This is Sickening...How are we making Suicide a Viable Option?!
- Thread starter ThomistColin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Don't vote for presidents with mustaches, because it was Hitler's mustache that led to WWII!
In all seriousness though, you're neglecting one crucial bit of information. Hitler wanted to round up people who didn't want to die, enslaved them, then murdered them.
This woman here chose to end her own life.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation either. So even if she was euthanize without her consent (something I would be 100% AGAINST), it still wouldn't be the same as what caused WWII.
In all seriousness though, you're neglecting one crucial bit of information. Hitler wanted to round up people who didn't want to die, enslaved them, then murdered them.
This woman here chose to end her own life.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation either. So even if she was euthanize without her consent (something I would be 100% AGAINST), it still wouldn't be the same as what caused WWII.
M
I
As with Nazi Germany, it all starts with "acceptable" killings but it swiftly gathers pace until those who don't conform to the ideology are swiftly disposed of.
Christians are increasingly being seen as non-conformists in today's society where anything in acceptable...now there's a though. I think it's best not to take the "euthanasia" route.
As with Nazi Germany, it all starts with "acceptable" killings but it swiftly gathers pace until those who don't conform to the ideology are swiftly disposed of.
Christians are increasingly being seen as non-conformists in today's society where anything in acceptable...now there's a though. I think it's best not to take the "euthanasia" route.
J
Anti-Christ is anti our choice to become a Christian. Christ is respecting your freewill to become like Him. Light or Darkness, Good or bad, Heaven or Hell. There's no in between. Brittany Maynard faced a hard choice: Live longer yet suffer or suffer yet in a short while by ending it on your own. It was like Ecclesiastes. Never knew that there's more a life after death here on earth. Never knew the eternal life and eternal suffering. But if someone has a healthy fear in God rather than in suffering and death, ending one's life or one's suffering is not a choice to make, it's a sin. I couldn't underestimate the emotions, the suffering of one's person. I couldn't even underestimate more the emotion suffered by Jesus Christ and the suffering he went through to save me. The question: Is the matter a choose to or not choose to or a matter of do sin and do not sin? If it's a matter of choice, we are making it lighter, the gravity of consequence for someone to choose commit suicide. If it's a matter of sin, we are making God real to that person, and all the things associated with God like Light and Darkness, Good and Bad, Heaven and Hell.
Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Sorry, but the arguments supporting the claims that this is what lead to WWII are still unfounded, and the arguments are so weak that one can claim sin in general will lead to another Hitler-like figure. It's asinine, since it ignores so many other factors that actually caused WWII.
Hitler professed belief in Jesus, therefore government leaders who profess belief in Jesus will inevitably lead the government into another World War... at least, that's the kind of argument I could make if I use the same standards as everyone claiming consensual suicide due to illness will lead to another world war.
Someone mentioned "devalueation of life". It has nothing to do with devaluing life, since we're all capable of suicide. Making it legal merely expresses that we're allowed to legally do what we want with our own bodies. And if you claim God owns our bodies, see my post about religion based governments.
Hitler professed belief in Jesus, therefore government leaders who profess belief in Jesus will inevitably lead the government into another World War... at least, that's the kind of argument I could make if I use the same standards as everyone claiming consensual suicide due to illness will lead to another world war.
Someone mentioned "devalueation of life". It has nothing to do with devaluing life, since we're all capable of suicide. Making it legal merely expresses that we're allowed to legally do what we want with our own bodies. And if you claim God owns our bodies, see my post about religion based governments.
The devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image. This mindset/presuppostion trickles down into legislation (legalizing abortion, doctor assisted suicide) and even into the individuals attitude towards their own life.
When the society or the individual is convinced life has little value, they act accordingly.
When the society or the individual is convinced life has little value, they act accordingly.
So if a person is sick and there is no known cure, does the person have a right to refuse medical treatment or can they require you family member to subject themselves to experiment treatments? If you refuse treatment aren't you thwarting God's from it be some experimental treatment that could have worked?
If a family member who has prayed and layed hand on the dying family member allowed to also ask the LORD to end their suffering by sending forth an Angel to bring the earlier ending of their loved one's suffering? After all it is written in Duet. 32:39 who the Spirit who gives life is. So is it wrong to pray that despite our hope and faith that the days of our loved ones be prolonged, that their days of suffering be shorten in such terminal cases.
The process of life that hold the promise of life anew according to the gospel of His Glory, we have to go through the transfiguration, or leave this body behind. So wouldn't the situation itself act in defence of the person being entitled to the dignity and liberty to such decision according to the convictions of their own conscience?
If a family member who has prayed and layed hand on the dying family member allowed to also ask the LORD to end their suffering by sending forth an Angel to bring the earlier ending of their loved one's suffering? After all it is written in Duet. 32:39 who the Spirit who gives life is. So is it wrong to pray that despite our hope and faith that the days of our loved ones be prolonged, that their days of suffering be shorten in such terminal cases.
The process of life that hold the promise of life anew according to the gospel of His Glory, we have to go through the transfiguration, or leave this body behind. So wouldn't the situation itself act in defence of the person being entitled to the dignity and liberty to such decision according to the convictions of their own conscience?
Or a couple of scriptures to consider.
Col 3:3
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
2 Tim 2:11-13
11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
Job 2:6
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
Matt 16:23-26
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
2 Tim 2:11-13 continued
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Col 3:3
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
2 Tim 2:11-13
11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
Job 2:6
And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
Matt 16:23-26
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
2 Tim 2:11-13 continued
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
This is called Hitlerization, using the argument that something is Nazi-like, or Hitler-like, to appeal to the emotions of the audience and score points. Hitler did not so much intend to euthanize (with consent) people with excrutiating and or debilitating mental or physical illnesses which were terminal and from which the patients wanted relief, he gassed healthy disabled people by force. There's a huge difference.
I would argue that forcing another person to undergo excruciating physical and or mental distress with no viable recovery method is a devaluation of life; it is saying 'you have no choice, your thoughts on your own life is worthless, the fact that you live is not something you can have control over, the fact that you're in intense physical pain is irrelevant, we're going to force you to endure it, because we, as healthy people, know better than you do'.
I believe your argument about abortion is actually the wrong way round, too. To abort a child is to force a decision on its life without its consent, and to force someone to undergo physical agony and deny them relief is also to force a decision on their life without their consent.
Instead of saying ''allowing someone to die'', we can use the term ''forcing someone to live''. It's just as valid.
People don't ask for euthanazia because they think life has no value, it's more that that person's particular life is one of intense suffering, from which they desire relief. You seem to be looking at this from an uncompromisingly black and white stance, but since the bible offers no prohibition against suicide, let's look at it another way to try to find answers.
If a person is suffering and they themselves want to end their suffering, and ending their life does not end another person's life, then who are any of us to deny them that? God gave them the ability to do so, so what power should we have to deny them their choice?
Before you say 'God also gave them the ability to murder, but they ought not to do that'', God has EXPRESSLY forbidden murder, but has not expressly forbidden the act of allowing oneself to die.
I believe your argument about abortion is actually the wrong way round, too. To abort a child is to force a decision on its life without its consent, and to force someone to undergo physical agony and deny them relief is also to force a decision on their life without their consent.
Instead of saying ''allowing someone to die'', we can use the term ''forcing someone to live''. It's just as valid.
People don't ask for euthanazia because they think life has no value, it's more that that person's particular life is one of intense suffering, from which they desire relief. You seem to be looking at this from an uncompromisingly black and white stance, but since the bible offers no prohibition against suicide, let's look at it another way to try to find answers.
If a person is suffering and they themselves want to end their suffering, and ending their life does not end another person's life, then who are any of us to deny them that? God gave them the ability to do so, so what power should we have to deny them their choice?
Before you say 'God also gave them the ability to murder, but they ought not to do that'', God has EXPRESSLY forbidden murder, but has not expressly forbidden the act of allowing oneself to die.
My point is that those cultures with a Judeo Christian ethic place a higher value on life and do what they can do to save life. I had previously in an earlier post stated I had no opinion in the suffering aspect until I had suffered similarly. My post was in response to Percepi's comment that devaluation of life had nothing to do with the matter.
Claim: Devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image, which leads to abortion and assisted suicide.
Rebuttal 1: Assisted suicide to avoid pain and suffering from terminal illness does not stem from devaluation of life. This is because people who do kill themselves when they're suffering terminal illness DO value their life - but if they're going to die, they may as well die without suffering.
Rebuttal 2: Many people who have abortions believe man is made in God's image. The issue stems from whether or not a FETUS holds the same value as a living person. When is a fetus no longer a fetus? When is it considered living? People who are okay with abortion most often view the fetus as non-human or as a lesser human. This is all debatable, but none of this has to do with the idea man is made in God's image since you'll find many non-Christians who feel abortion is wrong too.
Is a fetus a human and does a fetus deserve the same rights as those who have been born? This is the question - it has nothing to do with the image of God.
I already stated how abortion isn't based on the devaluation of life, but whether or not a fetus carries the characteristics necessary to grant them equal rights as those who have been born. This is why people who support abortion still oppose the idea that babies be put to death, because a baby isn't the same as a fetus. If what you said is true, then pro-choice advocates would also argue that babies have no value. That's not the case.
And again, assisted suicide doesn't occur because people don't value their own life. If you're about to live the rest of you life in immense pain and agony before you die, then you may feel it's better to die before the pain and suffering begins to take over. You can argue that this person values a life of pain and suffering less than a life of happiness, but that's a key distinction that must be made! You can't simply say people devalue life, therefore assisted suicide and abortion. You have to look at the actual standards people hold.
If your child is sick and you refuse to take him to the doctor, despite his serious illness, does that mean you devalue his life? If you answered yes, then does it also mean you devalue an elderly man's life because he doesnt want to live on life support? If you answered yes to both questions, then what you're suggesting is that we should keep people who are in pain alive for as long as possible - even if it makes them miserable. If you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, why? After answering why, did you realize we base the value of life on differing standards?
Most importantly, assisted suicide is consensual. Otherwise it's murder. This is a very important distinction that must be made. Everyone keeps talking about how assisted suicide will lead to euthanasia, when there's literally zero evidence for it. That's like saying self defense leads to mass murder. You take two scenarios with only a few similarities and conclude one must therefore lead to the other. And heck, what if we used this logic in politics? This is how we end up with overbearing regulations, because if we allow one thing it might turn into something else - therefore ban everything!
Rebuttal 1: Assisted suicide to avoid pain and suffering from terminal illness does not stem from devaluation of life. This is because people who do kill themselves when they're suffering terminal illness DO value their life - but if they're going to die, they may as well die without suffering.
Rebuttal 2: Many people who have abortions believe man is made in God's image. The issue stems from whether or not a FETUS holds the same value as a living person. When is a fetus no longer a fetus? When is it considered living? People who are okay with abortion most often view the fetus as non-human or as a lesser human. This is all debatable, but none of this has to do with the idea man is made in God's image since you'll find many non-Christians who feel abortion is wrong too.
Is a fetus a human and does a fetus deserve the same rights as those who have been born? This is the question - it has nothing to do with the image of God.
I already stated how abortion isn't based on the devaluation of life, but whether or not a fetus carries the characteristics necessary to grant them equal rights as those who have been born. This is why people who support abortion still oppose the idea that babies be put to death, because a baby isn't the same as a fetus. If what you said is true, then pro-choice advocates would also argue that babies have no value. That's not the case.
And again, assisted suicide doesn't occur because people don't value their own life. If you're about to live the rest of you life in immense pain and agony before you die, then you may feel it's better to die before the pain and suffering begins to take over. You can argue that this person values a life of pain and suffering less than a life of happiness, but that's a key distinction that must be made! You can't simply say people devalue life, therefore assisted suicide and abortion. You have to look at the actual standards people hold.
If your child is sick and you refuse to take him to the doctor, despite his serious illness, does that mean you devalue his life? If you answered yes, then does it also mean you devalue an elderly man's life because he doesnt want to live on life support? If you answered yes to both questions, then what you're suggesting is that we should keep people who are in pain alive for as long as possible - even if it makes them miserable. If you answered yes to the first question and no to the second question, why? After answering why, did you realize we base the value of life on differing standards?
Most importantly, assisted suicide is consensual. Otherwise it's murder. This is a very important distinction that must be made. Everyone keeps talking about how assisted suicide will lead to euthanasia, when there's literally zero evidence for it. That's like saying self defense leads to mass murder. You take two scenarios with only a few similarities and conclude one must therefore lead to the other. And heck, what if we used this logic in politics? This is how we end up with overbearing regulations, because if we allow one thing it might turn into something else - therefore ban everything!
First off you misquoted my claim and proceeded with a strawman argument..my original claim..
The devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image. This mindset/presuppostion trickles down into legislation (legalizing abortion, doctor assisted suicide) and even into the individuals attitude towards their own life.
When the society or the individual is convinced life has little value, they act accordingly.
Your claim of what I claimed...
Claim: "Devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image, which leads to abortion and assisted suicide."
Your claim such as " Many people who have abortions believe man is made in God's image" is neither here nor there. Objectively, man is created in the image of God, thus abortion is wrong whether or not the one who has an abortion believes that man is created in God's image. Their opinion does not set a standard. Man's determination of the value of an unborn is a moot point, it is wrong regardless. Many 'Christians' get divorced, that though does not earn God's approval.
Regarding pain of the dying isn't there pain management? If so, wouldn't that render most of these elderly pain situational ethics type questions moot?
The devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image. This mindset/presuppostion trickles down into legislation (legalizing abortion, doctor assisted suicide) and even into the individuals attitude towards their own life.
When the society or the individual is convinced life has little value, they act accordingly.
Your claim of what I claimed...
Claim: "Devaluation of life occurs when men are no longer persuaded that man is made in God's image, which leads to abortion and assisted suicide."
Your claim such as " Many people who have abortions believe man is made in God's image" is neither here nor there. Objectively, man is created in the image of God, thus abortion is wrong whether or not the one who has an abortion believes that man is created in God's image. Their opinion does not set a standard. Man's determination of the value of an unborn is a moot point, it is wrong regardless. Many 'Christians' get divorced, that though does not earn God's approval.
Regarding pain of the dying isn't there pain management? If so, wouldn't that render most of these elderly pain situational ethics type questions moot?