The choice to be euthanized

[Jazzy]

Do you think everyone should have the choice to be euthanized if they don't want live anymore? and why?

 

[Josiah]

No. "Thou shalt not kill." As I understand it, the Hebrew word for "kill" here means to murder, to kill an innocent defenseless human.


.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Suicide is self-murder. Therefore, prohibited by the commandment. Euthanasia is a euphemism meant to soften the reality of self-murder. When it comes to sin, we must not waffle in the terminology.

 

[tango]

Suicide is self-murder. Therefore, prohibited by the commandment. Euthanasia is a euphemism meant to soften the reality of self-murder. When it comes to sin, we must not waffle in the terminology.

The trouble with this is that you're trying to use the force of law to impose our definition of what is and what is not sinful upon others, who have been given a freedom to disobey God's call by God himself.

Personally I think it should be legal even though I would like to think I would never take advantage of such a law. My concern would be that an elderly person who is very wealthy but burning through their capital very fast paying medical bills might be pressured by their heirs into agreeing to be euthanized based on a desire to inherit more money rather than to prevent an elderly relative from suffering.

 

[Lees]

No. "Thou shalt not kill." As I understand it, the Hebrew word for "kill" here means to murder, to kill an innocent defenseless human.


.

Based on that 'legalistic' definition, then Christ is guilty. (John 10:18)

What now?

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Based on that 'legalistic' definition, then Christ is guilty. (John 10:18)

What now?

Lees

Read the verse. It does not say Jesus committed suicide by murdering himself, it says He GAVE UP His life. We all will one day do that; submitting to death is not the same thing as murdering self. Obviously.



.

 

[Lees]

Read the verse. It does not say Jesus committed suicide by murdering himself, it says He GAVE UP His life. We all will one day do that; submitting to death is not the same thing as murdering self. Obviously.



.

I did read the verse, which is why I gave it. (John 10:18) "...I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...."

No, what you say is not true. Our just dying is not the same as taking your life. Jesus took His own life. Granted it was for stupendous reason.

In other words, based on your definition in post #(2), Jesus would be guilty of murder.

Lees

 

[tango]

I did read the verse, which is why I gave it. (John 10:18) "...I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...."

No, what you say is not true. Our just dying is not the same as taking your life. Jesus took His own life. Granted it was for stupendous reason.

In other words, based on your definition in post #(2), Jesus would be guilty of murder.

Lees

OK, that's the silliest semantic gymnastics in the thread so far. Well done.

 

[Lees]

OK, that's the silliest semantic gymnastics in the thread so far. Well done.

OK, yet you have nothing to offer.

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I did read the verse, which is why I gave it. (John 10:18) "...I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...."

No, what you say is not true. Our just dying is not the same as taking your life. Jesus took His own life. Granted it was for stupendous reason.

In other words, based on your definition in post #(2), Jesus would be guilty of murder.

Lees

No, I would not say he took his own life. Others took it by crucifying him. He did not resist, but that is different from committing suicide.

If someone said to a Christian, "deny Christ or I will shoot you," and the Christian does not deny Christ and so is shot. The Christian knew that he would likely die but allowed it to happen anyway because the consequence of trying to avoid it was far worse. Same in Jesus' case: the consequence of not allowing himself to be crucified was far worse.

 

[Lees]

No, I would not say he took his own life. Others took it by crucifying him. He did not resist, but that is different from committing suicide.

If someone said to a Christian, "deny Christ or I will shoot you," and the Christian does not deny Christ and so is shot. The Christian knew that he would likely die but allowed it to happen anyway because the consequence of trying to avoid it was far worse. Same in Jesus' case: the consequence of not allowing himself to be crucified was far worse.

(John 10:18) "No man taketh it from me"

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

(John 10:18) "No man taketh it from me"

Lees

Exactly. Jesus was in full control and could have prevented it, but he allowed it to happen.

 

[tango]

OK, yet you have nothing to offer.

Lees

Silly semantic gymnastics don't become any less silly based on the contributions or otherwise of the one noting they are silly, right?

 

[Lees]

Exactly. Jesus was in full control and could have prevented it, but he allowed it to happen.

It's my opinion that we Christians, when talking about God, like to use the word 'allow'. As though that removes any responsibility away from God for something we believe He would never do. Thus we just say, 'He allows it'

We don't want to say God did it. Because we just can't believe God would do it. Thus He allows it. Makes us feel better. But tracing this back, what is the difference? If God allows it, it was His will that it occur. If God allows it, He could have stopped it. But He didn't.

So, if Jesus could have prevented His death, but didn't, then He is taking His own life. Just as He said. (John 10:18)

Just because Jesus's death occurs in the natural flow of human history, doesn't mean He didn't take His own life.

I'm sure most have heard of 'suicide by cop'. That's when someone knowingly pulls an unloaded gun on a police officer, knowing they will shoot back to kill him. He didn't actually shoot himself, but then, yes he did shoot himself.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Silly semantic gymnastics don't become any less silly based on the contributions or otherwise of the one noting they are silly, right?

As I said, if you have nothing to offer than the accusation of 'silly' semantics, then you have nothing to offer.

It remains to be seen how 'silly' it might be. But you offer nothing to dispute it.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

There OBVIOUSLY and undeniably is a difference between permitting something and CAUSING it to happen. We all know this. To suggest otherwise can only be called semantic gymnastics (to put the very best construction possible - to be as nice as possible).


.

 

[tango]

As I said, if you have nothing to offer than the accusation of 'silly' semantics, then you have nothing to offer.

It remains to be seen how 'silly' it might be. But you offer nothing to dispute it.

Lees

It remains to be seen how silly it is? I would say that is doubtful at best.

Someone doesn't have to be a trained pilot to observe the flight was turbulent and the landing was bumpy.

But hey, continue to post silly things if it makes you feel better. I suspect the other comments you've drawn suggest your comment is every bit as silly as I asserted, if not slightly sillier.

 

[tango]

It's my opinion that we Christians, when talking about God, like to use the word 'allow'. As though that removes any responsibility away from God for something we believe He would never do. Thus we just say, 'He allows it'

We don't want to say God did it. Because we just can't believe God would do it. Thus He allows it. Makes us feel better. But tracing this back, what is the difference? If God allows it, it was His will that it occur. If God allows it, He could have stopped it. But He didn't.

So, if Jesus could have prevented His death, but didn't, then He is taking His own life. Just as He said. (John 10:18)

Just because Jesus's death occurs in the natural flow of human history, doesn't mean He didn't take His own life.

I'm sure most have heard of 'suicide by cop'. That's when someone knowingly pulls an unloaded gun on a police officer, knowing they will shoot back to kill him. He didn't actually shoot himself, but then, yes he did shoot himself.

Lees

And the silliness continues with silly false dichotomies.

But hey, we have to accept false dichotomies because the only alternative is cannibalism.

 

[Lees]

There OBVIOUSLY and undeniably is a difference between permitting something and CAUSING it to happen. We all know this. To suggest otherwise can only be called semantic gymnastics (to put the very best construction possible - to be as nice as possible).


.

Obviously to who? You?

We all know this? Who is 'we'? Certainly not me.

You can call something anything you want. The problem is, you only provide an accusation. You don't address what I have said.

You don't have to be 'nice' to me. If you have something to say, by all means, say on. Unless it is just the 'accusation'.

Lees

 

[Lees]

It remains to be seen how silly it is? I would say that is doubtful at best.

Someone doesn't have to be a trained pilot to observe the flight was turbulent and the landing was bumpy.

But hey, continue to post silly things if it makes you feel better. I suspect the other comments you've drawn suggest your comment is every bit as silly as I asserted, if not slightly sillier.

Again, you offer nothing but accusation. Why not address what is said?

It's not a matter of me feeling better. It's just a matter of addressing the issue. Which you are not doing.

Lees