4 ms·

The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. You can use it advocate any posi

The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. You can use it advocate any position you chose. > Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum. Christianity didn't always hold this view. I suppose some of the movement comes from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Of course that is a very poor translation. A better one would be "Thou shall not kill without justification".

mgkimsal 13y ago
"Thou shall not kill" Unless you're going off to war to kill bad people. Then it's justified. And the other side justifies it with their side's supernatural beliefs.
jamie_ca 13y ago
The one I've heard as being somewhat more accurate is "Thou shalt not murder." That is, pre-meditated and with intent. The current version could wind up damning you for self-defence.
- GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
  I don't think murder is a better translation, but my thoughts on the bible are best expressed by Tim Minchin's "The Good Book". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
gcr 13y ago
I sort of don't understand the thought of turning "Thou shall not kill" into "Thou shall do everything in thine power to keep the person alive"
- waps 13y ago
  These rules are not actually from the bible, but from the Greeks, who had much stricter rules. 1) no abortion never jamais, under no circumstances. Nor advising women on how to do it themselves. 2) no euthanasia never jamais, under no circumstances. No advising people on how to DIY it either. 3) no refusing medical aid to anyone for any reason 4) never go against patient wishes for not getting treated 5) never, ever, advise anyone on the use of poison Some highlights from the Hippocratic oath. The first source of which is, unsurprisingly, not the Bible.
- waps 13y ago
  Well, read the hippocratic oath. Learn that not everything comes from the bible. The world will make more sense afterwards. And if that doesn't clarify things, read some Greek plays about just how wrong things can go, and you'll understand why physicians would want to avoid any involvement and keep things secret. It'll make sense. It'll make make clear even to people who assume the very worst about people that people can go much, much further than they ever dreamed in their worst nightmares. It'll make clear to even the most liberal person that, yes, there are things consenting adults can choose to do that justify throwing them in jail, even execution. Not just one, but plenty.
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> Thou shalt not kill IMO, the question at hand is more like: ‘should we keep someone on life support when there is little to no chance that person will get better?’. And is taking someone off life support really the same as murder?
- GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
  I believe the question is much, much bigger than simply the involvement of life support. Just address that issue, and you've ignored many people who suffer unnecessarily with no reasonable hope. For example, ALS sufferers don't require life support until the very late stages of the disease. This is long after they've lost the ability to move, speak, or interact meaningfully with those around them.
  - waps 13y ago
    They still require to be fed and watered and moved. You could neglect to do that. I do think we should mention that there are definitely 2 cases to consider, maybe 3. First, if that person has made his choice clear. Second if he hasn't. Second case can be split up into "family/friends/significant others want to end it" and otherwise.
throwaway62832 13y ago
> Christianity didn't always hold this view. For the American Christian right, the transition began with Nixon's desire to win the Catholic vote away from the Democrats in his 1972 campaign[1]. (Even in 1979 Billy Graham's magazine Christianity Today included the argument that "God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed."[2]) [1] http://books.google.ca/books?id=zYZQBc9426QC&pg=PA14 [2] bit.ly/zITvj3
mcv 13y ago
> The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. On abortion, it's surprisingly unambiguous. Kill an unborn baby, pay a fine to the parents. That's it. It even says this immediately after saying murderers should be put to death. It's in one of the harshest parts of the bible (Leviticus, I believe), and yet abortion is only a misdemeanor.

mgkimsal 13y ago

"Thou shall not kill" Unless you're going off to war to kill bad people. Then it's justified. And the other side justifies it with their side's supernatural beliefs.

jamie_ca 13y ago

The one I've heard as being somewhat more accurate is "Thou shalt not murder." That is, pre-meditated and with intent. The current version could wind up damning you for self-defence.

GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
I don't think murder is a better translation, but my thoughts on the bible are best expressed by Tim Minchin's "The Good Book". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

gcr 13y ago

I sort of don't understand the thought of turning "Thou shall not kill" into "Thou shall do everything in thine power to keep the person alive"

waps 13y ago
These rules are not actually from the bible, but from the Greeks, who had much stricter rules. 1) no abortion never jamais, under no circumstances. Nor advising women on how to do it themselves. 2) no euthanasia never jamais, under no circumstances. No advising people on how to DIY it either. 3) no refusing medical aid to anyone for any reason 4) never go against patient wishes for not getting treated 5) never, ever, advise anyone on the use of poison Some highlights from the Hippocratic oath. The first source of which is, unsurprisingly, not the Bible.
waps 13y ago
Well, read the hippocratic oath. Learn that not everything comes from the bible. The world will make more sense afterwards. And if that doesn't clarify things, read some Greek plays about just how wrong things can go, and you'll understand why physicians would want to avoid any involvement and keep things secret. It'll make sense. It'll make make clear even to people who assume the very worst about people that people can go much, much further than they ever dreamed in their worst nightmares. It'll make clear to even the most liberal person that, yes, there are things consenting adults can choose to do that justify throwing them in jail, even execution. Not just one, but plenty.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

> Thou shalt not kill IMO, the question at hand is more like: ‘should we keep someone on life support when there is little to no chance that person will get better?’. And is taking someone off life support really the same as murder?

GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
I believe the question is much, much bigger than simply the involvement of life support. Just address that issue, and you've ignored many people who suffer unnecessarily with no reasonable hope. For example, ALS sufferers don't require life support until the very late stages of the disease. This is long after they've lost the ability to move, speak, or interact meaningfully with those around them.
- waps 13y ago
  They still require to be fed and watered and moved. You could neglect to do that. I do think we should mention that there are definitely 2 cases to consider, maybe 3. First, if that person has made his choice clear. Second if he hasn't. Second case can be split up into "family/friends/significant others want to end it" and otherwise.

throwaway62832 13y ago

> Christianity didn't always hold this view. For the American Christian right, the transition began with Nixon's desire to win the Catholic vote away from the Democrats in his 1972 campaign[1]. (Even in 1979 Billy Graham's magazine Christianity Today included the argument that "God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed."[2]) [1] http://books.google.ca/books?id=zYZQBc9426QC&pg=PA14 [2] bit.ly/zITvj3

mcv 13y ago

> The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. On abortion, it's surprisingly unambiguous. Kill an unborn baby, pay a fine to the parents. That's it. It even says this immediately after saying murderers should be put to death. It's in one of the harshest parts of the bible (Leviticus, I believe), and yet abortion is only a misdemeanor.