🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>pspat@opera.iinet.net.au (Patrick Canion) writes:

>>Whilst it would appear that you view my logic as preposterous, my
>>desire to see as many of you as possible spend eternity in Paradise,
>>where there is only peace, not pain; is this so selfish?

>Since the discussion here is generally futile, I was hoping to avoid
>this, but yes, this is selfish and intolerant. 

Would it be selfish and intolerant if I wanted to give you all a
million dollars?

>I do not want to go to your Paradise, if it exists. I would be very
>unhappy in the company of the devotees of any God so cruel as yours
>appears to be. In fact I'd maintain this preference even if I were 100%
>certain, on empirical grounds, that your faith is true. I don't care for
>your God's morality, I despise his petulance and vanity, and if it ever
>turned out that he really did exist I'd still rather rest in peace than
>spend eternity in his company.

Have I represented him this badly?  It's just that the god you
describe is nothing like my God, who loves you and me more than we'll
ever comprehend.


>Of course I am happy for you that you have a faith that pleases you. I
>simply can't see why you can't be happy for me that I have a faith that
>pleases me.

I don't recall ever phrasing my argument in this manner - in fact I
recall that this thread started with me simply giving an explanation
of my Christian perspective on legislative responses to euthanasia.
Maybe its the fact that I believe that there is at least one
"Absolute" in this universe that prompts the antipathy?

> What's more, I can't understand why you feel it is your
>business to interfere in my determination to carry on my life (and
>death) the way that I see fit, when I'm more than happy to do the same
>for you. Heaven knows, religious intolerance has sparked enough war,
>incivility and prejudice - how can you, plainly a good-natured man,
>promote religious intolerance? What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

I'm sorry Peter, but I know you're intelligent enough to appreciate
that there is a jump between me expressing my opinions and "promoting
religious intolerance".  I would be just as justified in saying
"Peter, you sound like a nice guy, but how can you interfere in my
carrying on of life by ramming your non-Christian views down my
throat?  It's this sort of attitude that sparks off stock-market
crashes."  In other words, tolerance cuts both ways - let's maintain
some honesty in our discussion.



>>Well, maybe societies don't care, but when has that been excuse?  In
>>the past many a society hasn't cared about slavery - it doesn't change
>>the absolute stance on the morality of the issue.  But I care - so
>>I'll do something about it.

>Hang on - doesn't your bible tolerate, or even encourage slavery?

Nope - but it sought to change the institution from within, by
changing the hearts and minds of the people so that they no longer
desired to see their fellow men and women imprisoned.  Refer to the
book of Philemon (it's just a short one - only take about 5 minutes to
read) to see what I mean.

Really, I am pragmatic and realistic enough to know that no law can
provide the solution to this situation; people can still be enslaved
today, though it has been illegal for a long, long, time.  Even if
euthanasia remains outlawed, it will still happen.  While the
legislative battle is still joined though, so to speak, I will
continue to present what I see as the best response within this
framework.  The democratic process will determine whether my point of
view is successful or otherwise.  My earlier comments within this
thread were made within this context.

Parallel to this, though, is every Christian's ministry to show people
the love of Jesus Christ and the transforming and overcoming power it
has in a person's life.  This is the area which sees real change occur
in people's lives, and which goes on regardless of law or government,
because it is based on love.  People who fall passionately and
hopelessly in love with Jesus generally want to live as long as they
can.  But you can't force through a law to make someone love someone
else, can you?

>>This has already been demonstrated in the NT - now they're
>>proposing something along the lines of "ok, well we can't legalise
>>euthanasia, so let's keep it illegal but we'll change the penalty to a
>>$50 fine".  

>Oh, I hadn't heard that one - sounds splendid - do you know whether they
>can really do this?

Well, I was going off a report in Saturday's West Australian (page3).
I think it is just a proposal at this stage.


God Bless,

Patrick Canion
Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
pspat@iinet.net.au