Christians Immune To Murder
(Christian Gallery News Service, 5 May 2012) President John Fitzgerald Kennedy proved conclusively to people growing to adulthood in the nineteen sixties that in one sense no one, not even the President of the United States, was immune to murder. He did this by being murdered himself.
President Kennedy also demonstrated that most of the people in the 1960's were not immune to the effects of the murder of another person. This article demonstrates Christians have become immune to the effects of the murder of another person and documents the world changing consequences of such an immunity.
I was a young GI stationed in Mobile, Al., when President Kennedy was assassinated. Everything shut down the day after he was killed, and all us cocky, devil-may-care teenagers gathered in the barracks TV room and wept with the rest of the nation at the spectacle being played out before our eyes. We were far from being immune to murder.
And it didn't have to be the President who was being murdered to create a national response. It could be Medger Evers, or Martin Luther King, or Bobbie Kennedy, or even some total unknown like Kitty Genovese.
Abe Rosenthan who became the editor of the New York Times wrote a book about Ms. Genovese. In 1964, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death on the street in New York City. Genovese was chased down the street and attacked--stabbed--three different times over the course of half an hour before she finally succumbed to death at the hands of her attacker. Police later determined that thirty eight people watched her running, screaming from her assailant, and not one of them called the police even though they were watching from the windows of apartments, all of which had at least one working telephone. None of the thirty eight people watching the murder occur on the street could explain why they did not pick up a phone and call the police.
Most people would agree that apathy is a reasonable explanation for why nobody called the police. In this case, apathy is just another way of saying those people watching Kitty Genovese being murdered were immune to murder. But the point I'm trying to make is that when the nation heard about what happened to Kitty Genovese a national consensus rapidly developed that Americans were not like the thirty-eight people who had ignored Kitty Genovese as she was being murdered, that those thirty-eight people who acted like they were immune to murder were not indicative of America as a whole.
A lot has changed in the USA since the nineteen sixties. I know it's old fogeyish to remember prices from the old days, but I'll do it anyway. Gas was $.30 a gallon, now it's more. A Coke was a nickel, cigarettes $.25 a pack.
Prices are not all that's changed. A TV commercial showing French women dancing the can-can was as racy as TV got. Now there is an HBO program starring an actual female porn star who plays a prototypical ditzy blond giving sex instructions while nude on camera.
As if anybody required sex instructions today. The human body has become an icon of sexual seduction alluring viewers to contemplate the pleasures of orgasm via natural and chemical means (read Viagra) in a sex nation where the only ostensible problem is caused by erections lasting longer than four hours.
The Sexual Licentiousness Epidemic
An epidemic of sexual licentiousness has swept over the United States of America to an extent that once would have been unthinkable. Hardly anyone will deny that the sex nation has been changed in ways that are only now beginning to be apparent. The symptoms of this sexual licentiuosness epidemic have been recognized as epidemics themselves: AIDS, Pornography, Sexual Assaults, pedophilia, and the list goes on and on of epidemics that themselves were spawned by the sexual licentiousness epidemic.
A book entitled THE TIPPING POINT written by Malcolm Gladwell got me thinking about what it means to be a part of a social epidemic. Gladwell said, "Once you've had a particular stain of the flu, or the measles, you develop an immunity to it, and when too many people get immunity to a particular virus, the epidemic comes to an end. I think that when we talk about social epidemics," Gladwell said, "we give far too little attention to the problem of immunity."
As soon as I read the words I quote above, I knew that what Gladwell was saying had a direct application to the way this nation has responded to legalized abortion. Not that Gladwell was focused at all on legalized abortion in the USA. Far from it. Gladwell never once hinted that he saw legalized abortion, or sexual licentiousness per se, as any kind of "social epidemic." While he did define AIDS as a social epidemic, it was the only aspect of what I call the "sexual licentiousness epidemic" that he was willing to treat as an epidemic.
But still Gladwell's book, THE TIPPING POINT, was just that for me, a book that provided a tipping point for my thinking about the meaning of the sexual epidemic in this nation.
From where I stand legalized abortion, like the AIDS epidemic and the pornography epidemic is a direct result of the sexual licentiousness epidemic. As soon as I thought about the meaning of Gladwell's words, "...we give far too little attention to the problem of immunity..." I realized that it would be easy to prove that the people of the United States of America, Christians included, have developed an immunity to the sexual licentiousness epidemic, an immunity that explains why the sexual licentiousness epidemic, instead of being contained because a treatment for the epidemic has been found that is effective, is growing not only in the USA but in the entire world.
Most Christians appear to have few symptoms of the virus of sexual licentiosness raging in America and the world today. In other words, most Christians appear to be immune to the sexual licentiousness epidemic that is raging in the rest of the nation.
But I believe Christians need to look very closely at Christian behavior in the midst of the sexual licentiousness epidemic.
For example, focus on this. The first sign of immunity is evidenced by the fact that when exposed to a virus the person does not contract the virus, or if the virus is contracted, it is contracted in a way that is so much less than those who become infected with the virus that the person is judged to be immune to the virus.
On the surface it would appear to be a good thing that Christians appear to be immune to the sexual licentiousness epidemic. But a closer inspection reveals the truth about Christian immunity. As the remainder of this article proves, this generation of American Christians, while appearing to be immune to the sexual licentiousness epidemic themselves, have beome instrumentatal in spreading the epidemic they appear to be immune to.
To understand what I am trying to reveal, you must understand that there are some types of immunity that actually help to spead an epidemic.
The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines carrier this way: car·ri·er (kr-r)n. 1. A person or an animal that shows no symptoms of a disease but harbors the infectious agent of that disease and is capable of transmitting it to others. In other words, it is possible for a person to be immune to a virus but still be a carrier of the virus, one who infects everyone in whom they come into contact.
The Murder Immunity
I think I can prove that the sexual licentiousness epidemic is undergirded, is in fact justified in the minds of outlaws against God's Word, by the way American Christians have responded to legalized abortion in this nation.
The proof begins by seeing that the response of American Christians to legalized abortion can be accurately summarized as thirty eight years of toleration of legalized abortion, which is another way of saying toleration of legalized homicide, toleration of legalized murder. It is this toleration of legalized murder that I call the murder immunity, because that's what it is, an immunity to murder, a Christian immunity to murder.
If you think about it, you will see that a person can become immune to the murder of another person and, as soon as they develop that immunity, become a carrier of murder themselves.
The best known example from the 20th Century is the people of Germany who became immune to the Nazi practice of murdering people without any regard to due process of law. Examples of this Nazi practice can be found from "The Night of Long Knives" and continued through the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.
(Please note that I'm not only talking about the Nazi authorities who carried out the murders of other people. I'm talking about the entire German population who became immune to the actions of the Nazi government leaders. The lie that the mass of German citizens did not know what the Nazi leaders were doing has long been exposed to be just that: a lie. At some level of consciousness, virtually every person in Germany above the age of about four knew unwanted people were being exterminated as a part of official Nazi policy and in the name of maintaining the German nation. The mass of the Germans simply became immune to the murders in their midst done in their name because the murders were not a threat to the vast majority of German citizens.)
In the same way, Christians in the Antebellum South were immune to slavery and for the same reason: the white people in the South stood no chance of becoming slaves themselves.
The type of immunity that grows from creating emotional insulation that blocks out the emotions normally created by murder, instead of being unusual among people throughout history, when examined closely, can be seen to be the rule. Just as the people of Pharoah's Egypt were immune to the slavery of others, so too did the nation of Israel become immune to the Baal worship that resulted in the children of Israel being offered as sacrifices to a false god (Psalm 106).
All that is required to become immune to the murder of another person is to become emotionally insulated from the murder of that person. In other words, the moment one person ceases to feel what a healthy person feels when they realize another person has been murdered, then that person becomes a carrier of the disease of murder.
What does a healthy person feel in the presence of murder? The first murder recorded in the Bible documents what is meant to be felt in the presence of murder.
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
When a person is murdered, their blood cries out to the Lord, the Creator who created the murdered person. Normally, it is some loved one--the parents of that murdered person, or their siblings, or their wife or children--who cry out to the Lord. And their cries become the cry of the blood that was shed in the murder. To validate this point, watch any of the myriad "true" homicide programs on television these days. You will see every homicide detective respond to the knowledge that there are living people who demand the murder victim be avenged by law enforcement officers.
Now think about what it means when people are murdered and no one cries out because of their blood that was murderously, unjustly shed.
It should be obvious that when Christians no longer respond to murder by sending blood cries to the Lord, then those Christians, exactly like the loyal Nazi Christians in Germany, have become immune to murder. If that is not obvious to you, yet you consider yourself a Christian, then your relationship with the Spirit of Truth is defective and you must rectify that relationship before you will be able to understand this article or any other truthful communication.
ABSTRACTION AS THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF IMMUNITY TO MURDER
We become immune to murder by treating people as abstractions, not as real people created in the image of the real God.
An abstraction is something that isn't an actual thing. Like round. We all know what round is, but it's not a thing. It's an abstraction.
Abstractions are important in discussing murder because the instant that a real person begins to be treated as an abstraction, at that precise instant it becomes possible to murder them because they, by definition, will have ceased to be a real person and will have become an abstration. Since an abstraction, by definition, is not an actual thing, then to destroy the abstraction is not murder at all because to destroy an abstraction has no real effect in the real world where real people live. In other words to change a round ball to a square ball does not change the fact that the ball continues to exist. But to change a gestating child in the womb of its mother from a live child to a dead child is not something done to an abstraction but is the homicide of a child.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has decreed that the child in the process of gestation in the womb of its mother is an abstraction and not a real thing. To the Supreme Court, real people have certain and unalienable Rights defined by the Supreme Court, but unborn people in the womb of their mothers are abstractions and not real people.
Christians in the USA might have whined about the Court's decision, might even have cried about it, but finally the decision has been accepted by Christians as the law of the land.
In the acceptance of that decision to treat unborn babies as an abstraction rather than a real thing, the people of the United States of America became immune to the murder of the child being aborted.
It is a matter of historical fact that, with a few exceptions (exceptions we will look at next) every person in the United States of America has tolerated the homicides authorized by the Supreme Court of the USA. That is what I mean when I say we, the people of the United States of America, have become immune to murder.
THOSE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT BECOME IMMUNE TO MURDER
The Rev. Paul Hill never did become immune to murder. As hard as the Christians around him tried to make Rev. Paul Hill immune to murder, they never succeeded. Even after Rev. Hill was formally excommunicated from the congregation he was a member of, he never became immune to murder. Even after the Christian pro-life movement labeled the Rev. Paul Hill a murderer and used him as an example of what a Christian cannot be, and his actions as an example of what a Christian cannot do, the Rev. Paul Hill remained faithful to his calling, faithful unto death.
The evidence that Rev. Paul Hill did not become immune to murder is found in the fact that Rev. Hill took the responsibility upon himself to personally arrest the murderers using all means available to accomplish that specific goal. In other words, Rev. Hill did what law enforcement officers always do in the face of murder: they do the best they know how to stop the murders. And they accomplish this duty to try to stop murder and murderers even if it costs them their own lives in the process.
The example of the Rev. Paul Hill demonstrated how you can tell that a person has not become immune to murder. In other words, the Rev. Paul Hill demonstrated with his own life exactly the process that a law enforcement officer committed to refusing to become immune to murder reveals with his life's work.
The only people who will not grasp the point Rev. Paul Hill revealed with his life are people who not only have become immune to murder but are determined to teach others to become immune to murder themselves. Such people must not only ignore the example set by Rev. Hill but must in fact turn him into an example of a murderer, and, further, must make excoriating the example of Rev. Hill the goal of Christians who have become immune to murder and who intend to make their position of immunity to murder be defined as the Will of God on earth.
In other words, the people of this planet are face to face with a choice: 1. they can refuse to become immune to murder exactly like Rev. Paul Hill refused to become immuce to murder; or 2. they can not only become immune to murder but also teach that it is the Will of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ that everyone on earth become immune to murder themselves when the Supreme Court of their land decrees people to be treated as abstractions rather than real people created in the image of the real God.
Jesus Christ never treated creation as an abstraction. Even though all creation was made by Him and all creation was contained within Him, no aspect of creation was ever treated by Jesus as a mere abstraction. He treated every aspect of reality as if it had a real presence that was to be dealt with, not as an abstraction, but as a part of reality. Even death itself was no abstraction to Jesus Christ, but death was an enemy that Jesus dealt with as real and no abstraction whatsoever. When Jesus Christ killed any creature, there was always a reason that advanced the cause of life. When Jesus killed the fig tree, when Jesus killed the swine, there was a purpose in the killing that advanced life itself. Even when the Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself up to be killed, there was a reason for His death that advanced the cause and purpose of life, a reason that ultimately meant that death itself would be defeated, destroyed and vanquished forever into a narrow and circumscribed portion of creation called death, the grave, or hell. While hell would exist forever, it would be separated from the Lord Jesus Christ and His Saints. Separated, but real, never an abstration.
To be immune to murder is an abstraction that cannot exist in reality but can exist in the mind of a deluded creature who blocks out the reality of murder. Therein is the path to hell in service to Satan himself.