(Liberty, continued from page 6)

But there was another problem; some were having a hard time separating the meat from the idol. They knew Jehovah was the One God, but did not feel right in eating the meat. Others, however, were not sensitive to their weak brother’s conscience, and tried to persuade them to go ahead and eat the meat. But for them to do so, thus violating their conscience, would result in sin, Romans 14:23. Note the comment of the Holy Spirit in Paul's inspired statement: “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak...And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1Corinthians 8:9-13).

Paul was willing to give up his own liberty for the sake of a brother’s conscience. Rather than cause a brother to sin, Paul would “eat no flesh while the earth standeth.” Would you be willing to forfeit your preferences and desires in order to preserve the spiritual health of a brother or sister in Christ? Or would selfishness cause you to say, “I’ll do what I want to do?” What would you be willing to give up in the best interests of your brethren? The answer to this question will reveal whether your love is genuine, or just in “word.”

Are you sensitive to the needs of young or new Christians? Are you willing to put others’ needs ahead of your own wants and wishes? “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35).

borrowed
author unknown

(Logic & StemCell, continued from page 7)

These unfortunate souls are destined for imminent death anyhow. Why not "remove" them now? Why not harvest their "stem cells" and other body parts in the interest of helping others?

The thought is too horrible to contemplate. It smacks of Nazi-ism. But there's not a dime's worth of qualitative difference between the two-forms of utilitarian brutality. Why is it that politicians cannot reason their way to a sane conclusion regarding this matter?

In a recent article in WORLD magazine ("A new modest proposal" - July 28, 2001), Gene Edward Veith recalls the hypothetical "proposal" that Irish writer Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), author of Gulliver's Travels, introduced in the early 18th century. In those days the Irish were crushed by poverty due to the cruel feudal policies of the elite.

Swift, who was greatly influenced by Christian principles, satirically argued, therefore, that one solution might be that Irish babies could be killed and used for food. That way, there would be more sustenance for adults, and fewer growing mouths to feed. The "balance" created would be a great benefit to society. In addition, "baby skin would make a really soft leather, making possible a new industry that would create jobs and boost the Irish economy."

Swift's writings awakened the consciences of many of his contemporaries, who were arguing the philosophy of pragmatic ethics (if a practice produces a useful result, it's ethical). Veith points out, however, that in today's society, university professors, who call attention to Swift's literary argument on this theme, often find students sympathetic to the satirical suggestion. One student is quoted as saying: "Well, I don't completely agree with him, but he does make some really good points."

It is difficult to believe how crass we have become - and the end of the road is not in sight! Human embryos should not be created whimsically, nor should they be destroyed.

Wayne Jackson
Stockton, Ca.