|
Post by stevec on Dec 14, 2013 13:22:54 GMT -6
Malleo, How was Jesus' crucifixion not a perfect example of assisted suicide? It's not even possible to take you seriously when you post stuff like this. Really? It was an honest question. Okay, you don't see the connection..................we can come back to it later, so what do you think about my martyrdom question.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 14, 2013 13:36:26 GMT -6
It's not even possible to take you seriously when you post stuff like this. Why not? It's an apt question considering that as God, Jesus presumably knew how he was to die and further knew that the whole point of his life was to become the ultimate sacrifice. It's a safe bet that a peaceful death in bed in his dotage was hardly an option. I didn't post this question last night, and I deleted the question this morning, and then decided to go ahead with it anyway, just because I knew I'd get this sort of non response. You got it, and i didn't have to explain my reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 14, 2013 15:18:47 GMT -6
The entire problem is creating a comparison between a person and a dog. I don't see why. My contention is not that the value of a human being is equivalent to the value of an animal. Rather, I am saying that while we value human beings much, much more than we do animals, we treat our animals far better in the end of life--not because they are cheap and we are "throwing them away", but because they are precious to us and that we care about their suffering, allowing that care to override our personal desire to hold on. That we should extend this thinking to human beings seem natural in light of compassion. So the question is not "If it's good enough for Rover, then why isn't it good enough for us?", but rather "Why are we treating our animals so much better than our parents, our siblings and our children?" I realize that the article didn't address child euthanasia directly. I meant it as a corrective to the polemics of the anti-euthanasia "facts" from the article you posted. I can try to see if there are data concerning child euthanasia, but I got a bit busy last night and had to stop where I did. The point I gathered from the article was that the process was not the runaway train that it was cast to be by pro-life forces--euthanasia seemed to be being reserved for appropriate cases.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 14, 2013 16:55:30 GMT -6
Very well said, FB. I wondered similarly but could not have said so as well as you did.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 15, 2013 12:03:39 GMT -6
Why not? Because Jesus was killed on the cross. He didn't kill himself in the cross. I thought Steve was only that stupid that he was unable to see the obvious distinction. You two drop the IQ level here too low.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 15, 2013 14:21:37 GMT -6
Why not? Because Jesus was killed on the cross. He didn't kill himself in the cross. I thought Steve was only that stupid that he was unable to see the obvious distinction. You two drop the IQ level here too low. No, human beings get killed on the cross. An omniscient and omnipotent god who sheepishly allows himself to be slaughtered on the cross is suicidal. I don't know if IQ has anything to do with it, but your faith blinders are definitely affecting your ability to see the facts. Why don't you try a soldier analogy?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 15, 2013 14:58:13 GMT -6
Suicide by provoking cops? Deliberately confrontational actions that get you crucified? Same basic thing as I see it.
Only notable differences in terms of method are that the contemporary one is faster, much less labor-intensive, and undoubtedly less painful for the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 15, 2013 16:43:45 GMT -6
Jesus went to Jerusalem with the explicit intention to die, stating that he was offering himself up as a sacrifice. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see this as suicidal.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 16, 2013 9:45:50 GMT -6
I guess the real slippery slope is asking meat & potatoes type religious questions rather than cognac by the fireplace type questions.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 16, 2013 22:22:08 GMT -6
I guess the real slippery slope is asking meat & potatoes type religious questions rather than cognac by the fireplace type questions. Make mine Scotch, but it's a nicely evocative metaphor. Questioning our deepest beliefs is an act of intellectual courage. Few have the stomach for it.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 16, 2013 23:42:56 GMT -6
I guess the real slippery slope is asking meat & potatoes type religious questions rather than cognac by the fireplace type questions. Make mine Scotch, but it's a nicely evocative metaphor. Questioning our deepest beliefs is an act of intellectual courage. Few have the stomach for it. Thanks, I understand that it's impossible to win a debate on religious forums, but there's some consolation, though initially frustrating, when a question goes unanswered. Questioning spiritual beliefs has always been easy for me, I've never had anything to loose in that regard. I'll leave the courageous aspect to people like you who had to struggle with such questions. I can't imagine what that was like.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 17, 2013 7:55:14 GMT -6
I answered your question. The answer is that your premise is flawed, therefore your conclusions are erroneous. It's not that I didn't give an answer. it is that you don't like the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 17, 2013 7:59:46 GMT -6
I answered your question. The answer is that your premise is flawed, therefore your conclusions are erroneous. It's not that I didn't give an answer. it is that you don't like the answer. I responded to you. Perhaps you didn't see it. The human dignity vs animal objection doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 17, 2013 8:18:47 GMT -6
I was speaking to Steve. This logic of yours, though, is also then tantamount to saying, that a person that opts not to continue cancer treatment is committing suicide as well.
Your premise is that 'we treat animals better at the end of life, then we do people". That's an opinion, not a fact, based on the conclusion that what may be considered apt treatment for an animal thus constitutes the norm for how people should be treated. We put a dog out of its misery, so that = lets put people out of their misery. That really doesn't hold up to scrutiny, in the end. (However, if we do treat animals better than people in other ways, then that is a sad indictment of our culture, and one I would say has some merit since i see a lot of people more concerned about adopting pets than adopting children).
Animals are not people, and this equivalency comes from equating the two. Notice how the dog doesn't get the choice, though. Animals are property, and their owner has life and death power over them. Euthanasia is an option because they are not people, they are property even though they are live creatures, even if we have some kind of fondness for them. So if you are going to go this route, then you have gone down a pretty slippery slope.
But you atheists like to weasel the meaning of things to suit your purpose when convenient.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 17, 2013 9:15:12 GMT -6
Suicide by provoking cops? Deliberately confrontational actions that get you crucified? Same basic thing as I see it. Only notable differences in terms of method are that the contemporary one is faster, much less labor-intensive, and undoubtedly less painful for the victim. Then I take it you believe that the revolutionary, Nathan Hale, also committed suicide by his treasonous acts against the British Crown, when he was hanged. He knew the risks, so was obviously acting suicidal too. He only had one life to give, though....
|
|