-32) about some of the other nations surrounding the Israelites at the time:

“When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods."

These nations worshipped false gods and even threw their own children into fire to appease them! This is why Israel was justified in defending itself and executing the judgment of God upon these peoples. I do not believe God is unfair. If the people of these nations listened to their conscience and to the messengers God sent, they would have been spared (see Genesis 18:22-33). Consider what happened in Nineveh when the people repented (Jonah 3:4-10).

Before we make judgments on God, let us consider what we would do it if the people of these nations came after ourselves, our families and our communities. Would we not defend ourselves? Would we just sit there idly? I do not believe so.

For more information, read the following articles carefully (lots of information!):

1. "Why would God order the destruction of men, women and children?"

2. "Genocide in the Old Testament"

3. "Love of God, Judgment of God"

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Is it okay for guys who are Chrisitians to get their ears pierced?

The Bible does not condemn piercings and wearing earrings for neither guys/girls. The whole issue of piercings is not one of “Does the Bible forbid this?” but rather “Is this something I should do?”

While there is no specific counsel in the Bible about earrings (for both guys/girls), Paul had general things to say about jewelry when he advised Timothy on worship within the local church: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). The principle here applies both in and out of church: modesty, decency, propriety and good deeds are the hallmarks of a true Christian in both men and women.

As such, the issue with piercing is a matter of personal conscience. In any case, clearly our responsibility as Christians is to bring honor and glory to the God we profess to love, doing nothing out of vain conceit (Philippians 2:3) and remembering that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

I would strongly suggest if you are considering to get your ears pierced to obtain the full blessing from your parents/guardian before you take the plunge.

A good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use that particular activity for His own good purposes. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

[Answered by, George (my last post for the time being)]

Q: What's the deal with swearing?

When it comes to the issues of swearing and cursing, the Bible makes it extremely clear, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs that it may benefit those who listen." (Ephes. 4:29)

James also addresses the issue by stating, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." (James 3:9-12)

What James is saying is that the lives of Christians should not be characterized by evil speech. By making the analogy of both salt water and fresh water coming from the same spring (which is uncharacteristic of springs), he makes the point that it is uncharacteristic for a believer to have both praise and cursing come from his/her mouth. Also it is not a characteristic for us to praise God on one hand and curse our brothers on the other. This, too, is uncharacteristic of a true believer.

Jesus explained that what comes out of our mouths is what fills our hearts. Sooner or later, the evil in the heart comes out through the mouth in curses and swearing. However when our hearts are filled with the goodness of God, praise for Him, than love for others will pour out from our mouths. The truth is, our speech is a strong indicatication of what is in our hearts. “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45).

So what's the deal with swearing? When we swear and curse, we are giving evidence of the polluting sin in our hearts that must be confessed and repented of. Thankfully, our great God is “faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). When this happens, we receive a new nature from God (2 Corinthians 5:17), our hearts are transformed, and our speech reflects the new nature God has created within us.

[Answered by George, who is striving to let the goodness of God flow through his lips]

Q: Is it immoral in the eyes of God to take one off life support if they rely solely on it to survive? It is considered murder?

There is no doubt; this is a very difficult dilemma. Many may approach this issue by stating the obvious by quoting the commandment “thou shall not murder”. However I believe there needs to be more to answering this question than simply quoting one of the 10 commandments. I am by no means a medical expert. The question above can be classified as a form of euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the bringing about of a gentle and easy death in the case of incurable and painful disease. (Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder)

There are different forms of euthanasia.

Active euthanasia. This would be by a positive act to bring about death by directly administering a drug.

Passive euthanasia. This would involve the withdrawal of treatment (or food) so as to hasten death.

Involuntary euthanasia. The ending of a person's life without any indication that such was the wish of the person concerned.

Voluntary euthanasia. The ending of a person's life at their request. A law to allow this is what pressure groups are wanting.

Non-voluntary euthanasia. This involves the ending of the life of a person who does not have the faculty to make a decision whether to live or die.

I believe the form of euthanasia posed in this particular question falls into the Non-voluntary category.

The Bible does not command us to do everything we can to keep a person alive. If a person is being kept alive only by machines, I believe it is not immoral to turn off the machines and allow the person to die.

If a person has been in a persistent vegetative state for a prolonged period of time, I do not believe it would be an offense to God to remove whatever tubes / machines that are keeping the person alive.

Should God desire to keep a person alive, He is perfectly capable of doing so without the help of feeding tubes and/or respirators. It is never easy to tell a doctor to suspend the life support of a loved one. We should never seek to prematurely end a life, but at the same time, neither do we have to preserve a life as long as possible.

My advice to anyone facing this decision is to pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5) in regards to what He would have you do.

All human life is made by God according to His image (Genesis 1:17). As such God created every person, whether sick or healthy, disabled or able-bodied. No matter what condition or state we are currently in, we are all God’s workmanship.

Ending our life is not a decision for us make, only God has a right to give or take a life.
We need to ask God for wisdom when issues such as these arise. At the end of the day, God decides when life starts and when it ends.

The following link is a good resource to read further on this issue: http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/euthanasia.html#Anchor-What-49575

[Answered by George M. ]

Q: Is suicide okay if you're in the worst situation possible?

No matter what situation we may be faced with, suicide is NEVER a good solution.

There may be various reasons why someone would consider committing suicide as a means of “solving” the problem they are faced with. The main reason is usually related to a person’s emotions. Sometimes the feelings of despair and hopelessness are so strong that there doesn’t seem to be any other way out, life is just not worth living anymore. Other times, low self esteem makes us question our worth on this earth and we may end up thinking that the world would be better without us.

Although these may seem like valid reasons to take our own life, if we take a step back and consider letting God truly be God in our life, He will prove just how big He really is. As the Bible tells us, “nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). No matter how deep and dark the pit may seem or how worthless our life may seem, God always stands ready to repair what is "broken". He created us and gave us life. He wants us to live that life to the fullest, that same life we’re trying to end through suicide.

This quote from the prophet Isaiah provides hope that God is a God who comforts and restores: "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion— to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor." (Isaiah 61:1-3).

According to the Bible, suicide is murder as it is the act of taking away a life (even though it's your own). No matter how desperate the situation you are currently facing, there is a God of love who is waiting for you to allow Him to guide you through your tunnel of despair. He is your only sure hope, and we are wonderfully made in His image. We are His workmanship; as such the decision on when we die belongs to God and God alone. Keep this promise close to your heart, “For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." (Jeremiah 19:11 NIV)

A good resource to do further reading on this subject is Gary Stewart’s book: Suicide: A Christian Response: Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life


[Answered by: George "wonderfully made in His image"]

Q: Is it [for Christians] okay to lie?

Of course, we’ve all heard that lying is a sin and obviously we shouldn’t do it. But there are special circumstances were the truth is a bit grey, and not black and white. The classic question is, "If you lived in the World War II era, would you lie to save Jews from the Nazis?" Or as this question phrased it, “If you couldn’t afford medicine for your dying family member, would it be a sin to steal it or lie in order to obtain it?”

I think it’s helpful to look at two examples in the Scriptures. What you’ll see in both examples is that people do lie, but God does not condemn them for it:

The first example is the story of Rahab and the spies. Joshua tell us that Rahab hid the Israelite spies and was blessed accordingly

The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent (Joshua 6:17)

The second example is the story of Moses. Jewish midwives lied and did not up end killing Jewish male babies as they were told to.

What do these stories tell us? First, there is a general principle of doing the greater good. What is the greater good - saving lives or telling the truth? I say it is saving lives. I want you to understand this is different from saying doing the lesser evil. The lesser evil would be to say lying is a lesser evil than killing people.

It may seem like a small difference. But by saying you are choosing the lesser evil - you are also saying that Jesus as a human, being tempted in all ways as we are, also chose lesser evils. But we know that Jesus never sinned. He only did GOOD.

When righteousness is at stake, I believe making knowingly false statements is okay. The Germans who hid Jews in their homes and lied about it were preserving righteousness, at the risk of their own lives. The father who must lie to obtain medicine through a lie is preserving his family.

Now some here may say, “Well, aren’t we supposed to trust in God?” I say, “Yes! Of course!” When we always tell the truth, we show trust in God’s providence, and we avoid sinning for the most part. This was St. Augustine’s view. No lying = no exception. But on the other side, could we be guilty of apathy. It is our duty as Christians to save lives and to show mercy. If we know the right thing to do and yet refuse to do it, that is SIN as well.

Now where does that leave us? Let’s face it. Most of us are not in situations where lying in order to save lives is a reality. But righteousness is always at stake, and we have to understand and act on that. If you’re friend is being picked on at school, and the bullies ask you where he is – maybe it’s not wrong to say you don’t know, even if you do.

Before I end this question, I want to make something clear. Be very careful. The greater good is a grey area sometimes. And by greater good I don’t mean lying to your parents so you can save the world as the Master Chief instead of doing your homework. I would always err on the side on not lying than lying.

My final thought is there is probably no black and white answer; only that God is sovereign; he sees the whole picture and he covers all our sin.

[Answered by Pastor Ho-Ming]