Comments on: Life, Death, and God's Sovereignty

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning."

Specifically, then, what is it?

"Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions."

So nobody knows what God wants? What is the purpose of these comments?

"[W]e are called to treat life as sacred."

When, where, and by whom? God does not treat life as sacred. God allegedly killed almost everyone on earth in his flood, went on to kill various individuals as punishment, and stood by and allowed Job's family to be destroyed for the purpose of winning an argument. What is sacred to God appears not to be "life" but how it is lived--i.e., righteously or unrighteously (except in the mind-numbing case of Job, in which even righteousness cannot save Job and nothing but God himself is sacred).

"...because of their culture of 'death'..."

Do you mean that the rest of us, who are not Christians, are happy living around, causing, and socially promoting death?

"...the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them."

I can at least half agree with this. Using the state to promote Christianity is not a good idea. However, I still find it historically inaccurate, scripturally unsound, and theologically hypocritical to claim some "culture of life" for Christianity.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"It is not God's fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God's standard."

No, but it is certainly God's fault for setting the standard and the penalty. The standard being, "Behave as I tell you to," the penalty being, "or else I kill you."

"One cannot infer that God was indifferent to the lives lost because God judged the need to renew creation."

God actively and deliberately killed almost every living thing on the planet, according to the story. He makes Hitler look like a pansy.

God created everyone, then said he loved them, then told them how they had to behave (with the empty gesture of "free will" thrown in), and then when they failed to live up to his standard, he made them mortal (i.e., "the Fall"). Now they had to die, instead of living long, luxurious lives in God's backyard, the "Garden of Eden."

But even mortality didn't scare them away from misbehavior. So this time he killed almost all of them, as I said, actively and deliberately, and mercilessly. He did the same thing again, on a much smaller scale, at Sodom and Gomorrah. It's quite clear that God doesn't give a rat's behind (as Funky has taken to saying) who is on the earth, so long as whoever it is, they're doing what he wants them to do. If everybody on earth is misbehaving, God has no problem with killing them all and trying to replace them with people who will behave as he wants. One can be glad, at least, that after the flood God learned his lesson and realized that this technique won't work, because people are always going to misbehave.

Of course, his next big scheme was hardly any more praiseworthy. He couldn't reform humanity by killing us all, so he got himself killed in a bizarre bid for our attention, along with a new and unimproved ultimatum. This time, you have to recognize and validate, by your "faith," the Divine Suicide, or else, well, you're already gonna die, so this time, if you don't play along, then after you die, you're gonna be tortured by fire (because even though God has promised not to destroy us with water, he still has fire at his disposal), or some metaphorical equivalent, depending on your interpretation. Either way, God has a (metaphorical) gun to our heads, and is not a nice guy.

Oh, sure, there's salvation and there's mercy, but only if you play along. Worship this guy who created us and now holds us hostage with his omnipotence. What if I don't want to play along? What if, as I'm explicating now, I think the whole thing is disgusting and manipulative? It's like forced Stockholm syndrome. It's especially strange, too, since God is supposed to be perfect, but he somehow finds a way in his perfection to still have a persistent need and desire for humans to play along with his deadly game.

It was not a brilliant move on God's part to give us the ability to think for ourselves, but still require us to reach a particular conclusion, a conclusion which, strangely enough, the vast majority of humans have not managed to reach on their own. Are we free but just too stupid to be right? Or is God an inept, murderous sociopath with borderline personality disorder?

" We are not here just to exist, we are here for a purpose and can choose to subvert seriously that purpose."

Yes, we are here to be God's playthings. Not a game I want to play.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"We make decisions every day that may prolong or shorten our lives. As long as we deliberately don't destroy our life or other's, we are not acting against God's will."

How do you define "deliberately"? What about someone who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day, knowing that it reduces life expectancy, but doing it anyway, for the pleasure of smoking them? What about someone who has a heart condition that makes strenuous physical activity dangerous and, despite this knowledge, decides to climb a mountain anyway, because the potential high of the experience outweighs the prospect of death? What about a woman who has been told that childbirth will likely be fatal for her, but conceives anyway? What if the smoker dies young, the hiker falls dead on the mountainside, and the woman does not survive childbirth? Did those individuals "deliberately" destroy their lives?

Now, what if the smoker knows nothing of cancer or heart disease, the hiker knows nothing of his heart condition, and the woman knows nothing of her ability to give birth? Does the situation change?

Can our knowledge about ourselves and about the world create ethical barriers against particular actions? Is self-destruction okay if it is carried out in ignorance?

"If I use my reason and conclude that pharmaceuticals will work better than prayer, which most evidence supports, than I am not acting against God's commandment."

How do you know that? Which commandment of God addressed pharmaceuticals?

"[M]odern medicine is a product of human freedom utilizing God's creation."

How do you know that it is a product of "human freedom" rather than a product of human sin? Wasn't the original human sin the direct result of the exercise of human freedom beyond the realm of knowledge made acceptable by God?

If it was a sin for Adam and Eve to reach for knowledge that they hoped would make them more like God (in the knowledge of good and evil), then why is it not a sin for modern humans to reach for knowledge that they hope will make them more like God (in the power to give and take life)?

And finally, back to the heart of my original question: For Christians who are faced with the prospect of loved ones on life support, the question of when God has given or taken the right to life is not merely an abstract one. Christians who want to make a decision that properly reflects their beliefs will need some knowledge or help or rationale. How, specifically, can a Christian know when it is okay to pull the plug, to not resuscitate, or to stop trying? Or, is the decision, as I suspect, entirely subjective, unaided by Christian texts or traditions, and left wholly to the conscience of the person making it? If so, how is the Christian in this situation unlike anyone else in the same situation, and what good does it do to bluster with words about God's intent or desire for life if no one can even know what God specifically wants, or whether God specifically wants anything at all?

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"[Morality] is based on deliberation on the moral values that were established by God and what the kingship of God should entail. It is also a leap of faith, since we see but in part."

You still offer nothing in the way of specifics. Also, by making morality dependent on God, you perpetuate the hypothesis that non-theists cannot be moral.

"I don't have enough time to explain."

That's not an answer, either.

"If you read the context of Noah, you'll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary."

Why do you assume I haven't read the context?

The "sin of humankind" only made the flood "necessary" because God deemed it so. God had to decide that not living up to his standard warranted death for every living thing on the planet. I.e., as I said above, God seems quite clearly to care little for life itself and much, much more for how that life is behaving--righteously or unrighteously.

"Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor. "

The accuser had the idea; God did not have to go along. (Or, if he did, what kind of God is that?) But God did go along, and was quite willing to sit back and watch as Job's life and his family were destroyed, simply to prove a point.

"You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some "bad" theology as well."

If you're going to get into a discussion with me, don't expect to make comments like that and have me play nice (or at all) afterward. Your job is not to tell me that I misunderstand you or your argument. Your job is to make a better argument, which you have not done.

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning."

Specifically, then, what is it?

It is based on deliberation on the moral values that were established by God and what the kingship of God should entail. It is also a leap of faith, since we see but in part.

"Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions."

So nobody knows what God wants? What is the purpose of these comments?

We are fallible, but should continue to study and learn from scripture and experiences, past and present.

"[W]e are called to treat life as sacred."

When, where, and by whom? God does not treat life as sacred. God allegedly killed almost everyone on earth in his flood, went on to kill various individuals as punishment, and stood by and allowed Job's family to be destroyed for the purpose of winning an argument. What is sacred to God appears not to be "life" but how it is lived--i.e., righteously or unrighteously (except in the mind-numbing case of Job, in which even righteousness cannot save Job and nothing but God himself is sacred).

I don't have enough time to explain. If you read the context of Noah, you'll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary. Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor.

"...because of their culture of 'death'..."

Do you mean that the rest of us, who are not Christians, are happy living around, causing, and socially promoting death?

not all of you(and many "Christians" are like this too), but our hyper-individualism in the US does cause us to neglect the consequences of our actions on others.

"...the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them."

I can at least half agree with this. Using the state to promote Christianity is not a good idea. However, I still find it historically inaccurate, scripturally unsound, and theologically hypocritical to claim some "culture of life" for Christianity.

The history of institutional Christianity is very tragic. I think we went seriously wrong when we allowed the Roman Emperor to make Christianity the official religion of the empire.

You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some "bad" theology as well. Have you ever read Greg Boyd's "Letters from a Skeptic"? You might like it.

dlw

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"It is not God's fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God's standard."

No, but it is certainly God's fault for setting the standard and the penalty. The standard being, "Behave as I tell you to," the penalty being, "or else I kill you."

As I've studied the matter, the commands for humankind were part of the covenantal relationship they had with the Lord God(Yahweh Elohim). They entailed primarily our acceptance that we are not God. Death and destruction of ourselves and others were natural consequences of our choices. God only ended the lives of those that were too far along to be saved and doing far more harm than good. This is a choice that God is uniquely positioned to make.

God actively and deliberately killed almost every living thing on the planet, according to the story. He makes Hitler look like a pansy.

God's flood was not to exterminate an entire race. It was a consequence of the extent of humanity's depravity. There is no comparison. Hitler was a social-reject with charisma that gave the Germans easy answers they were willing to listen to because of their long-standing economic duress and wrongful nationalism.

God created everyone, then said he loved them, then told them how they had to behave (with the empty gesture of "free will" thrown in), and then when they failed to live up to his standard, he made them mortal (i.e., "the Fall"). Now they had to die, instead of living long, luxurious lives in God's backyard, the "Garden of Eden."

We were cast out of direct community with God because we had sought become like God. Having such knowledge, we were a danger to ourselves and others if we remained conditionally immortal. That is why we were kicked out of garden, for our own good.

I'm so sorry I don't have time to reply to everything. I would suggest that you consider checking out "Letters from a Skeptic". I also would want to suggest that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one's theology or understanding of the OT by no means reflects one's intelligence.

I hope others can do more justice to your questions than I can, as I am in need of devoting much time to prepare to leave to spend time studying and serving in Sweden and Ukraine.

dlw

By: Rick Grucza

Rick Grucza — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

How do we reconcile God's sovereignty with modern medicine?

Because modern medicine is a product of human freedom utilizing God's creation.

Are those renounce medical and pharmaceutical technology in favor of healing by prayer actually right?

No -- If I use my reason and conclude that pharmaceuticals will work better than prayer, which most evidence supports, than I am not acting against God's commandment. Besides, when Jesus taught us how to pray, he added "thy will be done".

How do we decide the will of God?. God doesn't have a "will" for every decision in our life -- though sometimes we talk like He does (Does God want me to buy this house? Or to change jobs?). But there are always a variety of actions that we can take that are in keeping with God's will. We make decisions every day that may prolong or shorten our lives. As long as we deliberately don't destroy our life or other's, we are not acting against God's will.

When do life-saving techniques stop being appropriate efforts and start being contrary to God's wishes?. I don't know that they ever are contrary to God's wishes, but there reaches a point where they are no longer "life-saving" but "death-delaying". I don't know if it becomes sinful, but it certainly becomes futile.

Incidentally, John Kavanaugh (one of my favorite thinkers) makes some of these distinctions here in his essay on the Schiavo case (written about 18 months ago)

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

You still offer nothing in the way of specifics. Also, by making morality dependent on God, you perpetuate the hypothesis that non-theists cannot be moral.

There is not a formula that will determine right conduct. When we face new circumstances, we deal with them in light of the past. This includes consideration of what Scripture teaches and similar situations in the past.

To state that all morality stems from God by no means says that someone who does not believe in God cannot be moral. That's a non sequitur.

"If you read the context of Noah, you'll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary."

Why do you assume I haven't read the context?

It also helps to compare the flood account with the alternatives of its day. In most accounts, humans were annoying pests that the gods wiped out in large numbers frequently as part of their pest-population control. In the Genesis account, it is clear that it was because of the extent that humanity had turned away from God that it had to be judged.

The "sin of humankind" only made the flood "necessary" because God deemed it so. God had to decide that not living up to his standard warranted death for every living thing on the planet. I.e., as I said above, God seems quite clearly to care little for life itself and much, much more for how that life is behaving--righteously or unrighteously.

It is not God's fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God's standard. One cannot infer that God was indifferent to the lives lost because God judged the need to renew creation. We are not here just to exist, we are here for a purpose and can choose to subvert seriously that purpose.

"Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor. "

The accuser had the idea; God did not have to go along. (Or, if he did, what kind of God is that?) But God did go along, and was quite willing to sit back and watch as Job's life and his family were destroyed, simply to prove a point.

The adversarial relationship between God and the accuser existed(and still exists to an extent). It also was the product of created beings subverting their God-given free-wills. God did not want us to be robots. We humans are subject to the privations of fallen spiritual beings, but God will never let anything happen to us that we and God cannot handle together.

"You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some "bad" theology as well."

If you're going to get into a discussion with me, don't expect to make comments like that and have me play nice (or at all) afterward. Your job is not to tell me that I misunderstand you or your argument. Your job is to make a better argument, which you have not done.

my apologies. I was in a hurry and probably somewhat conceited.

dlw

By: dlw

dlw — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning.

Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions.

I think at stake here is judging the consequences of our actions in light of the kingship of God. At issue with
euthanasia is the sort of life that someone has for the rest of their life, not whether they die or not.

As a Christian, I affirm that even a life with much reduced functionality can still be glorifying to God and we are called to treat life as sacred. However, we also need to bear in mind that we also believe that there is more beyond this life and that we will all be resurrected with new bodies like Jesus had. As such, the prolongation of our time alive in these bodies is not our highest callings. To allow for some applications of euthanasia does not reject a culture of life and if others abused euthanasia because of their culture of "death", the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them.
dlw
ps, I summarized my idea to depoliticize abortion at my site, the Anti-Manicheist.

dlw

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Response to:

"'If suicide or murder are wrong because they contravene God's
alleged desires for the course of a life, how can you not apply the
same reasoning to technological attempts to extend a life in the face
of otherwise insurmountable difficulties? I.e., if a person would die
without medical intervention, how is medical intervention also not a
contravention of God's apparent desires? If 'rights come from God and
God alone,' then the right to live also comes from God and God alone,
does it not? How does one ascertain when God has removed that right,
beyond which point all human efforts to maintain life are in
opposition to the will or desire of God?'

"How do we reconcile God's sovereignty with modern medicine? Are
those renounce medical and pharmaceutical technology in favor of
healing by prayer actually right? How do we decide the will of God?
When do life-saving techniques stop being appropriate efforts and
start being contrary to God's wishes?"
--------------------------------------

His initial statement is false. In Gods infinite love and wisdom, he
has given free will to the human race. The acts of suicide and murder
are not wrong in so far as they take away Gods desires for the
course of our life.

Think of it in terms of macro and micro life management. God desires
that we live out our lives in the pursuit of loving him and our world
(agape love) in parallel with God and others loving us. How we
fulfill this is up to us, with His grace and guidance, or by
ourselves in rejecting Him.

Murder and suicide are manifestations of rejected love. With faith
and hope, love blossoms. Prayer, medicine, and other medical
technologies give hope and manifest love from caregivers and others.

As far as when medical means are futile, the RCC says that ordinary
means should be maintained indefinitely, whereas extraordinary means
are optional, i.e., feeding and providing water for someone versus
employing an artificial breathing device.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church Reference ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN...G0015/ __P7Z.HTM ):

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment.
Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.
The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.
The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable
Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity.
As such it should be encouraged.)