🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>>Oh, it's all right for them to be killed in warfare once they accept this?

>Ha!  :-)  I think you can't resist, Peter! It certainly would not be
>*desirable*, but a small consolation for them would be to find
>themselves immediately in Paradise!

I wonder if this consoles them so much as it does their loved ones
living on after them?  I think that we've hit a fairly sharp distinction
here; by not subscribing to the concept of a Christian paradise, I see
no reason that anyone's suffering should be prolonged for the purposes
of reaching it. By subscribing to the Christian paradise, you see
no reason that anyone's reaching it should be forfeit for the purposes
of reducing their suffering.

We can go further with this; being an engineer, I see man's paradise
only on this Earth, or at least in this universe; I hope for paradise
via the boundless possibilities extended by technologies like Drexlerian
nanotech.  My ultimate hopes for these technologies are almost identical
with your hopes for your paradise: boundless life, love, harmony,
adventure, reunion with loved ones and communion with the infinite.

So my reasons for eventually choosing euthanasia might be identical with
your reasons for refusing it; I might choose it so as to obtain a
high-quality cryonic suspension, in the hope of one day being repaired
and revived to a technological apotheosis, and you'd refuse it so as to
obtain a high-quality Heavenly Judgement, in the hope of being
resurrected in the bosom of G_d.

This brings us back to tolerance; I'm happy to accept your choice
here, since I have no way of disproving your belief. But you'd prefer
that my choice be legally curtailed, even though you likewise have no
way of disproving my belief. It seems to me, then, you're not tolerating
my beliefs: by promoting a ban on VE, you directly threaten my chances of
reaching the only paradise I see as remotely plausible.

>>Hmm. Actually, I wonder whether you have reservations about permitting
>>smoking too - isn't that an (admittedly slow) kind of assisted suicide?

>Actually, it's a good example - I'm against smoking as it is an
>unhealthy activity, etc etc.  But it is a legal activity so I can't go
>up to someone smoking in the street and yell at them and force them to
>stop.  But if anyone wants my opinion, I'll tell them that it's not
>good for them - my tolerance of their activity won't change the
>reality of that fact.

But do you seek to have selling cigarettes outlawed? If you do, then where
do you draw the line? How about excessive eating - should it be a crime
to sell food to the obese? Obesity is the number one cause of death in
Western society - surely you'd promote a ban on those who succour it?

>I'd like to think so.  We have a commission to preach the gospel to
>the world, but there is a difference between evangelism and
>proselysation.  I don't remember Christ ever dragooning any of his
>disciples, he simply said, "Follow me".  Such was the power of his
>love and authority that they did so freely and happily.  To emulate
>this concern is the challenge for Christians today.

To emulate Christ's methods, it seems to me, you shouldn't be saying
"ban VE", but simply explaining to people why their choice of VE could
cause them to miss out on an eternity in the christian paradise.

Further to this, we may think of cryonic suspension as an experimental
medical technique; it comes with a very high risk, but there's certainly
a chance that it might result in your ultimate repair and continuation
of your life. Might you, as a christian, accept VE+cryonic suspension,
not as a means of avoiding suffering or hastening death, but as a last
chance medical technique when all else fails?

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |