Religious Suicides

By Larry Ray Hafley

You have heard of the recent suicides of religious cults in Canada and in southern California. Forty-four have died in the two suicide pacts. This number, tragic as it is, does not approach the 913 who followed the notorious Jim Jones in Guyana, in 1978.

Unbelievers will paint all religious people with the same brush. In other words, all who profess faith in God are “nuts.” If you believe in God, you are a blind, fanatical robot. You have lost your mind. “Much learning doth make thee mad.”

Any valid points that are made against the cult suicides will have to be taken from Bible principles, from biblical standards. See the irony in that? Those who do not believe the Bible will use it to condemn the suicides. Do “quack” doctors invalidate medical science? No, true science is what discredits the “quack.” Do “shyster” lawyers prove that the legal profession is crooked? No, true jurisprudence arrests the “shyster.” Do religious cults make faith void? No, the absurd actions of religious cultists do not prove that all religion is ridiculous. As one must take truth to defeat the quack and convict the shyster, so one must take Divine revelation to refute human imaginations (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Infidels cannot remain consistent and criticize those who have taken their own lives. If assisted suicide should be legalized, and if mothers may kill their unborn babies, why should an adult be condemned for taking his own life? If a mother’s body is her own, and she may choose to abort her child, why is not any person’s body his own which he may kill if he chooses to do so? Unbelievers cannot answer without contradicting their own philosophy.

No, it is not right to commit murder, and suicide is murder, self murder. But let an atheist tell us why it is wrong, or why it should be viewed as a sign of “madness.” If consenting adults have the right to engage in every form of vile sexual conduct without facing condemnation, why may not consenting adults agree to kill themselves for whatever reason? If, according to modern thought, one’s “sexual preference” or “sexual orientation” is no one’s business, whose business is one’s “spiritual preference” or “religious orientation”? Let an agnostic explain.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 10 p. 15
April May 1, 1997