Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

*gets out popcorn, settles in*

Testify wrote:

purplefood wrote:That technically means you're not allowed to do a lot of things...

Religion != Religious scripture.

Then there should be no objections to doing anything that isn't against the bible even if you're Christian...

Someone said suicide being a sin was old testament, I provided a passage from the new testament saying suicide is a sin.

And purplefood, Christians aren't really supposed to do those things, be it drink, drugs, violence toward others, they are all against the Bible.

dæl wrote:Someone said suicide being a sin was old testament, I provided a passage from the new testament saying suicide is a sin.

And purplefood, Christians aren't really supposed to do those things, be it drink, drugs, violence toward others, they are all against the Bible.

you are allowed to drink,
Jesus did...............

The whole defiling thing extends to tattoos piercings as well.

Somebody at my church who has his arms covered in tattoos gets annoyed when elderly ladies point this out when they have pierced ears.

mattyrm wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I'm against it as it has the potential to be abused and misused with terminal consequences.

Are you Religious?

They say that the only vocal critics of Euthanasia are those with a Religious persuasion, or those that work in palliative care.

But I never met a person in palliative care say they were dead against it, so I presume your with the other guys eh?

You do realise there is no logic to your argument right? Your just arguing it because you have been indoctrinated to say so. Its legal in several countries, do you see everyone lining up to butcher their relatives?

Does it have the potential to be abused? Yes. Does the poster have the right to suspect that, given the particular makeup and public mindset of his/her given community, it is likely to be abused and therefore feel that euthanasia shouldn't be utilized? Yes. How is it that this doesn't have any logic?

If we're going to discuss flaws in logic, let's look at the assumption that because the poster is against euthanasia, he/she is religious because the ever-so-nebulous they say that only the religious are ever truly against euthanasia. Given that you base your assumption on weak (and patently untrue) premises, your conclusion is inherently flawed. While your assumption may be correct, it would be due to sheer guesswork rather than an attempt at using a bias masquerading as logic. On a similar token, the idea that because many countries are doing something, everyone else should too is a logical fallacy known as the "bandwagon" fallacy. It's usually covered in high school or introductory college English classes.

dæl wrote:Someone said suicide being a sin was old testament, I provided a passage from the new testament saying suicide is a sin.

And purplefood, Christians aren't really supposed to do those things, be it drink, drugs, violence toward others, they are all against the Bible.

the thing is the bible never says suicide is a sin, or it should be condemned, or anything about the practice. You have found 1 verse that is really vague and originally said "don't defile your temple". So suicide ranks on the same level as tattoo's, shellfish, mixed fabrics, and eating at mcdonalds.

With this in mind, you really don't have a strong case for saying suicide is a sin.

and Jesus made wine, he's so liquored up his blood tastes like wine god made pot, and often orders violence against others. I guess god & jesus just aren't very christian like then

sirlynchmob wrote:
the thing is the bible never says suicide is a sin, or it should be condemned, or anything about the practice. You have found 1 verse that is really vague and originally said "don't defile your temple". So suicide ranks on the same level as tattoo's, shellfish, mixed fabrics, and eating at mcdonalds.

With this in mind, you really don't have a strong case for saying suicide is a sin.

and Jesus made wine, he's so liquored up his blood tastes like wine god made pot, and often orders violence against others. I guess god & jesus just aren't very christian like then

So it's not a sin, but the Church refused to bury you properly. The Church's actions make a pretty strong case on their own.
Just because people have decided not to follow certain aspects of the Bible doesn't mean they were less important to those who wrote it. I didn't realise that sins were graded on their severity.
Suicide has many other references in the Bible, most notably "Thou must not kill."

Wow, this turned into a religious debate a *lot* quicker than I thought it would.

Spawning a dummy target that 'has' pre-selected beliefs you disagree with and arguing with it in a corner is not a great way to discuss this.

thenoobbomb wrote:Why would people do that?
Just askin', have to tell about it at school
Thanks anyways

Suffering, mostly. Though what counts as suffering will vary.

Vaerros wrote:Wow, this turned into a religious debate a *lot* quicker than I thought it would.

Spawning a dummy target that 'has' pre-selected beliefs you disagree with and arguing with it in a corner is not a great way to discuss this.

Apologies for derailment. I don't know about dummy target though, the Church has always been against it.

I'll refer back to my earlier post, it happens anyway (at least in Britain, don't know about the States, after all killing someone who needs palliative care would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs over there), we should not criminalise those who do it and we should bring what they are doing out into the open so as to make sure things are happening correctly.

Basically, make it a touch more legal so we can control and regulate it.

In a nutshell, yeah. With proper checks and procedures things would be much better, there would still be fuzzy issues but at least doctors could talk about it then, now they can't, and I imagine their jobs are hard enough without having to shoulder sole responsibility for such matters.

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Wow, this turned into a religious debate a *lot* quicker than I thought it would.

Spawning a dummy target that 'has' pre-selected beliefs you disagree with and arguing with it in a corner is not a great way to discuss this.

Apologies for derailment. I don't know about dummy target though, the Church has always been against it.

I'll refer back to my earlier post, it happens anyway (at least in Britain, don't know about the States, after all killing someone who needs palliative care would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs over there), we should not criminalise those who do it and we should bring what they are doing out into the open so as to make sure things are happening correctly.

No worries, I just got a bit offended when I read that :p

Vaerros wrote:
No worries, I just got a bit offended when I read that :p

It was never my intention to offend people, my vitriol is reserved for the Church as an institution, I honestly don't mind what people believe in or think, it's frankly nothing to do with me and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it's all good.

I think the religious debate should probably be a different thread. In my mind I think it should be allowed people shouldn't be forced to suffer unimaginableapi especially in cases where the doctor. Can do nothing. It medicate them to ease it till they die.that saI'd it must be carefully regulated and audited to ensure that misuse is at a minimum.

carlos13th wrote:I think the religious debate should probably be a different thread.

I disagree, the OP asked "why people would engage in euthanasia?" Which kind of became "well why wouldn't they rather than suffer?" One of the reasons against are Christianity's, Judaism's and Islam's view on suicide, assisted or otherwise, so I think its valid to the topic.

You make a good point. If we are talking about religion in direct religious belief in direct reguard to Eutanasia sure. But this is become Very close to becoming debate about religion thread rather than one about Euthasia looking back at my post however I did not make that clear in my previous post.

Nicorex wrote:Chocolate has hit the main reasons.

Honestly the only reason people get upset about it is because its aginst their religious belifefs. They dont care that the person is suffering as long as they follow the tenates of their religion. Even if the person doing it dosent bevlive what they do. Its busybody syndrom.

This is why I choose to be anti theist, not just agnostic. It's because there are religious people who want to impose suffering on other people because of their own interpretation of something there is no evidence for.

Follow the money and you will find truth. The reason it is not Legal in the US is not just becuase of Religious reservations and those who are in palliative care field. There is money to be made there. The longer that a person is kept alive is longer they can bill for services, from both the family and the insurance.

I do hate when people quote the Bible, saying thou shalt not kill, correct translation is murder, not kill. Big difference.

So a loving god allows a human being to horribly suffer and die in agony, lacking any dignity or state of mind as their last months or years are made up of painful trips to the doctors to get pain killers and other drugs instead of a quick, painless death?

Sounds like a lovely chap.

dæl wrote:Someone said suicide being a sin was old testament, I provided a passage from the new testament saying suicide is a sin.

And purplefood, Christians aren't really supposed to do those things, be it drink, drugs, violence toward others, they are all against the Bible.

But you know nothing about canonical hermeneutics, Jon Snow!

The Catholic Church doesn't beleive in a literal interpretation of the scripture, but that all canon texts must be actualized through the filter of God's love for his creatures.

Kovnik Obama wrote:But you know nothing about canonical hermeneutics, Jon Snow!

I've actually met Kit Harrington, the actor who plays him, he went to school with a friend of mine in Worcester. He seemed a nice guy.

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
No worries, I just got a bit offended when I read that :p

It was never my intention to offend people, my vitriol is reserved for the Church as an institution, I honestly don't mind what people believe in or think, it's frankly nothing to do with me and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it's all good.

You do realize that the Catholic church isn't and wasn't the only major Christian institution, right? There are certainly plenty of viable arguments to made against specific churches and denominations, including the Catholic church, but please stop acting like "the Church" is some overarching organization that controls the practice and beliefs of every Christian.


Talking about how "the Church" believes this or that is just as misleading as someone coming in saying "atheists" believe this or that. If you want to talk about or criticize a specific denomination, including Catholicism, then specify. I know from threads we've had the past couple days that atheists on Dakka don't appreciate being painted with a broad brush, and rightly so. The Christians on Dakka don't either, so stop doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as the original post goes, I'm not against euthanasia in general, I think in a lot of cases it's a more merciful thing to do than keeping someone alive and in misery. I don't want to be kept on life support with a feeding tube and whatever else with little or no chance of recovery, so I certainly would begrudge anybody else who didn't either.

I do think there would need to be steps taken to make sure people weren't taking advantage of it though, like unscrupulous families trying to get rid of a parent quicker in order to profit from an inheritance or something terrible like that. I think there should be some kind of living will and power of attorney involved, especially in the case of someone who is unconscious with little chance of ever waking up.

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:It was never my intention to offend people, my vitriol is reserved for the Church as an institution, I honestly don't mind what people believe in or think, it's frankly nothing to do with me and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it's all good.

You do realize that the Catholic church isn't and wasn't the only major Christian institution, right? There are certainly plenty of viable arguments to made against specific churches and denominations, including the Catholic church, but please stop acting like "the Church" is some overarching organization that controls the practice and beliefs of every Christian.

Talking about how "the Church" believes this or that is just as misleading as someone coming in saying "atheists" believe this or that. If you want to talk about or criticize a specific denomination, including Catholicism, then specify. I know from threads we've had the past couple days that atheists on Dakka don't appreciate being painted with a broad brush, and rightly so. The Christians on Dakka don't either, so stop doing it.

OK, my default stance is one of distrust for any institution which claims to have a monopoly on good. Any church that claims itself to be the "one, true" anything will worry me about the ramifications of where that stance can lead. You will often find that the thoughts and feelings of the congregation are very different from those in charge of a religion who often (not always) have a certain amount of self interest to their actions. Religious institutions have held us back from progress for centuries, the Catholic Church being the worst offender, on euthanasia things are no different. Now as I've said, what people believe makes no odds to me until they think they can use those beliefs to dictate my behaviour or cause harm to others, most religious institutions are or have been guilty of falling foul of this.

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:It was never my intention to offend people, my vitriol is reserved for the Church as an institution, I honestly don't mind what people believe in or think, it's frankly nothing to do with me and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it's all good.

You do realize that the Catholic church isn't and wasn't the only major Christian institution, right? There are certainly plenty of viable arguments to made against specific churches and denominations, including the Catholic church, but please stop acting like "the Church" is some overarching organization that controls the practice and beliefs of every Christian.

Talking about how "the Church" believes this or that is just as misleading as someone coming in saying "atheists" believe this or that. If you want to talk about or criticize a specific denomination, including Catholicism, then specify. I know from threads we've had the past couple days that atheists on Dakka don't appreciate being painted with a broad brush, and rightly so. The Christians on Dakka don't either, so stop doing it.

OK, my default stance is one of distrust for any institution which claims to have a monopoly on good. Any church that claims itself to be the "one, true" anything will worry me about the ramifications of where that stance can lead. You will often find that the thoughts and feelings of the congregation are very different from those in charge of a religion who often (not always) have a certain amount of self interest to their actions. Religious institutions have held us back from progress for centuries, the Catholic Church being the worst offender, on euthanasia things are no different. Now as I've said, what people believe makes no odds to me until they think they can use those beliefs to dictate my behaviour or cause harm to others, most religious institutions are or have been guilty of falling foul of this.

Thank you, that makes a lot more sense, and I agree with a lot of it. I also would distrust an institution that claims to have a monopoly on good, and I also have some major issues with a church that would claim to be the "one, true" church or something like that. I've interacted with people who had opinions like, "Well, everybody at my church is going to heaven," with the unspoken assumption that large numbers of people who go to other churches wouldn't, and I find those kinds of opinions to be pretty unhealthy and pointless both theologically and socially.

I would take issue with the claim that religious institutions have impeded progress for centuries. It is true that certain institutions have impeded progress in certain cases and at certain times, but religious institutions have also been at the forefront of progress at other times, so there's some good and bad involved.

I will just answer the original post. Yes always yes

Helping to look after my dad at the moment who has terminal cancer. Its in most of his organs and in his spine, hips and legs, also his bone marrow. We put down animals going through less suffering. If someone wants it to end there life of constant crippling agony let them die as they choose. Once you see a human being broken and begging to die theres no doubt it should be an option.

Sorry for the depressing post, but as you can imagine this stuffs on my mind at the moment

Hordini wrote:
I would take issue with the claim that religious institutions have impeded progress for centuries. It is true that certain institutions have impeded progress in certain cases and at certain times, but religious institutions have also been at the forefront of progress at other times, so there's some good and bad involved.

Its also hard to say when progress is, and is not, impeded. Or, for that matter, what progress really is.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
I would take issue with the claim that religious institutions have impeded progress for centuries. It is true that certain institutions have impeded progress in certain cases and at certain times, but religious institutions have also been at the forefront of progress at other times, so there's some good and bad involved.

Its also hard to say when progress is, and is not, impeded. Or, for that matter, what progress really is.

I didn't want to open that can of worms, but that is a very important point to consider.

I think part of it is that many people have a very... inaccurate understanding of what professional science (or, really, just academics) is really like. Its not "Oh, you're right! Jolly good!" more "You might be right, now I must prove you wrong!"

Agreed truth is eventually reached (eventually), but its always tenuous, and never much like what most people think of as truth.

The point being that religious truth and scientific truth are closer than many might presume, at least in term of substantiation.