Gift versus loan

[david_friol_1]

Let’s start with Webster’s dictionary (here…)

When one speaks about life as being a gift from God, the word “gift” is taken in the second meaning above. The word “gift” should not be confused with “loan”, they are antonyms. Gift means to relinquish ownership.

However, when speaking of our life and our body, the apologists assert that God does not grant us “ownership” over our lives, we are merely caretakers or stewards, who must take care of our bodies, but we cannot make final decisions concerning it.

My point is the incorrect usage of the word “gift” in this respect. It is a linguistical error to maintain that our life is a “gift”. It is not. Of course it does not sound so “noble” to say that life is just a “loan”, it sounds so much nicer to say that our life is a “gift”.

Hi again Spock

-I am not sure of the context of the apologist who told you that God does not grant us "ownership"over our lives…
-I think in regard to: “Specifically, the apologists deny one’s right to end one’s own life.” they are probably speaking in terms of murder and their desire that all get to heaven and that it is truly believed that life, all life has value so their “rights” are filtered through the lens of "If you want to gain heaven…don’t do this or that. However strictly speaking I would say that everyone does have the right to do whatever he/she wants “even murder” but with those rights come consequences. Having “rights” and having "licence"are not the same. I hope I said that right.
So I would still agree that life truly is a “gift” from God that is ours to do with whatever we choose but we should choose wisely.
Peace to your heart and mind!

 

[Spock]

Hi again Spock

-I am not sure of the context of the apologist who told you that God does not grant us "ownership"over our lives…
-I think in regard to: “Specifically, the apologists deny one’s right to end one’s own life.” they are probably speaking in terms of murder and their desire that all get to heaven and that it is truly believed that life, all life has value so their “rights” are filtered through the lens of "If you want to gain heaven…don’t do this or that. However strictly speaking I would say that everyone does have the right to do whatever he/she wants “even murder” but with those rights come consequences. Having “rights” and having "licence"are not the same. I hope I said that right.
So I would still agree that life truly is a “gift” from God that is ours to do with whatever we choose but we should choose wisely.
Peace to your heart and mind!

Nope. There was and is no conditional. Those apologists assert that God never relinquishes ownership over our bodies. We are responsible for its caretaking, but we have no “right” to get rid of it if we so choose. If someone finds this life intolerable and commits suicide, it is a mortal sin, with the usual consequences.

 

[david_friol_1]

Nope. There was and is no conditional. Those apologists assert that God never relinquishes ownership over our bodies. We are responsible for its caretaking, but we have no “right” to get rid of it if we so choose. If someone finds this life intolerable and commits suicide, it is a mortal sin, with the usual consequences.

Hey Spock
I think there may have been a misunderstanding from what I was trying to say. What do you mean whan you say we have no “right”. Because when I read that I think to myself, going back to my suicidal days, I could have killed myself if I wanted to and I could do the same today if I want to. The fact that I would have to accept the consequences is a separate thing. So in affect it is my body to do with what I choose; IOW it is my “right” to do with my body whatever I choose. Me personally I chose to turn away from my sinful and corrupt life and am trying to seek God the best way that I can. So am I misunderstanding what you mean when you use the word “right”?

And again its hard to answer to what some apologist said with out a reference, perhaps if you had one something more could be said.

God bless you in all your work!