child-euthanasia-2
Civil Liberties

Child euthanasia: Belgium administers fatal injection to terminally-ill teenager

With children it is usually cancer: incurable sickness, unbearable pain, debilitating, degrading misery. What child wouldn’t prefer to go an be with Jesus? Belgium’s Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia (it’s a thing) agrees. Far better for children to be given a fatal injection than to cough up blood all night long, whether or not they go to be with Jesus. Indeed, Jesus doesn’t really come into it. Why should he? We’re talking about the exercise of free will for the alleviation of unbearable physical suffering. It is liberal, progressive and compassionate. A child could understand it, especially at the age of 17.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002, and now injects people whether or not they are suffering a terminal illness. If you’re depressed and feeling suicidal for no particular reason at all, Belgium will provide a way out. They extended euthanasia to children in 2014. It is the only country in the world that has no age restriction. At least in the Netherlands you have to be 12 years of age before you can decide you’d prefer to be with Jesus than all those nasty doctors and nurses. In Belgium, the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia can give their blessing to your death if you’re 10, eight, six… provided you’re in unbearable physical pain and know what you’re doing.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child… (1Cor 13:11).

One hesitates to use the word ‘evil’ of statutes promulgated by well-intentioned politicians in the context of a liberal democracy, with all the constitutional checks and balances afforded by reason and experience. But Belgium’s abolition of all age restrictions on “the right to die” must surely qualify as one of the most wicked and damnable decrees in the history of Christendom.

Of course, the Belgian Parliament insists that only incurable terminally-ill children in great pain have this right, but can six-year-old children really grasp the enormity of ending their lives? Is not a journey to the undiscovered country just an awfully big adventure, where you can soar through the sky with Peter Pan, frolick in the snow with Father Christmas or live happily ever after with My Little Pony?

Proponents insist that the minor’s right to die is hemmed in with the strictest of conditions. The legislation was clear: the child must “be in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short-term”. And obviously a child can’t opt to die unless there is parent approval, so that’s even better.

But it won’t be long before “hopeless medical condition” is expanded to include those illnesses which offer the remotest glimmer of hope; and it is inevitable that “constant unbearable suffering” will eventually embrace psychiatric disorders and mental issues. And what happens in those cases where the parents disagree about the extent of their child’s suffering? What if those parents happen to be separated or divorced? And what about friends, guardians or grandparents? Don’t they get a say?

Is it just be conceivable that two parents, overwhelmed by grief and the burdens of care, under huge stress and at the end of their ability to cope, might persuade their child that it’s just better to go and be with Jesus?

The legislation stipulates that the child must evidence “a capacity of discernment and be conscious at the moment of the request”.

What discernment do children possess? Do they not speak, understand and think as children? How can a suffering child make an objective judgment about the termination of his or her life when we don’t even permit them to vote, smoke or buy fireworks? Who subjectively assesses this capacity for discernment? Who can objectively assesses their subjectivity?

The quest for ‘Assisted Suicide’ is being driven by social emotivism. Child euthanasia is simply an extension of the Brave New World. There is a certain logic to it: conclusions about death do indeed follow from the premises of life. But premises which invoke rights can be at odds with those which invoke universalisability: one cannot pursue both equality and liberty, and our post-Christian relativist culture offers no agreed way of interpreting moral argument or mediating between rival premises. And so the shrill rights of the child must necessarily include the right to die because they have the right to live.

Except that we legally slaughter our babies in the womb by the barrel load, and that is a choice of death we make on their behalf. So how can we logically deny children – identifiable individuals – the right to decide death for themselves?

  • Fred

    “…. one of the most wicked and damnable decrees in the history of Christendom.”
    Far less than convinced that it is valid to regard anywhere in western Europe as ‘Christendom’. Perhaps there is or was a heritage but honestly the EU is pagan at heart.

    • Anton

      Quite.

  • magnolia

    So many questions here. Do we believe all possible cures for cancer have been acknowledged? What is the root cause of this non-viral non-bacterial entity? Stress? Food deficiency? Both? Genetic entropy? All and others have been suggested.

    Genuine Christian healers can rid the body of extraordinary pain (in the 9-10 out of 10 self-descriptions) at times within minutes. Maybe we dabble in the shallows by and large of the sea of Christian healing and far more of us are required to take on, and share, this potentially rather dangerous and burdensome ministry?

    There is no way I can imagine this outcome his grace describes is in the least bit pleasing to Christ.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “There is no way I can imagine this outcome is in the least bit pleasing to Christ.”
      Don’t you think this is according to God’s plan?

      • magnolia

        No.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Good to know that man can destroy god’s plans, and the Bible Proverbs 16:9 is wrong…

          • magnolia

            So you’d love it if the scientists could take parts of your brain out and put super-wise computers that regulate your thoughts and emotions so that they will never think anything freely or unsafely, or impolitely, as then the rest of us could enjoy debating without irritation?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Nope. You seem to be irritating when people disagree

          • magnolia

            So you choose free will for yourself. Others feel the same. None of us would wish our free will away, but we treasure it. And it is what God has given us. Destructive ability comes with it, but we have to accept that, because we want it that way.

            Can you let us know how humans can have individuality and free will without the possibility of doing bad stuff? Or better still tell God how?

          • Jon Sorensen

            We don’t have free will. We are under the yoke of sin and God can harden our hearts when he wants. If we had free will God would not intervene.

            If we have free will in heaven will there be bad stuff in heaven too?

          • magnolia

            My household robot denies he is like you at all. But you clearly disagree. Do you actually know what free will is? Is there a language difficulty? Or are you saying someone has programmed you, or put a chip in your brain, or that you are possessed by the will of another person or entity? Puzzled by your weird response and (non)-reasoning.

          • CliveM

            If you want to engage with JS, you’ll need to get used to it!

          • Jon Sorensen

            You nicely avoided my question to you that refuted your position. So if we have free will in heaven will there be bad stuff in heaven too? Please don’t run away from this question.

            Biblical position is clearly that we do not have free will as I pointed out. My own position is closer to Compatibilism even though free will MRI results offer a possible challenge to it. Clearly nature and natural selection has something to do (programmed?) how/we make decision. I don’t see evidence or reasoning of your[?] [contra causal?] free will that apologist often pitch.

          • magnolia

            The Scriptures and Christian tradition attests that it is possible to fall from Heaven if you are proud obdurate and determined enough, hence the fallen angels. No need to run from your questions. You may think the Christian church has never thought of or answered these questions but the truth is that two thousand years of thought by very intelligent people have happened and you have encountered very little of it, or so it seems. Your questions are not new, but as old as the hills.

            Do I completely understand the deeper more complex parts of theology and the universe? Of course not- no human does or could. The Christian position while encouraging the searching also posits that our brains are created by someone far greater than us. It is therefore impossible to thoroughly understand the greater through the means of the lesser that is our processing power of the brain.

            You can choose any option of thought and action, even realistic or impossible, illegal, or immoral ones. The fact that some may be insane or inoperable, or prevented by others or force of nature, or have dire consequences does not alter the fact you can choose them. That is what we mean by free will.

          • Jon Sorensen

            If the questions is as old as the hills how come you can’t answer this problem? Simple yes/no will do; does heaven have free will AND bad stuff? You said that there is “no need to run from your questions” but you just can’t give an answer then…

            I don’t get your position on free will. Everyone accepts “can choose any option”, but do you believe in contra causal free will or not?

          • magnolia

            I have no problem.

            This is a sidetrack and clearly a bee in the bonnet for you. I never suggested we operate without context; that would merely be silly. You don’t have the option to climb a tree in the desert. That is not the sort of reality I wish to spend further time analysing- unless for a creative end, and none appears here. If you are, well, it’s your life, but it’s a bit of a philosophical dead end.

            You are effectively asking whether it is possible for a creature to reject God and Heaven while in Heaven. I pointed you to the appropriate obvious story re Satan and the Fall and you haven’t even listened.

            It has been known and understand for two millenia in Christian circles that the will needs liberating and that sin holds it in thrall to some extent in practical terms. Try St Paul and St Augustine for starters. However there are shades of “can” for while you can do a good action, it maybe that in another sense you cannot use a sin-infested will to do it, and need the freedom Christ can give you to be liberated into the practical ability to do it!

          • Jon Sorensen

            You know you have won the argument when your opponent has to write a looong response that your issue is not a problem, but can’t even answer a simple yes/no question.

            You don’t need to write it here, but just answer the question to yourself; does heaven have free will AND bad stuff? Make it clear to yourself.

          • magnolia

            I am getting a little tired of answering and re-answering your question.

            You keep on asking whether it is possible to rebel against God in Heaven.

            I keep on answering with the story of Lucifer and the fallen angels who exercised free will to fall and were then expelled.

            You appear not to understand that . That is decidedly YOUR problem.

            In your other replies to other posters you appear to wish to be a pesky aggressive mosquito rather than listen, ponder, reflect and debate. I understand from people who have attended humanist meetings that the vast majority of what they do is whinge about Christians in particular and any theists in most of the rest of time, leaving little time for any self-defined positivity. That seems most unattractive to me, as it did to the people I know who were astonished to find how little Christians talk about humanists in return. We have better things to do. As you are a creature of God whether or not you admit it I suggest you also have better things to do with your life.

            Like read the gospels and study their background and context so you are informed of what you try to debate, for a start.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I did NOT ask “whether it is possible to rebel against God in Heaven.”

            I asked does “heaven have free will AND bad stuff”

            Lucifer story is irrelevant to this question. You just try to avoid the question as it would refute your own argument.

            ” I understand from people who have attended humanist meetings that the
            vast majority of what they do is whinge about Christians in particular
            and any theists in most of the rest of time, leaving little time for any
            self-defined positivity.”
            You clearly have no idea who humanist are and what they do.

  • len

    For the terminally ill suffering unbearable pain looking for and end to it who can be their judge?
    Certainly not me…
    Christian healing’s happen, but not with any certainty some live, some die,No one seems to know why some get healed some do not…There are many fake ‘Christian healers’ out there willing to rip people off to get rich..
    As I said no one can judge another’s motives only God himself….

  • Anton

    Shame on Belgium.

  • chefofsinners

    Blimey. It’s enough to make you suicidal. When I suggested using the word ‘enormity’ accurately, I hadn’t expected such a depressing Monday morning.
    Mondays are in any case sent to teach us what everlasting life will be like.

    Seriously, though. If this can happen in a ‘Catholic’ country, what chance does Justin Welly stand of turning England around?

    • bluedog

      Justin has no chance as long as multiculturalism is the state’s social policy base.

  • Orwell Ian

    Wide open to abuse. Adults know how to frame questions to get the response they want a child to give.
    Deplorable legislation on the slippery slope towards euthanasia on demand.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Any evidence for “Wide open to abuse” or is that just a fact-free fear mongering?

  • Jon Sorensen

    Article claims “If you’re depressed and feeling suicidal for no particular reason at all, Belgium will provide a way out” But the link bait to Dailymail does not say that. Typical Christian false propaganda. Truth does not need false claims.

    Christians want to push their agenda on other with unsupported slippery slope argument “But it won’t be long before “hopeless medical condition” is expanded to … psychiatric disorders and mental issues” Typical fact-free Christian fear mongering.

    • bluedog

      You clearly don’t know the difference between a slippery slope and the thin end of the wedge, although Jeremy Clarkson may be able to help you.

      • Jon Sorensen

        All the same fact-free fear mongering.

        • bluedog

          Have you bothered to read the links in the article? There are plenty of facts in those.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I did read DailyMirror link. I guess you get your facts there or maybe you can point out were I went wrong

          • bluedog

            ‘I did read DailyMirror link.’

            No you didn’t.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “No you didn’t” & “[DailyMirror article..] are plenty of facts in those.”
            Once you reach teenage years you’ll understand how silly your comments are

          • bluedog

            ‘Once you reach teenage years you’ll understand how silly your comments are’

            Scarcely a reasoned rebuttal of the assertion ‘No you didn’t’. Can you sense danger?

            Please post a link to the article in the Daily Mirror that you claim to have read and which you found in His Grace’s post.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Scarcely a reasoned rebuttal to say ‘No you didn’t’.

            Just provide evidence to your claim. Don’t ask me to do your home work.

          • bluedog

            Done the homework, but it seems you haven’t. The links are to the Telegraph and the Mail. Yet you persist in claiming that the link is to the Mirror. To prove your point you need to post the claimed link to the Mirror. But you haven’t and presumably cannot. Integrity? Credibility? Score zero.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I agree that link goes to DailyMail not DailyMirror. My typing mistake. In my first comment above I did write Dailymail. Adults don’t tend to make an argument or a point when their opponent makes a clear typo/mistake. “principle of charity” could be useful to learn when arguing and talking about “Integrity”.

            However it’s nice to see that your homework reading DailyMail is done, so why don’t you point out where the claim text: “”If you’re depressed and feeling suicidal for no particular reason at all, Belgium will provide a way out” is in the article?

    • len

      Any system is open to abuse the abortion industry is proof of that.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Sure. Women should not have any rights… typical Christian response

        • CliveM

          “Women should not have any rights ”

          Typical Jon Sorrenson total and dishonest misrepresentation of a statement.

          • dannybhoy

            He obviously has nothing better to do…

          • CliveM

            Yep ☹️ It’s almost as if he fears his argument isn’t strong enough unless he misrepresents the alternative view.

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, he’s just a very dull version of You Know Who. I stopped indulging him ages ago.

          • CliveM

            Thing is if you blocked him, you’d hardly notice.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Oh sorry… Of course women should have right to follow Christians rules imposed to them when it come to their own body. Religious people do support everyone rights to follow their religious laws.

          • CliveM

            And again a dishonest response to a point no one has paid.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Well len started it… abortion always come to women’s rights…

  • Dreadnaught

    I think its quite opportunist and disingenuous to refer to the path taken by this seventeen your old ‘child’ as being analogous with the wider abortion argument that if to be discussed objectively in the moral sense must include the miscarriage element. But what the Hell I suppose it allows the thread to be entertaining and open.
    What I object to is the current vogue of interpretation of ‘the child’, to be anyone under the age of eighteen; a product of political liberal convenience if ever there was; when applied to illegal immigrants where it is especially politically valuable to the Left. But why on this blog of all places?
    It may come as a shock to some, but falling under this cloak of convenience runs counter culturally with the British traditional interpretation of the meaning of a ‘child’ with no responsibility and the free will of a young adult.
    Andrew Fitzgibbon VC was 15 and three months when awarded the highest military honour with Thomas Flinn. Jack Cornwell was 16 years old when he was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross after the Battle of Jutland. These young men knew that they were soldiers and soldiers get killed in war but we regard them a heroes with more than a nod to chest expanding National Pride.
    How long before the moral equivalists brand the British military as the instigator of the child soldier phenomenon of today and on behalf of their clients, open claims for compensation for distress caused by Britain’s past values.

    • dannybhoy

      Can we avoid turning what is a free will voluntary decision into a coercive process for the elderly, ill or unwanted individuals? It won’t be enforced perhaps, but it will become persuasive; expected even, that the individual take this road.
      However, if that is what secular society chooses, that is what we will have. But Christians will not choose such options.

      • Dreadnaught

        Can we though avoid turning what is a free will voluntary decision into a coercive process for the elderly, ill or unwanted individuals?

        I believe we can, by enacting the concept of a ‘living will’ and talking about death in open discussion. Obviously we will be at odds regarding moral authority; but I see nothing moral in insisting on dictating to another, how they should be denied the wish to engage control over their allotted lifespan on the planet.

        • bluedog

          You can commit suicide at any time. Nothing to stop you.

          • Dreadnaught

            That’s exactly the wish of the patient in question.

          • bluedog

            The problem arises when facilitating suicide is a business, in which case it is no longer suicide but murder. Killing people has always been highly profitable, look at the trade in narcotics. Once killing people is a business, there is an economic incentive in murder. This worries some of us.

          • Dreadnaught

            I fully appreciate and share those sentiments Bluey but there is a big difference in requested mercy killing. It happens out of indeterminable numbers of situations and conditions but mainly out of love and compassion for a fellow human being in an unlimited state of suffering. More so when In conflict situations in imminent danger of additional suffering such as if wounded then captured by an inhuman enemy. Death is not as fearsome as it is in the manner in which it arrives .

          • bluedog

            This post seems to talk about situations in a war zone where civil society is suspended. Different rules necessarily apply in that the state has mandated killing by its citizens.

          • carl jacobs

            The discriminator is the inevitability of imminent death. That’s different from what is being described in this post.

          • Anton

            The proportion of people who wish to die is tiny. Of those, the proportion who are too immobile to take their own lives is tiny. Yet they get an enormous amount of publicity. Very clearly there is another agenda at work.

        • dannybhoy

          That’s right. My current stance is that any arrangements regarding an individual should remain with the sanctity of life being uppermost -(although that will be debated because in reality only Christianity and a few other religions believe it),
          and the family -if any- or someone of moral* character.
          *Judaeo/Christian.
          The sci fi film ‘Soylent Green’ portrays a world in which the State ‘disposes’ of its citizens when they reach a certain age, and their bodies are used to make protein bars….
          I think that could happen.
          So a living will begs the question of who will ensure that the person’s wishes will be adhered to?

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes a depressing movie that was. Happily though, still theatrical fiction only.
            Ever read of the true story of the whaler ‘The Essex’ and the moral dilemma faced by some of the crew?

          • dannybhoy

            Just looked it up. Similar to the Andes plane crash https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/haunted-by-cannibalism-i-will-never-forget-that-first-incision/
            But cannibalism is nothing new. The Bible mentions it and of course history is replete with examples -Stalingrad springs to mind.
            Hypothetical of course but I believe Christians would be praying for God to deliver them from such a choice. Like Elijah being fed by the ravens, or George Mueller and his orphans..
            ““The children are dressed and ready for school. But there is no food for them to eat,” the housemother of the orphanage informed George Mueller. George asked her to take the 300 children into the dining room and have them sit at the tables. He thanked God for the food and waited. George knew God would provide food for the children as he always did. Within minutes, a baker knocked on the door. “Mr. Mueller,” he said, “last night I could not sleep. Somehow I knew that you would need bread this morning. I got up and baked three batches for you. I will bring it in.”
            Soon, there was another knock at the door. It was the milkman. His cart had broken down in front of the orphanage. The milk would spoil by the time the wheel was fixed. He asked George if he could use some free milk. George smiled as the milkman brought in ten large cans of milk. It was just enough for the 300 thirsty children.”
            http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/church-history-for-kids/george-mueller-orphanages-built-by-prayer-11634869.html

            With faith in God there is always another solution…

          • Dreadnaught

            I’ll rest my case here Dan. There is an excellent book on this event called In the Heart of the Sea: Philbrick.

    • IanCad

      Food for thought Dred. Food for thought.
      I must say that I think the school leaving age should be lowered to fourteen.

    • Albert

      I think its quite opportunist and disingenuous to refer to the path taken by this seventeen your old ‘child’ as being analogous with the wider abortion argument that if to be discussed objectively in the moral sense, must include the natural miscarriage element of aborted human life forms.

      No, that would be totally illogical and therefore not objective. Morality is about the choices we make. Natural miscarriage is not a choice, therefore, it is not about morality.

      • Dreadnaught

        Its and end of a life by whatever means the only difference being that of the moral agent.

        • Albert

          One has a moral agent and one doesn’t, if that’s what you mean.

  • CliveM

    One of the worst things a parent can face is the death of a child. Only made worse if also suffering and in pain. I disagree with this law, but I wouldn’t be able to tell the parent that they were wrong or wicked.

    • Sentimental emotionalism, laced with consequentialist morality, Clive. It’s what lies at the back of most, if not all, attacks on Christian values about the sanctity of human life.

      • CliveM

        Would you tell them that what they had done was wrong and/or wicked?

        I was going to question why the suffering can’t be relieved because from personal experience of those I know, most Doctors will dope up until the pain disappears, even if that leads to death.

        • carl jacobs

          Can there be purpose in suffering, Clive?

          • CliveM

            What type of purpose is a child meant to find in dreadful physical pain? Or is it the parents who are meant to identify the purpose? Either way, if I was a Doctor I would do everything I could to stop the suffering of a child short of euthanasia.

            I think one of my concerns with the use of the term suffering by supporters of euthanasia, is that it is to broad a term. Jack will be suffering dreadfully over Man U’s poor form, but he shouldn’t allow a Doctor to kill him over it (to use a poor example to underline a point).

          • carl jacobs

            What type of purpose is a child meant to find in dreadful physical pain?

            And that is precisely the logic that drives euthanasia forward. It won’t be too long before some atheist says “How dare you make people suffer for the sake of your vainglorious god.” Their underlying presupposition is that suffering is by its very nature pointless. But what does the Scripture say?

          • CliveM

            If you believe that the suffering is being used by God for a greater good, surely we should also campaign against pain killers?
            I am not advocating euthanasia, I am advocating a compassion and understanding of the pain involved.

          • dannybhoy

            We should then campaign against improvements in medicine and in surgery.
            Away with antibiotics, heart bypasses, hip replacements!
            Away with them I cry! Away with social improvements and public health,
            For all these things stop us from enjoying the benefits of good old suffering…
            The only benefit then might be that we look forward to death; but that’s where we came in…

          • CliveM

            I think Christian Scientists (I think they’re called) sort of believe this?

          • dannybhoy

            In Danny’s young manhood he was a windowcleaner. As a very young Christian he used every opportunity to witness to his customers. One elderly couple I knew the wife was into Christian Science, and tried to overcome her suffering with positive thought. I don’t think her husband -who sported a beard as I recall- was nearly as convinced as she was, but he clearly loved her.

          • Merchantman

            Suffering is often the spur to discovering ways (short of euthanasia) to conquer the malaise itself. Jesus was the paschal lamb wasn’t he?

          • dannybhoy

            Right. So our Lord suffered at the hands of religious men and royalty, but for a stated purpose… please see Isaiah 53. Nowhere in Scripture does it say God inflicts us with suffering without reason.
            Job of course suffered, but opinion is divided in whether Job is historical or allegorical.

          • Merchantman

            I’m not saying God inflicts pain. Ever since the fall we see that that he allows certain things through man’s rebellion. The increase in cancer rates in young people may be due in measure due to environmental factors most of which are man made. Much cancer is down to exposure to radioactivity or other pollution. In other words largely man made things.
            I am saying you hit your thumb with a hammer and you try to avoid doing it a second time. Did God make you strike your thumb first time round; no.

          • dannybhoy

            Then we agree. I would like to believe in the ministry of healing, but I don’t have enough faith and have seen little to inspire that faith. I do though believe it is right and proper that man -even fallen man, would seek to understand and find cures for our ills. I think that is in line with the nature of God.

          • carl jacobs

            That doesn’t follow at all, Clive. It is always lawful to do good. Did Jesus heal? Did the Samaritan bind up the wounds? Then so can we. But that isn’t the issue in this case. Here you are saying “We can do nothing but kill'” And then the decision to kill is justified by saying “Not even God can bring purpose out of this.” But He can. The Scripture is replete with examples of God doing exactly that.

            What is more. He says He does. Who are you to contradict Him?

          • CliveM

            If Gods has purpose in the suffering, then too interfere with that is surely to sin.

            But actually I agree with DB, the verse you quote says God will bring good out of evil, but is not the author of the evil.

            I also repeat what I have previously stated, I would not support an euthanasia bill in this country. I would do everything I could to remove a persons suffering, particularly a child’s. If the amount of pain killer required to do that ends the child’s life, I would do it, as I see my intention as being the removal of suffering, not the ending of life.

            I am confused as to why the medical profession can be slow to react to unbearable suffering, when in this country at least, if you are lucky and get the best, your final days and hours can be pain free.

          • dannybhoy

            I agree. The problem I find with some of this argument is that we are supposed to believe that there is some kind of redemptive quality to suffering. Well maybe, in the sense that a Christian person suffering from an illness may develop a new sensitivity to others; but most suffering is simply that, suffering.
            There can be a cerebral appreciation of the values of suffering, but most of us would prefer not to…
            And as for children suffering, who would honestly say that God has a purpose in this?

          • carl jacobs

            And as for children suffering, who would honestly say that God has a purpose in this?

            I would. Because God did.

            ” And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

          • dannybhoy

            “And we know that for those who love God” all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28
            Are you saying that God deliberately allows murder and mutilation of children for a purpose??
            Are you saying that God allows His children to suffer like those in the Middle East for a purpose?
            No. these things are brought about by evil: by man’s deliberate descent into evil (Pol Pot/Stalin/Mao spring to mind).
            Was it God’s will that St Paul should suffer beatings and hunger?
            No. That was men inspired by the forces of evil in this world.
            What that verse means is that God can work all things together for good. He can bring something good out of our bads, our mistakes our sins if we in repentance ask Him.
            http://www.gotquestions.org/all-things-work-together-for-good.html

          • carl jacobs

            Go and read about the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. You will answer your own question.

          • dannybhoy

            No I won’t.
            When God’s people the Israelites suffered, under the Covenant it was because they had disobeyed and walked in the ways of the peoples around them. The suffering was for a corrective purpose: to bring them back to repentance and obedience.
            Actually the Bible says nothing much of suffering in terms of illness.

            God can bring good from our sins, or our suffering if we ask Him to . Some things we have done He cannot spare us from the consequences, but He can find a way to bring the very best outcome that fits in with His holiness and redemptive plans for this world.

          • len

            Then hospitals are ‘anti God ‘…get rid of them all and the nurses and the doctors.

            Lets all embrace our diseases the more disease the better for us.

          • Ridiculous comment, Len. You seem unable to discern the difference between easing pain and suffering and rectifying human ailments, and deliberately killing a person to end their pain.

          • len

            Logical conclusion jack…Hospital are undoing all that ‘good work’ your god has done

          • Do try to keep up with the discussion, Len.

          • There is purpose in everything. Suffering and loss of self, is at the heart of our Christian faith.

            Who says God’s mercy has to be “gentle”? We only ask for mercy because we have been “weighed and found lacking”. Augustine, noting the medical practices of his day, said that the doctor doesn’t stop cutting just because the patient screams for him to stop. No anaesthesia then. In our modern times, we want the easy route – anaesthesia of the body, mind and soul. It sometimes hurts to be corrected. God knows what we need better than we do. And, God’s correction, as harsh as it seems, is certainly gentle compared to the torments of everlasting Hell.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, I think that’s true. We may suffer in the Refiner’s fire, but then a Christian is yielded to God and accepts that to become more Christlike suffering and chastisement may be involved. But these are all examples of God interacting with us as sentient beings. There is nothing about His inflicting pain illness or suffering just to show us who’s Boss.
            Isaiah 53>
            “Surely he has borne our griefs
            and carried our sorrows;
            yet we esteemed him stricken,
            smitten by God, and afflicted.
            5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
            he was crushed for our iniquities;
            upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
            and with his stripes we are healed.”

          • “There is nothing about His inflicting pain illness or suffering just to show us who’s Boss.”
            Who ever said He did? Suffering and pain is the consequence of evil. One way or another, God’s design always asserts itself.

          • dannybhoy

            But evil was not in His design. He allows evil and can use evil to achieve His purposes, but it does not originate with Him. The revealed qualities of God allow for no evil in Him.

          • Free will is in God’s design. Permit this and there will be those who reject God and turn to evil.

          • len

            Rubbish.

          • You appear to have a serious problem with accepting a good God permits human suffering, Len.

          • len

            I certainly do!. It seems that some might actually think God causes suffering from some of the comments here.

          • So, do you support euthanasia to shorten or spare suffering?

          • len

            IF God meant us to suffer then Jesus certainly wasn’t following the Will of God by healing people.
            Jesus should have said” embrace your suffering ” its what God wants for you”

            (I have never heard so much rubbish spoken on this blog by professing Christians, if that is all there was to Christianity I would rather join the secularists.)

          • Dreadnaught

            Coming from anyone other than a Christian such a statement could have been so easily howled down. I think this is one the most direct and apposite comments I’ve ever heard from you Len.

          • len

            An animal must be put out of its suffering but human suffering must be prolonged until death finally extinguishes that life?.This seems to be the view of some people.Mother Theresa told terminally ill people to ’embrace their suffering’ and withheld pain killing drugs but when she herself became ill rushed off to a Swiss clinic for all the best medical attention.
            Such is the hypocrisy of those who tell others what is the ‘right and moral thing’ to do

          • Shame on you …. Saint Teresa of Calcutta certainly held a redemptive view of human suffering but she never deliberately inflicted pain or suffering and did all she could to alleviate it and help people have a peaceful death.

          • Cressida de Nova

            You really are a very nasty person telling these lies about Mother Theresa.

        • Yes, Jack most certainly would tell them.

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    You know, once conservatives return to power in this country, this is a law we could use… heh heh.

    Haven’t all these gays and transvestites told us endlessly about their “suffering”?

    With the right precedents, we will be able to euthanase the lot of them… to “ease their suffering”, “out of compassion”, etc.

    By then we’ll even have a class of professional executioners available, although of course the left will have given them some treacly, dishonest name just to disarm opposition.

    In fact, thinking laterally, don’t lots of lefties whine about the “suffering” of living in so rich a country. Couldn’t we end their suffering?

    Yours sincerely,

    Orwell Mosley

  • carl jacobs

    our post-Christian relativist culture offers no agreed way of interpreting moral argument

    Which means it has no way to explain suffering. When the purpose of life is found in pleasure, then the defeat of purpose will be found in pain. The meaningless life is the painful life. And so one will seek ways to avoid pain. The key to understanding is that it is not just the one who dies who finds his pain alleviated. Death is used to maximize pleasure, and in our post-Christian relativist world, this is called virtue.

    • Enter Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as the alternative to nihilism:

      1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”

      2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”

      3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”

      4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”

      5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

      Combine this with individualism and we get non-judgmentalism and relativism. There are no “right” answers in matters of faith and behaviour.

  • There are certain behaviours that are “intrinsically evil” that should never be tolerated, condoned or legalised under any circumstances. In and of themselves, they contradict our Creators will and design for us and how we live.

    Nowadays, the prevalent heresy is that provided the balance of overall good out weights the consequences of the otherwise evil act, and one’s intention is sound, then anything is permissible. “Thou Shalt Not” has become “Thou Shalt Not Unless …. ” Of course, the problem with this is that one can never anticipate the actual eventual and overall consequences of embracing an evil act.

  • Albert

    One hesitates to use the word ‘evil’ of statutes promulgated by well-intentioned politicians

    No, it is evil. As St Thomas Aquinas says: every agent acts for a good. Evil acts are always directed at something good. They still deserve condemnation.

    Beyond that, one can only bewail the fact that this is a classic slippery slope. They say they will only allow euthanasia in terminal cases of adults. We are accused of being wicked when we say, “You will allow it for non-terminal cases, and for children.” “No, no, no, how dare you say that” they say.

    All of these liberal things are like this: women’s ordination and homosexuality is just another example of one we have discussed here recently. Gender in general is next. It’s amazing that from abortion, few people have noticed one should end up with infanticide, but if Belgium is anything to go by, you can get to that point by another way.

    • Merchantman

      The reluctance to call out evil is one of the trademarks of liberal thinking because they wont recognise it. You ask yourself why; why they are so blind to the obvious? Thanks for your post.

  • PessimisticPurple

    No, no problem here with the use of the word “evil”. Of course, this presupposes you acknowledge the concept to begin with, and obviously, the Belgian people don’t (like so many others in this secular paradise the humanists have created). Ironic, is it not, that the country twice overrun by German militarism should be the one most embracing of Hitlerian social policy. I suppose it’s easily done. To paraphrase GK Chesterton, you start out killing people who are a nuisance to themselves and then you find yourself killing people because they’re a nuisance to you. The British should be familiar with the process. UK abortion law, on paper, is as restrictive as Belgian euthanasia law. Technically, it still is. In practice, it’s Liberty Hall. The law changed people’s attitudes, as its authors intended it should. Same will be true of euthanasia.

  • Merchantman

    Yesterday I went to a cancer survivor’s meeting. One of the speakers, a nurse, was a survivor herself having contracted kidney cancer aged 6. The Belgians would have allowed her to terminate herself.
    To think we fought two world wars to save Little Belgium. This was done sparing no cost in British lives and suffering.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Whatever we may wish to say about this, let us please avoid Evil Euphemisms.

  • David

    Once a society, or most of it, rejects the idea of a God who is all good, and a being representing the direct opposite, who is referred to as the Devil, who is assumed to be thoroughly evil, then it is impossible to see all acts as existing somewhere on a spectrum from Holy at one end to Evil at the other. This shortened, partial yardstick for judging actions leaves society inadequately equipped for making balanced, mature and thoughtful judgements and decisions regarding how it organises itself, and deciding what is permitted or forbidden.
    So with “God is Dead”, and therefore the Devil also absent, permanently, we are living through the agonies of a society which can only think in terms of moral relativism – as there are no absolutes. It is therefore utterly inevitable, as night follows day, that ever more depraved and wicked acts will be declared legal. Until we come back to God the fount of all that is good, I see little hope of society rescuing itself from this ever deepening morass.

  • The Explorer

    “One of the most wicked and damnable decrees in the history of Christendom.” But it isn’t Christendom: it’s postChristendom. And there, it makes perfect sense. We may say pain is evil; they say evil is pain. So avoiding pain is doing the good.

    A side issue is the effect this might have in due course on the age of consent. A powerful argument against paedophilia is that children are too young to give consent. But now it appears that that safeguard is being dismantled. Twelve in the Netherlands, younger in Belgium. True, that’s consent to termination. But if you’re old enough to consent to your own death, you’re old enough to consent to sex. At some stage, that’s going to occur to the postChristian mind when it focuses on good (pleasure) as the opposite of evil (pain).

  • Inspector General

    ”constant and unbearable suffering”

    It can be argued there is no such thing, as such. Not these days. Not in civilised countries. There’s a whole branch of medicine that deals with pain. Palliative care. If this thread is lucky to attract a medical practitioner of such, read carefully what he or she has to say. Assuming what it is is unbiased and just presents the facts thereof.
    ———————————————————————–
    One puts it to you all that (some) practitioners even before history have been helping people on their way, but only when the time is right. It’s a very human thing, and yes, we don’t want to dwell on it. However, to legislate to be able to formally apply for this consideration early and to sign on the dotted line – that is truly ghastly…

    • dannybhoy

      “One puts it to you all that (some) practitioners even before history have been helping people on their way, but only when the time is right. It’s a very human thing, and yes, we don’t won’t to dwell on it. However, to legislate to be able to formally apply for this consideration early and to sign on the dotted line – that is truly ghastly…”
      I agree. It should always be a personal thing. I have met Christians who prayed that an elderly relative would pass soon to spare them more suffering in a terminal illness..

      • Inspector General

        It can be seen as a final act of love and respect, Danny. When done properly…

        • You’re advocating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            and…

          • It’s morally wrong …. and is the origin of the Dr Shipman’s and Nurse Green’s who “help people on their way”. It’s called murder.

          • Inspector General

            It’s called doing the right thing, Jack. We don’t have all the answers, you know. Sometimes we have to take a leap of faith. For example, one has just been reading on Pink News that Welby is to convene a discussion group on SSM. Interesting article. Even Jayne “You’re all under arrest” Ozanne gets a mention. In this case, the leap of faith required is that SSM is binned for, literally, good. For all time. An eternity.

          • It is never the “right thing” to take a life to end suffering.

          • Inspector General

            Oh well. You’ve said your bit. You’ll be off now for tonight then…

          • Jack will be keeping a watchful eye on your nonsense and that of Danny, Clive and …. yes … Len. Let’s call you the Cyber Euthanasia Vanguard.

            Bear in mind, we do not have a “right to die.” A “right” is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death; death has a claim on us. It is not for us to decide when our life will end, any more than we decide when it begins. And no relative, doctor, or legislator can decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.

            We have a right to is proper care. It is never “care” in any sense of the word, to terminate life, even if that life is full of suffering. We have no right to terminate life. No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life.

          • Inspector General

            An Inspector will leave you to it then, Jack. But will bring you down with this. Jesus never had any problem with people being put to death under Roman law. Or if he did, he kept quiet about it, so it doesn’t count.

          • Those justly sentenced for crimes, Inspector. He never spoke against (your favourite subject) homosexual “marriage” either but one doubts He supported it.

            We are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and it is the Lord God who gives us life (Job 33:4) and who has numbered our days (Job 14:5). God is the sovereign Lord who determines the day that we die. It is not for us to usurp God’s authority.

            As someone once said: “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?”

          • Inspector General

            Don’t forget now, a leap of faith. Don’t be like that fellow who was given some talents and buried them in the ground, lest his master think ill of him, which he did anyway…No pleasing some Gods, what!

          • The faith consists in trusting God – not usurping Him.

          • Inspector General

            If any proof were needed that we were created so that our doings entertain said creator, then the parable of the talents is it…

          • Starting to bother you, is it? God wants us to share our gifts and abilities – not bury them away out of sight. Divine mercy and love will grow in you only inasmuch as you give it to others.

          • Inspector General

            No. The only botheration tonight is your drivel…

          • You won’t find the answers in a bottle, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            Heavenly peace though…

          • Anton

            In vino veritas?

          • Tends to loosen the tongue and reveal the true self. When Jack started as a trainee Probation Officer, many long moons ago, he also worked a

          • Anton

            Yes, that was great training… and explains your good insight about why Sarky might have left us.

          • Anton

            Occasionally on the beach, though, a message…

          • chefofsinners

            What if you were causing me unbearable pain? Which of us should die?

          • Inspector General

            Shouldn’t think you’d feel any pain after being knocked unconscious. Hope that reassures…

          • chefofsinners

            What if it was your theology that was causing me unbearable pain

          • Anton

            What is your opinion of what to do when the amount of analgesic required to relieve pain is a dose that would be fatal? The doctor’s intention, if he administers that dose, is then known only by the doctor.

            I’m not asking this as a catch question. I might differ from you over a small (and with modern drugs, decreasing) number of extreme situations in which you let the patient self-administer, but I am genuinely not sure about rights and wrongs in the scenario stated.

          • It’s worth considering a declaration by Pius XII in answer to a group of doctors who put the question: “Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics … permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?” The Pope said: “If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes.”

            In this case, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine. However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. A person has to prepare himself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.”

          • Inspector General

            “However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration.”

            An Inspector glances at his whisky bottle with unaccustomed guilt…

          • Anton

            Thank you, Jack; I’m glad of all thoughts about that scenario.

          • “What is your opinion of what to do when the amount of analgesic required to relieve pain is a dose that would be fatal?”

            If I were the doctor – and I do not treat cancer patients – I would not administer a dose that could kill a patient. I believe it is wrong for a doctor to end a human life.

            Having lost my mother (also a doctor) to cancer, I know how great the suffering can be. But I believe, as she did, that God alone has the right to decide when a person should die. He permits the suffering despite being merciful. So we must do our best to ease the suffering and preserve life.

          • Anton

            Thank you Anna; I welcome all opinions on this difficult matter. There is a grey area in your use of the word “could”, though; are you able to clarify, please?

          • If a dose of any drug were known to be lethal, I would not prescribe it, under any circumstances. Coming to the issue of pain control in cancer patients, a sudden increase in morphine dose, beyond what the patient’s body is used to, can be fatal; this is an option I believe no doctor should choose, even if it were possible to defend such action in court. As the disease progresses, morphine doses often need to be steadily increased to achieve effective pain control. This will not cause immediate death, but might possibly, not inevitably, result in a shortened period of suffering. This trade off is acceptable, in my view, because we should do all we can to minimise suffering.

            Here is a link, which discusses some of these issues, and while I do not share the writer’s perspective, it is a very interesting read –

            http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-L-END.html

          • Anton

            Thank you; interesting reading.

          • CliveM

            Did you actually read a word I said? I don’t remember advocating euthanasia.

          • Not noticing you speaking against it …

          • CliveM

            I stated at least twice, possibly 3 times that I did not support the law.

          • dannybhoy

            None of us advocates Euthanasia. We’ve already made that clear. The argument is about alleviating suffering and easing someone’s passing/popping of clogs/snuffing it or however you wish to describe it.
            Where you have me is that like abortion it might well become abused, and no one wants that. So better it stays on a personal level and those involved answer to God or their own conscience.

          • Do you believe in deliberately “helping” a person to die or not?

          • dannybhoy

            As an individual, and with the medical knowledge that person is dying and is only going to be in pain until they pass, I think yes. I don’t believe in purgatory or that added physical suffering has any benefit. But I don’t believe it as a policy.

          • So having denied it, you now reveal you are a supporter of euthanasia.

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t support State euthanasia. I don’t see it as a policy. I see it as an act of love and compassion when a person is beyond recovery and their condition causes great pain. If there is the means to relieve that suffering. like morphine you use it and use as much as is needed.
            See death doesn’t happen in the stark way you put it. People cry Jack, they are emotionally involved, there are good and bad memories, forgiveness to be sought, prayers to be said, love to be expressed.
            I found a little old lady who had taken herself off to her garage and hung herself out of loneliness and depression. Should I feel smug because I didn’t help her on her way, or reflect in what drove her to such ends and how she felt at the last?
            My father died of cancer and I watched him waste away and smelt the corruption of his lungs. My father came to faith before he died and accepted Jesus as Saviour. My eldest brother died because he was on that Liverpool Pathway, only we didn’t know it at the time.
            Life is messy Jack. It defies legalism.

          • You support euthanasia i.e. the deliberate and premature taking of human life to end suffering. All that’s different is that you want it to go on secretly. Yes, life is messy. That’s the reason we should hold onto basic morality – like not killing people out of misplaced compassion or desire to help them. This is not “legalism”; it’s respecting the Sovereignty of God.

          • Anton

            Welby to convene an SSM committee? Regardless of what he says is the question of how much he says. It appears to dominate his thinking while he has a major denomination to lead.

          • Inspector General

            Mentioned in passing, is all. Don’t want to misdirect this thread. Perhaps Cranmer will post on it accordingly…

          • dannybhoy
          • So what?

          • dannybhoy

            He was a loner,Jack. We don’t know what was going through his mind, but he hung himself in prison. He wasn’t as far as I know a Christian, and I’m not sure he would have been interested in any ethical debates anyway.

          • And all the well meaning doctors and nurses who play God?

          • Inspector General

            Yes, on the subject of playing God, it’s not just them, but knaves too…

          • Like you?

          • Inspector General

            You mentioned playing God, Jack. Or are YOU allowed to lay down the eternal law without detraction…

          • Following God’s law is showing love and humility before our Creator. Intentionally causing one’s own death, or the death of another, is wrong because such an action is a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.

            One must restate firmly that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. No one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.

            It really is a question of the violation of the Divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

          • dannybhoy

            “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or the death of another, is wrong because such an action is a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.
            Millions suffering through starvation, tsunamis, wars and social experiments is NOT a part of God’s loving plan nor a reflection of His love. And to fight against such things is not a rejection of His sovereignty.

          • Not sure just what point you think you’re making. Fighting against these evils is being with God by loving our neighbour, and promoting good and justice in the world. Not the same as extinguishing life. We are called to do good in this life, not evil

          • dannybhoy

            Apologies. I thought that was what you were saying. So we agree on “Fighting against these evils is being with God by loving our neighbour, and promoting good and justice in the world.”
            The point of disagreement remains the issue of sovereignty then, and we interpret God’s sovereignty in different ways. I know what all the verses say, and I think they are mainly related to the Covenant people and the nations surrounding. Of course I believe God is ultimately in control, He has a plan for our world but built into that is freedom for men to exercise his free will for good or ill, and God will use those actions to achieve His purposes. Kind of like “You can work with me or you can work against me: but I will achieve my purposes and ultimately you will answer for your actions.
            Also I don’t believe that people are born as God sovereignly intended; the blind, the crippled, the incomplete. He gave us reproduction, and things go wrong, period.

          • The basic principle in life is to do no evil, even when some good may result.

          • dannybhoy

            You mean the doctors in the NHS, or you know some personally that play god?
            Most normal people working in medicine have the desire for people to get well, to ease suffering or to make their passing as comfortable.
            Shipman and the nurse were abberations.

          • Cressida de Nova

            They have no understanding or interest in theology or respect for the sanctity of human life. Listen to conversations around the operating table….well you cannot… but I think you would be shocked.

        • dannybhoy

          I’m on my way with a pillow. What was your exact address again?

      • No harm in praying for a person to be released from suffering. However, to “help them on their way” is something very different.

        • dannybhoy

          Imagine..You know that your relative is in the final stages of cancer. The doctor tells you the cancer has spread right through their body. They are in great pain, and the doctor says he could administer a shot of morphine or something that will both ease the pain and the passing.
          You say no because you believe it God’s decision when we die and we should not be complicit in terminating life.
          Yes?

          • Is the intention to ease the pain or to end his life – or both – and is there a way of easing pain without taking his life? Therein lies the difference. Jack hates the expression “passing”. It’s called death.

          • dannybhoy

            We’re all going to die Jack. and there are all kinds of ghastly ways to die. If I was in pain as per my example and my family asked the doctor to put me out of my misery, I doubt God would be upset if I arrived a little earlier than He intended.
            You believe we all die as God has planned? Under a bus or whatever.
            I don’t believe it. We’re in a cause and effect world (the evidence is all around us) and God intervenes when he has a reason to.His overall plan.
            Otherwise He allows the system to work as it does work. Free will actions in a cause and effect world.

          • A strange theology, Danny.

          • dannybhoy

            Not at all. I believe in His love, His goodness and holiness. I believe He could (He has!) intervened in answer to prayer, and He hasn’t intervened at other times. If I believe in His revealed nature I can have confidence in Him in all things, and I don’t assume that means I will escape what others won’t.
            There will be a new heavens and a new earth, there will be a judgement, but I don’t have to believe that everything that happens is God’s will.
            That would be troubling indeed.

          • Inspector General

            Ignore that timid creature Jack, Danny. He ain’t the boss of us!

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t think Jack is timid. I just don’t agree with him. Consider six million Jews and others horribly and callously murdered. God intended this? No. Not even as a means to get the Jews back to Israel. Men planned the Holocaust aided and abetted by the forces of darkness.

          • Inspector General

            Which is why this state sponsored euthanasia is evil…

          • God permitted it for reasons known only to Him. He could have intervened and stopped it all. He didn’t.

          • Inspector General

            Just don’t rely on our creator in this life, is what you should say.

          • Trust God in this life, follow His will whatever the circumstances, and look forward to life with Him after death.

          • dannybhoy

            The problem with this approach is that it means God is unknowable, He does what He wants rather than being true to His revealed nature, That takes us dangerously close to superstition.

          • Of course it doesn’t mean God is unknowable. How can we trust Him or follow His will, if we don’t know Him? God can only do that which is consistent with His nature. He does do what He wants. And here’s the paradox for us trying to comprehend an eternal, omniscient, constant Being. He wants us all to be with Him but He also wants us to have the freedom of will to reject Him. We’re all redeemed; yet some are damned. Some see this as a contradiction of His sovereignty. It’s not. It’s a manifestation of His justice, love and mercy.

          • dannybhoy

            Well that’s what I said for Goodness Sake!
            God is true to His revealed nature, so He wants all to be saved, but not all will be saved because some will reject salvation.
            And they will go to Hell because they refused salvation, not because God has damned them.

          • Acting according to His nature, is doing what He wants. There’s no tension between the two. God doesn’t think or desire as we do. The Covenant is entirely for our sake to open up a path for us back to Him.

          • Cressida de Nova

            see above explanation. What is the matter with you? You understand the concept of free will.

          • Cressida de Nova

            The holocaust was caused by mankind. As we have free will we act on it. If God intervened we would no longer have free will. With free will comes consequences.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s what I am arguing for, and why I don’t believe God always places rulers according to His Sovereign will. Man chooses leaders or as in this case man plots his way into power..

          • The Explorer

            In ‘Daniel’ the visiting Angel says he has been delayed by the Prince of Persia ( a bad Angel). Paul says somewhere about being unable to get where he wanted to be because “Satan thwarted us.” To me, that means not everything that happens is the will of God.

          • dannybhoy

            Mark 6:5-7
            “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.”

            Man and spiritual forces can thwart God’s plans, but overall God will achieve His purposes.

          • The day you’re born, God knows the very second you will die, just how you will die and He knows the condition of your soul at death.

          • dannybhoy

            I say my life is in His hands and that’s good enough for me. I don’t live my life dwelling on what God knows about my end, or the state if my souls at death.. My immediate reaction is that I’m just going through the motions then, because God already knows. So why bother? What’s the point?
            And anyway I’m quite sure that we can thwart God’s will in our life, and we can repent and we can bring forth more fruit in our lives.
            If I thought about it all as you describe, I might top myself just to surprise Him….:0)

          • A comment that surprised Jack. He finds his outlook liberating, bringing great peace of mind. Strange you see it as depressing and as taking away your free will.

          • dannybhoy

            My original comment was that some schools of theology can lead to complacency even a fatalism similar to that found in Islam. So for example people blame God for everything -an extreme view of sovereignty, or they say that there is no point in outreach or witnessing because the Lord knows who are His. After all He knew from the foundation of the world etc. etc. It may not be the intention, but it can be the result.
            The other view, equally Biblical, is that God wants men to repent, wants His people to pray for revival to witness, to stand for Christian morality. This view argues for action, not complacency. We are constantly encouraged to seek the Lord while He may be found. He asks, ” “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” And Isaiah replies… “Here am I. Send me!”
            St Paul says in 1st Corinthians 9>
            “24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control,[b] lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

            It’s dynamic Jack, not complacent. So I know that by His grace I am saved, I know that by His grace I am being sanctified, That you find peace of mind in these things may be linked to your recent health problems which thankfully seem resolved. I may well be thinking the same way when my time comes, but right now it’s not my focal point.

          • Cressida de Nova

            This is predestination…with overtones of despair and decidedly not a Catholic approach.
            We have free will. The supreme being does not focus on negativity. We are taught that we must enjoy life here on earth through God’s grace. Although I don’t necessarily agree, a Cardinal I know said that he thinks most of mankind will be saved. The essence of Catholicism is being positive…faith hope and charity.

          • dannybhoy

            A voice of reason!
            God offers salvation to all men, but not all will receive. God wants His Church to work with Him in bringing as many into the kingdom as possible. Therefore men cannot be predestined to salvation. It would make no sense.

          • Cressida de Nova

            There is a fine line there. The intention must be to alleviate the pain not to administer a dose that will surely kill them.Doctors in this situation are gods…How many would be bothered to make the distinction ?

  • Mungling

    I wonder how much research, and care, is taken by the medical establishment to ensure quality, end-of-life care? Anecdotally I’m told that most physicians spend less time discussing palliative care in medical school than veterinarians. I know that in many communities, the basic infrastructure for end-of-life care (like hospice centres) are often neglected or entirely absent. On the research side, palliative care research does exist but its never going to be as sexy (and, consequently, as well funded) as other forms of research. Ultimately, I wonder how much better off we would be if the time, energy and enthusiasm directed towards legalising euthanasia could be applied to end-of-life care and easing the suffering of those who desire to die a natural death. How many of these situations with “uncontrollable suffering” are really within man’s ability to control and ameliorate? Why is it that, as a society, we often have a war on cancer, or a war on heart disease, but when it comes to end-of-life situations we just throw up our hands and surrender? How might this child’s situation have differed if we had treated end-of-life situations with the gravity they deserve?

    I can see why people might support, and even celebrate, a decision to end the suffering of another human being. I wonder, however, if society as a whole is really making an informed decision when it comes to legalising and celebrating suicide.

    • Anton

      Steady on! Are you a medic? Because if not I think you are assuming things that aren’t necessarily true. I understand that analgesics are a LOT better today for the terminally ill than a generation ago. I’m not a medic either, but I’ve spoken to a few. And I do not believe that any human should ever deliberately kill another (except after due process of law or in warfare).

      • Inspector General

        You too need to take a leap of faith.

        • …. and follow you into the abyss.

          • Inspector General

            No. Just stand on your own two spiritual feet at last. Instead of clinging to the manual…

          • Leaping into the abyss … and landing on the broken glass of discarded whiskey bottles.

          • Inspector General

            Now listen. You’ve been tolerated here. Don’t push it…

          • I love the sound of breaking glass
            Especially when I’m lonely
            I need the noises of destruction
            When there’s nothing new

            Oh nothing new, sound of breaking glass

            I love the sound of breaking glass
            Deep into the night
            I love the sound of its condition
            Flying all around

          • Inspector General

            Perhaps a little respect from you would go a long way. Sure you’ve been told that before…

          • Oh nothing new, sound of breaking glass ….

            Are we having a bad disagreement, Inspector?

          • Anton

            Inspector, those who dish it out (see your words to Eustace) should be able to take it…

          • Inspector General

            Yes. How right you are. An unfortunate meltdown took place.

            A review of last night’s proceedings has found the Inspectorate suffered a failure in its cooling system. This was due to it being inferred that no less a personage than the Inspector himself was a drunk. Can’t tell you how much additional heat that generated! The system has been updated and the problem, now that it has been identified, is unlikely to occur again.

          • Anton

            Good show!

          • Anton

            That would be the same manual from which you and I get all our knowledge of Christ’s words?

          • Inspector General

            An incomplete manual it seems…

          • Anton

            I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this book

            – from the last 100 words in the Bible.

          • Inspector General

            and yet we have “What you consider bound on earth shall also be considered bound in heaven”

          • Anton

            When you get round to acknowledging the divinity of Jesus Christ, Inspector, we can discuss his more enigmatic words. First things first!

          • Inspector General

            Bur sir, the divinity of Christ is not in doubt. He had an impeccable father on what would have been his birth certificate. Few others if any can truthfully put down ‘God’

          • Anton

            I had thought you were not convinced of that. I am delighted that you believe of Him as you do.

          • Inspector General

            It’s the Trinity one can’t accept. How the Trinitarians won the day is a complete mystery to this man. All he can think of is at the time the dogma was confirmed, the early church was up against a pantheon of Roman gods in rivalry. It seemed the eager thought they needed to beef Christ up beyond his rather obvious angelic credentials and call him the Almighty. To go face to face against Jupiter, the most important of the Roman deities but apparently short of creator status.

          • dannybhoy

            IG
            The Scriptures make it clear that God is three persons in one. Right from “Let us make man there are many instances where the Father speaks of the Son and His Spirit.
            Hard to understand?
            Tell me about it..
            However, it does undermine the idea that God created us for companionship or because He was lonely. Rather that God created man for relational fellowship just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit have fellowship and communication between themselves..

          • Inspector General

            Gasp!

          • Anton

            You believe that God is both the Creator whom Jesus called Father, and also Jesus. So numerically you are 2/3 of the way to the Trinity, and conceptually you have got the great point that the Jews haven’t, that God is more than one person. Just keep going a little…

          • Inspector General

            Jesus was exactly as he said he was. A messenger from God and created by God for the purpose, hence the reference to the Father. To wit, an angel.

          • Anton

            But you just said above that his divinity was not in doubt. Did you not mean by that, that He WAS (is) divine?

            Thomas cried to him “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Had Jesus not been divine, He would have ardently responded “No; worship God alone”, just as an angel did to John (Rev 22:8-9). Is that not so, good Inspector?

          • Inspector General

            When you are immortal, and cannot be physically killed, and you can say God directly created you – you are divine.

          • Anton

            He died alright. but I think you are saying two different things at once, and I don’t wish to beat you over the head with texts. It’s for you to work out in fear of God, and may He bless you.

          • Inspector General

            Thanks for sparing a fellow a beating….

          • The “missing piece” is your freedom to cooperate with God’s grace, listen to His, voice; and enter through the narrow gate – or not. With this, the manual becomes ever clearer.

    • dannybhoy

      If you don’t believe in God, and if you think that this life is all that there is, then palliative care will never be a priority.
      Why would you bother?

  • Martin

    OK, so the subscribe by email doesn’t seem to work, or maybe I’ve been blacklisted.

    That said, why are we surprised that when mankind is seen as just another animal we treat our neighbours in the same way we treat our animals?

    • dannybhoy

      Who else is blacklisting you, old chap?

      • dannybhoy

        Where is Martin? Come back!
        We need your input.
        Also, where is Eustace?
        Uncharacteristically quiet..

        • CliveM

          Eustace is a dead parrot, he is no more. Waiting the next incarnation.

          • dannybhoy

            I hope Eustace/Linus returns soon. I still say he is seeking salvation whetrg=her he realises it or not. Every time he communicates we have an opportunity to witness to him.

          • dannybhoy

            I hope Eustace/Linus returns soon. I still say he is seeking salvation whether he realises it or not. Every time he communicates we have an opportunity to witness to him.

        • len

          Resting in a cellar somewhere waiting for the hours of darkness to fall?.

      • Martin

        Danny

        Mostly Atheists, although some who call themselves Christians also run away when I ask questions. 😉

        • dannybhoy

          You’re back and all is sorted.
          Good.
          As iron sharpeneth iron, so one man sharpeneth another..

          • Martin

            Danny

            I never went away.

          • dannybhoy

            Oh I thought perhaps you has been sabotaged…

          • Martin

            Danny

            Nah, just a bit busy.

  • chefofsinners

    Here is the full horror of the curse of sin. When we try to avoid death through medicine, we create new agonies, often worse than those avoided. When we attempt palliative care we remove quality of life and end up administering morphine until we become killers. When we legalise euthanasia we create moral agonies for a child and his family.
    Sin has ruined mankind. Death reigns, and the fear of death and the shadow of judgment to follow.
    And yet. “Where o death is thy victory?, where o grave is thy sting… Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Christ Jesus our Lord.”
    Not medicine, not euthanasia, but Christian faith is the only thing in all the world that could turn this child’s death into a thing of meaning, victory and even beauty in His time.

    • Ivan M

      Advances in medicine have made the issues more acute and intractable. In the old days many would have succumbed without extended lingering, thereby sparing us much in the way of troubled conscience. We became too good at extending life.

      • Anton

        This issue can’t be taken in isolation from how healthcare should be funded. Much of the pressure for euthanasia comes from government desire to save taxpayer’s money spent on health, which is not a bad thing. Again we see the principle of sin and fallenness parasiting good motives.

        • Ivan M

          The Government giveth, the Government taketh away. Blessed be the name of Government.

      • dannybhoy

        It is more difficult because medical advances mean we can do so much more,
        But to discover from the unborn that we can use stem cells, to make beauty creams from their cells is abhorrent. It really does fall into the realm of CS Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength” in which fallen man seeks to create Heaven through his own efforts.
        The moral issues that Christians and Jews face are so much more complicated than when life was nasty, brutish and short…

        • Ivan M

          I agree that making beauty or longevity products from the stem cells of aborted babies is unnatural and evil. Akin to vampirism. Other issues are.less clear cut.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, I agree with you. Most of us would prefer to live healthier for longer and forget about how the improvements came about…

  • Dreadnaught

    When we try to avoid death through medicine, we create new agonies, often worse than those avoided.
    Some here myself included, refer to Islam as a death Cult. The idiot below seems quite comfortable to attach the same label onto Christianity.

    • len

      Jack digs himself a hole and spends the rest of the thread defending said hole.

      • It’s clear you either do not read posts or your comprehension skills are limited.

        • len

          No…. just disagree with what you say…..

    • dannybhoy

      Kinda sharp but made Danny chuckle.. As I mention elsewhere there are shades of theology which have more in common with the fatalism of Islam than the triumphant hope and love of Christ Jesus.
      God is Love. Not sloppy, sentimental handwringing love, but Love which bursts with energy and holiness and compassion and hope. He is the Celestial Mender of broken people, the Mopper Up of spilt milk. The One who can pick up the distressed and tearful, and sit them on His lap and make them smile again and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit replace hope with certainty.
      This God I love, this God I worship.
      If we let Him into our miserable little ‘self world’ with all its jealousies, its insecurities, lusts and spitefulness. He wants us to realise that we really are but fallen creatures, slaves to our physical appetites and warped intellects. He has so much more to show us and share with us in this incredible Cosmos. But first we must bow the knee. Acknowledge our sin and accept that the only way to salvation and eternal life is through His Son Jesus Christ..

    • Jack has not criticised medical intervention nor prayers for those suffering. He has condemned killing in the name of “mercy”.

      • Dreadnaught

        You up-ticked without comment this statement: When we try to avoid death through medicine, we create new agonies, often worse than those avoided. When we attempt palliative care we remove quality of life and end up administering morphine until we become killers
        Which runs contrary to your own experience that you chose to make public. Keep digging.

      • len

        There must be a fine line whilst medicating people with extreme pain when enough medication to kill the pain might actually kill the patient as well.
        Just hope if I am ever in that situation the doctor will not think he has to drag me through extreme levels of pain so that I can die a ‘Christian death.’…

        • In those circumstances, there would be nothing immoral about the doctors action provided the intent is to relieve pain and not to end your life.

      • Cressida de Nova

        It is morally wrong to watch a person in agony without alleviating their distress.

  • len

    So the’ christian view’ of God (on this blog at least) is that God makes man sick to teach then how ‘good’ God is.
    Any parent doing that to his child would be labelled from suffering with ‘Munchausen syndrome by proxy’.

    No wonder Christianity is dying in Europe.How can anyone preach God is love if people are taught the opposite?.

  • len

    The problem of suffering and death is a huge one and affects every person on the planet at some time or another.
    If God Created and said His Creation was ‘good’ then where did death and disease come from?.
    The’ Book of Job’ gives us a glimpse as to what us happening’ behind the scenes’ as it were.
    Every affliction of Job was caused by Satan but permitted by God as a means of testing Job`s faithfulness to God.
    Jesus Christ gave Christians authority over Satan so we Christians are able to resist ALL the attacks of Satan.
    So all Job could do was suffer under the attacks of Satan but Christians have the authority to resist disease even death(up to a point)
    But not all people accept Christianity and come under the authority of Christ so Christians (IMO) who are acting in love are to help alleviate the suffering of those in terminal pain not just leaver them’ to get on with it.’

    • dannybhoy

      Yes. If Job was a historical figure, he probably would be under the Covenant and that Covenant states that the righteous will be blessed and prosper and the disobedient would suffer.
      Apart from Genesis there is little mention of Lucifer or Satan or spiritual forces in the heavenly places. So for the Chosen People there was God and there were false gods and those who illegally communicated with them.
      The prophets reveal more and the New Testament even more. Jesus Himself shows that disease and death are abhorrent to God, and nowhere condemns doctors -even though they couldn’t heal the woman with an issue of blood.
      Let’s also not forget that it was Jews and Christians who systematically developed medicine and founded hospitals.

    • If God Created and said His Creation was ‘good’ then where did death and disease come from?.
      From sin. Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-22.

      • len

        This was a rhetorical question but ‘the mechanics’ of sin are a puzzle to me.I have heard several explanations but none seem to really add up?.
        Can Satan ‘create’… things like bacteria virus`s,all the bad stuff that afflicts humanity and the planet?.

  • dannybhoy

    No I don’t think so.
    Only evangelical…

    • CliveM

      Well there’s still Jon Sorrenson!

      • dannybhoy

        Hmm. I think Jon likes arguing and point scoring. There are others here whose criticisms and questions are genuine, and I respect them.

  • dannybhoy

    No I don’t think so. But I am evangelical, and Eustace/linus needs salvation..

    • CliveM

      He’ll be back.