It is now official. The state may now practice euthanasia on its citizens. I must remind everyone, the argument that says, "I wouldn't want to live like that" does not wash. No judge in the world has this kind of power. I would like to say much against judges, but someone else has done a far better job than I could.
Three thousand years ago a man wrote about judges and how they will have to give an account for their actions. Here is it:
A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
Jesus quoted this Psalm almost a thousand years after it was written. If Jesus may apply it to the rulers of His day, then God's Word may be applied to our judges today. I fear that their actions are a plague sent by God against a stiffnecked people. Rise Up, O God and judge the earth. For no one seems to be left who rules with a righteous scepter.
A La Carte (April 25)
3 hours ago
4 comments:
Although I know If it was my wife, she would still be alive. But I can't stop wondering where the line is? If this story were about a 92 year old man unpugging his 98-year-old - brain dead wife from a respirator to allow her to pass, we would have never had heard about it. Would this case be a sin? What if technology allowed us to save the Popes brain and heart right before he passes, put it in a jar and technically keep him alive for a thousand years. Would we have to do it? Is there a line? if so where?
"If this story were about a 92 year old man unpugging his 98-year-old - brain dead wife from a respirator to allow her to pass, we would have never had heard about it. Would this case be a sin?"
That's just it. Terry does not even come close to the above description. Terry was brain damaged, not brain dead. Keeping someone alive artificially is the other debate.
The problem is that those on the left do not believe in moral absolutes by which we may debate the so-called "gray" areas. When your starting point is not the Law of God and His council but man's thinking, no one could possibly be wrong. Everyone becomes right because truth is determined by ME.
Such thinking leads to destruction. As the ancient proberb says, "There is a way that seems right unto man, but in the end, it leads to death." How true that has become for Terry Schiavo.
I totally agree about Terry Schiavo. Her husband will have to answer to god for the sin he has commited. I pity him, that he cannot see past his own life time.
But what about the gray area's. What if this story was a little differen't. I understand about starting with god's law. Lets do that. How do we bring it into todays technology. Lets start discussing it now, because the next story will be on our door step soon. May even happen to us. What do we do. If Terry Schiavo lived 100 years ago we would not even have had the technology to keep her alive. I guess my point is that without guide lines the court has to leave it up to the family.
What are the guide lines? I'm interested in what people think. especially the right wingers. The left dont even value the life of babys, so my expectations of them to value the lives of elderly or handicap are minimal. I'm really interested in what the right says. Being somewhere in the middle myself, all I can say is, I pray to god that I never have to make the discision again. I had to take three of my baby's lives to save my wifes. It would had been so much easier if god himself had told me to do it. Terry Schaivo's husband thinks he was taking his wifes life to save his own - little does he know that he is doing just the oposite.
Jim,
Francis J. Beckwith has been a great help for me in the past in dealing with prolife issues. I have found him to be more philosophically consistent.
Norman Geisler has also argued before a an association of medical Doctors on the issues you have mentioned by arguing from "natural law". You can probably find his papers on the subject on the internet.
The only problem with Christian philosophers is that they tend to argue from philosophy and not necessarily Biblically sound arguments. But when society does not accept the bible, sometimes you have to go onto their turf. :-)
Post a Comment