🚀 go-pugleaf

_nantko@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema) wrote:

<snip summary of discussion between peter Merel and I over Christian
perspective of the sanctity of life, particualrly as it relates to our
eternal destination>


>From a non-xian perspective this is a terrible thing to say. 

Yes, I agree.  I have always accepted that the basis for my argument
is on faith alone in what the Bible teaches.

>Not only
>do you deny any person the right to take his life and death in his own
>hands, you also try to defend this ugly idea with something very
>selfish.

No, from the perspective of euthanasia I am trying to deny the right
for another person to assist someone to take another's life.  I have
not argued at all about suicide - something which I believe is tragic,
wrong, but also impossible to solve with a legislative response.

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?

> Perhaps for xian trying to get more souls into your so-called
>heaven is a Good Thing, for a non-xian this boils down to trying to
>get more people into your shop. This may be good for you, but is not
>necessarrilly good for others, notably your clients. Even if things
>work the silly way you describe, I prefer to take my chances and leave
>this world the way I prefer.

Fair enough - but why the need to involve someone else? (Rhetorical
question).  I'm sorry that you view Christianity as a business.  Let
me make a few disclaimers:
1.  I make no money from arguing against euthanasia.
2. My salvation is assured by the blood of Christ; it is not dependant
upon my own efforts, and therefore I do not need converts to earn
'salvation points'.
3. The responsibilty for building the church is Jesus', not mine.  I
will gain no extra power or influence on Earth because of my stance.

So, if by faith you accept Christianity (or maybe even if you don't),
please believe that I am coming from this from purely altruistic
motives.

>>Not to mention the (IMO) inevitable moral consequences on society of
>>becoming de-sensitised to accelerated death.

>Well, well, that's an exciting idea! As if societies give a shit about
>accelerated death. You tell the same thing to soldiers and hangmen,
>don't you?

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.

Of course, in the end as useful as legislation is, the Old Testament
shows us that no amount of lawmaking can make a person do the right
thing.  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".  

Disgusting.

>Ragards,
>Nantko

Nice talking to you, Nantko!
>Governments, like diapers, should be changed often, and for the same reason.

>(For replies, remove underscore from email address.)


God Bless,

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