If you are familiar with our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” you will probably realize the irony of trying to justify the violation of one of God’s Commandments on the basis of the freedom God has granted us to disobey his basic rules of decency, integrity and honesty.
In the event you have never read our Adventist Guidelines on Abortion, I would suggest you do so before reading Yowell’s parody on stealing. Here is a link:
Parody on Stealing a Human Being’s Life
1)Private property is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms private stewardship and requires respect for those things accumulated. However, decisions about private property must be made in the context of a fallen world. Stealing is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus, private property must not be thoughtlessly taken. Stealing should be performed only for the most serious reasons.
2) Stealing is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning theft. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.
3) In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it’s commitment to the value of privately owned property. These ways should include: (a)strengthening family relationships, (b)educating every person concerning Christian principles of property management, (c)emphasizing responsibility of all for family budgeting, (d)calling all to be responsible for the consequences of spending behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles, (e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing, (f)offering support and assistance to those who choose to steal in order to feed their families, and (g)encouraging and assisting both parents to participate responsibly in insuring the financial and dietary needs of their children. The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to stealing and to care for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.
4)The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Stealing for reasons of economic stability, product selection, or personal gain is not condoned by the church. People, at times, however, may face exceptional circumstances that present moral dilemmas, such as significant health threats to the lives of the family providers, excessive tax liabilities, employer fraud, loss of financial investments, rejection of unemployment or disability benefits, future budgetary capability carefully diagnosed by a certified accountant, loss of total assets from actions of other’s criminal behavior. The final decision whether or not to steal should be made by the individual family provider after appropriate consultation.
5)Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it’s laws. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce people to steal or not to steal should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.
6)Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to stealing should not be required to participate in the process or encouragement of stealing.
7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to stealing in the light of Scripture.
My Comments: After reading the above parody on stealing, you will probably agree with me that it would be ridiculous for the church to approve a document with guidance to the proper attitude towards stealing.
If this is the case, how did the church dare to create a document designed to provide guidance on the killing of innocent unborn human beings? Is killing a lesser crime than stealing, rape, or the sexual abuse of children?
If stealing, if rape, if the sexual abuse of children are wrong, how in the world do we justify the creation of a document designed to justify killing under a variety of circumstances such as rape, incest, malformation and the mental health of a pregnant woman?
If we let the rapist live, how come we condemn to death the innocent victim of rape? In the case of mental health, there is hope for recovery for the woman. The victim of abortion has no such hope!