Either Serve Or Burn In Hell

[ateista]

I wanted to address this beforehand: You stated that in your opinion you believe it to not be irrational, so therefore, to be quite rational, sound, and in fact the best decision for an elderly person (who is in pain) to take their own life, correct?

Taken apart, what do we have? Is it rational for all elderly persons to take their life at any moment, or at the onset of pain? Is this thought limited to the elderly, or is age a non-issue? I’m assuming you would say age is a non-issue. So life that is lived without pain has value until it is in pain, in which case it becomes expedient to cancel the pain by ending life?

Furthermore, is suicide, based on your rational, the only “rational” way to end pain by ending life, or can murder be acceptable? If one person decides that another person is in pain, is it not “rational” to cancel their pain by ending their life?

And by pain, what do we mean? Do we mean a temporary pain, a longlasting pain, or what? And who decides how to label these? Who decides what pain constitutes death, and what pain is tolerable? Is it each individual person who decides their pain threshhold, their ability to allow pain before death? Is the pain only to be physical, mental, or both? Should a clinic be opened to educate people on understanding pain threshholds so they know when to kill themselves?

I tried to be exact about it. If someone is in horrible pain, and has no reasonable hope to recover, then it is reasonable to end the pain with the only method available to them - to end the life. It is their choice to be made, if they are able to express their wish.

If they are unable to do so - like being in persistent vegetative state - then it is acceptable to make this decision for them, with proper safeguards attached, so we can prevent abuse.

If value of life diminishes based on a person’s subjective opinion, then all life becomes null and void at all times.

This does not follow.

 

[ateista]

Also I’d like to bring up a point in fairness: If one does not believe in God, one should not use His Word as evidence against Him. Afterall, if there is no God, then the Bible is superfluous. If one believes in a god or gods that is not the Christian God, then the Bible is still superfluous. However, if one believes in the Christian God, then one necessarily believes the Bible to contain religious truth on salvation; it is in the interpretation and understanding that we acquire the Truth, and therefore, Scripture study comes into play to understand what God has revealed to us. I hope that made sense for you.

Scripture was written, authored, for believers. (Correct me if I’m wrong, fellow Catholics )

Sorry, but I disagree. I base some of my arguments on the Bible, because it is something people believe in. It is irrelevant that I consider the Bible as a fully human concoction. The believers don’t. If I point out the problems with the Bible, it is because there are unacceptable parts in it.

I am not arguing with God, though I sure would love to. I am arguing with other human beings, and their ideas. I think it is fair and proper to point out the errors in the foundation of their belief, namely the Bible.

 

[jhblack]

Sorry, but I disagree. I base some of my arguments on the Bible, because it is something people believe in. It is irrelevant that I consider the Bible as a fully human concoction. The believers don’t. If I point out the problems with the Bible, it is because there are unacceptable parts in it.

I am not arguing with God, though I sure would love to. I am arguing with other human beings, and their ideas. I think it is fair and proper to point out the errors in the foundation of their belief, namely the Bible.

The foundation of our belief is Jesus Christ and the Church in which he left teaching authority. I suppose that’s a technicality, but it’s good to teach.

The reason using Scripture to argue against God is unfair is quite obvious: if you don’t believe in God, then Scripture is man-made and just another book; but if you do believe in God, or rather, the Christian God, you understand the book to be authored by Him and to contain religious Truth–inspired, inerrant, and without contradiction (authority given to it through the Catholic Church from God). It makes no sense to reference Scripture if you are not discussing the interpretation of religious Truth for Salvation.

Again, why is it “reasonable” to end someone’s life when they are in pain? Says who? You? That’s your opinion, which is subjective. The same goes for ending someone’s life in a vegetative state. That is a completely subjective opinion. You are defining a person’s value by their quality of life, which is based on opinion. What this boils down to, logically, is that whoever’s opinion holds the most sway rules the day. Hypothetically speaking, under your logic, I could profess that atheists have no quality of life because they are faithless and therefore must be put down, and if I could gather up enough people to agree with me (again, hypothetically speaking), if our opinion outweighed yours and others’ enough to pass a law, we could legally kill you based on our arbitrary opinion of quality of life. This is exactly what the Nazi’s did to the Jews. They passed a law declaring the Jewish population to be non-persons and proceeded to murder millions of human beings based on an arbitrary opinion. When you say that a person should die because they are in pain, you are effectively labeling them non-persons.

If labeling people non-persons based on opinion and choice is how you want us all to behave, then sooner or later, in this society of yours, you will be labeled a non-person for one reason or another, and so will I, and we’ll be put down against our wills.

Ateista, what gives you value? Why do you have value as a human being? Or do you? Do you have value?

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has wandered from topic and is now closed.