if you could withhold illegal drugs from the world, would you?
Here at ZA Magazine, we really want to encourage the community to sound off and tackle the issues. The first such post was about Planned Parenthood, and some good points have been made. During the exchange, user PrimeCupEevee made this statement (click here for full comment in context…emphasis in quotation is mine):
Do I think illegal drugs like narcotics are bad? Yes. Do I think people should not take them? Yes. If I met with a person who regularly takes drugs, would I try to persuade him or her to stop taking them? Yes. If I had the ability to stop every person from taking drugs, would I use it? No, mostly due to God allowing that person the free will to make decisions with the hope that the person would turn towards Him when given the choice.
He raises an interesting question, touching an idea that was presented to me under a different guise last summer. I once had my small group leaders talking about gay marriage. They said that (I hope I’m summarizing this correctly) legislating against gay marriage shows love to homosexuals by withholding sin from them. The idea is that when a kid asks to touch a stove, you say no because you know it’s bad for them. We, as Christians, know that homosexuality is a sin, and so when someone who doesn’t accept this truth wants someone to justify his or her actions, we shouldn’t allow that as long as we are able to do so.
That’s the opposite side to PrimeCupEevee’s line of thinking, and while I think both have some validity, I find myself quite undecided. There are a lot of implications to how you answer, too, so I ask:
If you could keep drug addicts from taking drugs, would you?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
(fyi, this is the same person mentioned in the blog post)
The analogy does not seem fully coherent to me. If the parent forbids the child from touching the stove, then the child is saved the pain of having a burnt finger. However, if a Christian forcibly forbids a person from having same-sex relations, is the latter person automatically saved by God for not breaking one of the laws? Since that person (as well as the rest of us) “have fallen short of God’s perfect standard,” he or she would still need to accept Jesus as his or her Savior.
As stated in the excerpt, I believe in free will. If God created robots (or humans like robots) that always did what He wanted them to do, then I don’t believe that He would get any satisfaction out of their love because they were forced to love Him. The main reason that should stop me from doing “bad” things is to show my love towards God, and I believe that should apply to everybody.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
but should we not as Christians want to see God glorified as much as possible? when we allow sin (same-sex marriage in this case or drugs) let alone put gay marriages on a pedistal and make it equal to the bond God created for us a man and a woman just doesn’t seem to glorify Him. Same with drugs when you use something else to feel good in the place of God your saying He’s not good enough? So brendan to answer your question “If you could keep drug addicts from taking drugs, would you?” yes because God gets no glory in their suffering or in their drug induiced euphoria.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
@PCEevee - Nah, the kid isn’t saved from all harm ever, he just doesn’t get his hand burnt. If I could get rid of all pornography, I’d do it in a heartbeat, because I know how many young people it has corrupted and how much it has sexualized our society and led to so much idolatry that people consistently chase women (not even real ones, idealized Photoshopped fake ones) more than they chase God. It doesn’t mean that if porn is gone than these people are saved, but it removes a MAJOR stumbling block.
But in all honesty, I see what you’re saying. If I executed my dream of seeing pornography banished by going door to door and seizing it in the name of Jesus Christ, that would have to come across as oppressive, harsh, judgmental…all those things. Legislating a porn ban would mean Internet filters and morality police in a dystopian vision of the future…a throwback to the theocratic days of Christendom in Europe. Sure, society was a bit more holy, but forced morality generally isn’t that good at winning souls for the kingdom.
See? I’m still split on this!
June 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
@Berkeley- That the point to my analogy, though I guess I didn’t explain myself enough. I fear that many homosexual people view themselves as condemned only for their sexual desires and not for anything else because of what the evangelical church has said recently. This, of course, is far from the truth, but by that point people don’t want to know about the real Truth.
I basically feel that the church has not preached a message saying that God loves people, and that He can and will help people overcome sin if they believe in Him. Instead, it has focused on a self-righteous path and has condemned all who are attracted to the same sex and whatnot. And without love, there is no real benefit to what they are saying.
Though I will admit that I do understand everything after the first sentence in that first paragraph that you wrote, and the typical small-government response is that parents should do that job. But with the state of the family as it is, that’s not a feasible response.
My best response now is that instead of relying upon government to solve our problems, we should make every effort to establish true relationships with people and show them what God is really all about. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t vote, it’s just that I don’t think government in general does a whole lot of things correctly.
Oh, and I don’t remember Jesus lobbying any sort of government to forbid any sinful practices. Sure, he did say to repent, and it is in our duty to repent and turn towards God, but he did not force action upon any human.
(I apologize for lack of transitions!)
June 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I’m inclined to agree with PCeevee on this subject with the argument about free will and choice to either follow God or follow the world. When people are not allowed to be wrong or do something wrong, then that eliminates the freedom to choose, which is given to us by God. I feel like a lack of choice cheapens the strength and grace from God that helps people stay away from wrong/sin.
However, if by this question it is meant to mean, the elimination of all illegal drugs from existence, and no possibility of replacing them, then I think it would be a good thing, and I would support it. But it doesn’t eliminate sin or all of those legal drugs that can be used abusively.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:33 am
I don’t know
God did make a world where drugs do exist. So saying drugs should not exist is sort of like saying god was wrong, and shouldn’t have made them.
Plus what is the cut off point? If drugs where gone, would we be questioning the existence of cigarettes? And if they were gone, would we question the existence of beer, or unhealthy food?
Drugs do terrible things; I have seen a few of my friends lives fall apart because of them. Although at the same time, I think everything happens for a reason.
In the movie Kung Fu Panda they say “there are no accidents” I was thinking about that, and it is pretty true, everybody and everything is a part of God’s plan. I don’t know why god made drugs, maybe it was to challenge our faith like you where saying.