Right-to-Life Paradox: If life is sacred, why care about eternity?

[BurtWorm]

If this life is a mere passage to eternity, then why bother trying to keep persons in a persistent vegetative state, for example, alive?

Another puzzle: why is quantity of life more of a concern to people like Randall Terry and the Schindlers than quality of life?

[The Blue Flower]

1. It isn't about life

It's about them having the power to play God with other people's lives.

[animuscitizen]

17. I agree with your assessment

The Randall Terry's of the world have a deep obsession with power and control, mixed with religious fervor and absolutism. This is a prescription for hypocrisy, illogical banter, and absurdity.

[papau]

2. death is not to be feared - but life is a gift to be treasured. It does

not seem to be two ideas in conflict, IMHO.

But when life as a human is gone, I do not understand the Randall Terry screams of dismay at the no exceptional medical treatment order that permits death.

[BurtWorm]

4. Which is more important to a Christian: life or soul?

If a Christian had to choose between this world and eternity, which would he or she choose?

[H2O Man]

5. Correct.

The first question is silly, at very best. Because people believe that life is sacred, and that life on earth is part of a process that leads to eternal life, does not in any sense lead to a "then why not die now?" riddle.

The second question is of less value. There is no reason to concern ourselves with what Terry Randall thinks. To equate the parents of Terri Schiavo with Randall Terry seems a tactic that resembles Mr. Terry far more than anything the Sciavo's are doing. One may disagree with her parents, but it is possible to do so with respect rather than contempt.

[BurtWorm]

6. It's not silly from the perspective of someone who does not believe in

eternity, with all due respect, H20 Man. Why is "life" automatically "sacred" as a quantity if there's no quality to it? This is a real paradox.

As for your point about equating the Schindlers with Terry, it's well taken.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

10. Your "atheist" friend has a bizarre sense of humor.

If she exists, and I have to take your word on that, don't I.

What a peculiarly hostile response to my post. :wtf:

[H2O Man]

11. Really? Why?

Because she thought I was teasing her? I fail to see the hostility.

[BurtWorm]

13. Your trying to defend your use of the word 'silly' with evidence?

Is that the best post you can muster? Maybe you should you go hang in less silly threads?

Bye! :hi:

[BurtWorm]

16. By the way, you're totally misrepresenting my point.

I am pointing out a paradox in the Christian right-to-life view point. I am not asking why don't they all just kill themselves. That's your strawman misrepresentation of my question. I am asking why they have gone through the extremes they have to keep a person in a vegetative state "alive," if life is what it is--as THEY represent it themselves--for them, i.e., a way-station to the eternal kingdom.

[H2O Man]

25. Sure.

Whatever makes you happy.

[kcwayne]

7. The question is not silly at all

I had a discussion once with a scholar that had studied the early days of the Catholic church, with particular interest in how certain "laws" became embedded in the Church's dogma.

At one point in time many followers believed that the most logical way to guarantee a good eternal life was to seek absolution for their sins, do pentance, and then commit suicide, before they had a chance to sin again. It was large enough of a problem that the Church then made suicide a sin.

The response to that was to kill your newborn children so they could enter heaven before they sinned. The horror of this, along with falling revenues from tithing because the farms were not as prosperous with fewer people elicited the "go forth and multiply" edict.

It strikes me as entirely logical for someone to want to get into their heaven ASAP, especially if their life is miserable. Of course it would be a lot more logical if one got their instructions about heaven directly from their God, and not conveyed through some perfumed and big haired dandy on television. It might make the roadmap a little more of a sure thing than a big assed sucker bet.

[H2O Man]

9. I think that your scholar friend

would agree in theory that any church that put that belief in practice would die out in a generation's time.

[kcwayne]

12. It was implicit in the edicts that the Church did not approve

of suicide or infanticide.

[H2O Man]

15. Okay, fair enough.

I didn't understand what you were saying at first. However, I think that in the case of Terri Schiavo, it's fair to say that people can and do have a wide range of opinions. People can believe in a manner similar to Schiavo's parents, without somehow being a foolish follower of a Randall Terry. If I believe in death with dignity, which I do, it should follow that I believe in life with dignity .... and that implies respecting that parents might have what I believe is an unrealistic hope for a miracle recovery. A belief in human dignity should preclude the need to insult parents for holding on to a belief that I do not agree with, which includes trying to turn it into a "riddle."

[BurtWorm]

18. Maybe you should be more careful about what you read

before presuming to make pronouncements on it. :hi:

[H2O Man]

23. No, you err again

I hadn't understood until the person explained in more detail. Gosh, I thought you had decided not to talk to me.

[BurtWorm]

27. I thought this thread was too silly for your attention.

But I am willing to talk to you, if you're willing to explain yourself without resorting to anecdotes about how your friends laughed and laughed about what I allegedly wrote. I'm not looking for everyone to agree with me. I do appreciate criticism that seems fair. I don't appreciate dismissal based on a misrepresentation of my argument or point. I find that kind of response to be the most irritating possible.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that I believe anyone who values eternity more than life might as well kill himself. My post is not about hypocrisy, however. It's about the FACT of a paradox (a self-contradictory set of beliefs) in the Christian right-to-life movement's defining ideology.


PS: What's your problem with this paradox, anyway. Are you a Christian who believes in the right-to-life? Then you've blown a chance to explain your position. Nice move! :thumbsup:

[kcwayne]

19. I whole heartedly agree with you

I am taken aback by this event being cast as a divisive and political issue. Unless there were reasons to believe that keeping her alive was causing her pain and suffering, I don't see why the public should have a voice in this decision.

[BurtWorm]

21. "Riddle" is not the same as "paradox"

A riddle is a game. A paradox is a self-contradiction.

[H2O Man]

24. Wow.

You are amazing.

[BurtWorm]

28. A dictionary is just as amazing.

It has lots of words and their meanings in it. Some dictionaries are even on-line. Want a link to one? I'll give you one, if you want. Then maybe we can be friends. ;)

[H2O Man]

30. Well

while it will give you opportunity to be snippy, I've considered you something of a friend, though you are at times moody, and frequently misguided.

Now, Mr. BurtWorm, (if that's your REAL name; I 'spect we'll have to take yer word) before you continue with your Randall Terry-cloth mode, I must refer you to page 151 of HHH's Education of a Public Man, paragraph #1: "....Where widely dispate positions confront one another, where opposing ideologies meet head on, rules that are designed to curb emotions and establish rational discussions are important. You do not question motives or attack the character of another or he state from which he comes. You keep your word. You do not embarass a man through trickery or double cross. Sometimes, when an issue is important and you feel deeply about what you are doing, it is tough to abide by that code. Your opponent appears stupid or intellectually dishonest, your anger arises, and you flail out. Very likely, your opponent is not stupid and believes what he is saying, too. It is imperative to understand that.." Now I am taking into account the fact that you were only 16 when this book came out, and only 6 when this particular section was authored......

[BurtWorm]

31. You live by those words?

So what were the first two of your posts in this thread about? I honestly don't get it. Your first post wasn't even to me. Reading it was like having someone talk about you as though you weren't even there.

You know what really gets me about this is that I, too, have considered you, if not a friend, then at least a worthy person of different views (if opponent is not exactly the right word, either). But you've been kind of arrogant in this thread. I'm guessing I struck a nerve? Are you a friend of the family's or something? :shrug:

[bloom]

20. I think that is important to the equation

The church does make such a big deal out of "paradise" - it does seem that people would commit suicide in droves if it wasn't a "sin".


It's has always seemed odd to me that the afterlife - which we don't know anything about - would be held as so much greater than this life.

I think it's a bad idea.

[charlie]

3. Schindlers have an excuse

They still see their daughter in that empty breathing shell.

Terry, on the other hand, is an opportunistic has-been bottom feeder. With one disowned gay son, a disowned Muslim daughter, and the temerity to tweeze out Biblical exemptions for his own dalliance and divorce. He's an authoritarian getting his kicks.

[Az]

14. Death is tricky for succesful death based religions

If a religion promotes the notion that what happens after you die is superior to what happens before, then keeping followers around becomes problematic. Whats to keep people from killing themself to enter the gates of heaven when they want to? Thus most death based religions have to concoct a very strong rejection of unnatural death.

To this end most maintain strong taboos about suicide and murder becomes a major moral travesty. Thus we have this parodox where this woman who's mind is dead but who's body continues to exist creates a moral issue. When combined with Christianities notion of a soul associated with identity rather than the brain the situation is exasterbated even further.

Because they believe the soul is something other than just the brain then a body that looks and moves like a human creates a cognitive disconnect. The presumption on their part is that the soul is still connected to the body. Killing it is murder which is an abomination. It doesn't matter to them that her brain is jello. Thats not where the soul resides.

[papau]

22. Thats not where the soul resides??? The soul's location never has

been a question for me -as you say it is associated with identity and not the brain- and indeed the soul's location is not a question in most "death based" religions -

indeed most "death based religions" - meaning those proclaiming an afterlife - come to the afterlife concept after coming to to God concept - Judaism being one example (Jesus was not the first Jew to proclaim there was an afterlife).

But I agree with the gist of your post - a parent is hard put to look at a breathing body and say my child is dead, regardless of any belief in the afterlife..

[Az]

26. Not suggesting one preceeded the other

Merely that in the current selection of succesful death based religions the combination of the god concept and afterlife have proven to be a very formiddible combination.

[papau]

29. :-) OK - can not argue with that :-)

:-)