21 Mar 05
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: "Why must you be so focused on my ethnicity?
How am I an opponent of the Roman Catholic church? You and I may disagree on ideas , but I would hardly say I am an opponent of the Catholic church. OK, about the term "brother." In many places in this country it is a term of endearment. It doesn't mean I am related to the person, but that I am fond of the person. In some areas one calls there minister "brother so and so." Why must you be so focused on my ethnicity?
Because you yourself are, Kirk, using black peoples pictures as avatars while you yourself are white.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by wibBrother Nemesio will lead us in our closing hymn. Brother Scribbles will now lead us in a business session to discuss church desention. Sister Nyxie will kindly refrain from talking about mythology as it is demonic. God bless.
Ok, to seriously address Ivanhoe's question about the "brother" comment. Yes, Kirksey is correct. I grew up as a member of a Southern Baptist church. Brother is what almost everyone is called in church. "Brother Kirk" will now lead us in prayer. "Brother Marauder" will be passing the collection plate after the hymnal. And so on...
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf Pope Pius XII thought the murder of six million Jews, gypsies and other non-Aryans did not warrant a condemnation, I think the line has been set on the degree of human suffering before the Church risks offending someone by offering an opinion.
Should the Church be silent on the matter of euthanasia and should She stop warning against it ?
What are your thoughts ?
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by steerpikeDid you even read what ivanhoe and I dug up on the subject?
If Pope Pius XII thought the murder of six million Jews, gypsies and other non-Aryans did not warrant a condemnation, I think the line has been set on the degree of human suffering before the Church risks offending someone by offering an opinion.
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by kirksey957By the same principle, I gather you support the silence of the RCC and the WCC on the Holocaust during WWII. Correct?
Churches should attend to their congregations and support them. I will bet that a high percentage of sermons yesterday had a reference to Terry Schaivo in which they have absolutely no say or investment. The situation with Terry Schaivo happens every day in this country hundreds of times without all the fanfare of this spectacle. It happens in loving h ...[text shortened]... ficult decisions that they feel are in integrity with the patient, the family , and their God.
22 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI can probably field this one for Kirk. His answer will be 'no'.
By the same principle, I gather you support the silence of the RCC and the WCC on the Holocaust during WWII. Correct?
Do you have any reasons for thinking that Kirk's endorsement of the respect for the privacy of patients, their families and doctors regarding end of life decisions commits him to endorsing "the silence of the RCC and the WCC on the Holocaust during WWII"? What is this mysterious principle to which you think he is committed?
22 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe principle that "Churches should attend to their congregations and support them" and "the Roman Catholic church should invest itself in its interest ... They have no particular interest in this individual". Since the RCC had no particular interest in the vast majority of Jews during WWII, either on a personal level (since most of them were not Catholics) or an economic level (since most of them would have little interest in the financial aspects of Church institutions), it follows from Kirk's principle that the Church should've maintained silence during WWII (which it did, though probably for completely different reasons). Hence, it's relevant to ask if the "silence" finds his support.
I can probably field this one for Kirk. His answer will be 'no'.
Do you have any reasons for thinking that Kirk's endorsement of the respect for the privacy of patients, their families and doctors regarding end of life decisions commi ...[text shortened]... t is this mysterious principle to which you think he is committed?
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut, of course, Kirk will respond that he was commenting on end of life decisions that are made by patients, their families and doctors. He was not commenting on murder. Further, he would deny that the RCC had no particular interest in the victims of the Nazis. The RCC (presumably) has a definite interest in the well being of all persons, especially those who have yet to be 'saved'. Frankly, I find it bizarre that you would take Kirk's comments on the Schiavo case and try to extend them in such a manifestly absurd fashion.
The principle that "Churches should attend to their congregations and support them" and "the Roman Catholic church should invest itself in its interest ... They have no particular interest in this individual". Since the RCC had no particular interest in the vast majority of Jews during WWII, either on a personal level (since most of them were not ...[text shortened]... ompletely different reasons). Hence, it's relevant to ask if the "silence" finds his support.
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by bbarrIf Kirk were to assert the latter, then he would be contradicting himself. If the RCC does indeed have "a definite interest in the well being of all persons", then it cannot be true that "They [they RCC] have no particular interest in this individual [Terri Schiavo]".
But, of course, Kirk will respond that he was commenting on end of life decisions that are made by patients, their families and doctors. He was not commenting on murder. Further, he would deny that the RCC had no particular interest in the victims of the Nazis. The RCC (presumably) has a definite interest in the well being of all persons, especially those w ...[text shortened]... rk's comments on the Schiavo case and try to extend them in such a manifestly absurd fashion.
Further, in the case of end-of-life decisions that are made by families and doctors, but not the patients themselves (as in the case of Terri Schiavo where, ultimately, Terri did not make an explicit decision about her fate; the courts essentially had to guess what her decision would have been), the RCC position is that it is murder.
If there is indeed a logical impediment as to why Kirk's comments on the Schiavo case cannot be extended to the Holocaust, then please clarify. Neither of the defences you've presented do so.
22 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf Kirk were to assert the latter, then he would be contradicting himself. If the RCC does indeed have "a definite interest in the well being of [b]all persons", then it cannot be true that "They [they RCC] have no particular interest in this individual [Terri Schiavo]".[/b]
Nope, this only follows if the person that was Terri Schiavo still exists. Since those in PVS have no minds anymore, it is extremely plausible that Terri Schiavo left the building (so to speak), when her cerebral cortex turned to mush.
Further, in the case of end-of-life decisions that are made by families and doctors, but [b]not the patients themselves (as in the case of Terri Schiavo where, ultimately, Terri did not make an explicit decision about her fate; the courts essentially had to guess what her decision would have been), the RCC position is that it is murder.[/b]
Nope, this doesn't follow either, and for the same reason as above. This comment presumes that the person that Terri Schiavo was still exists. If all that remains is a shell, then the RCC couldn't count the removal of her feeding tube as murder. Note that the RCC doesn't count the removal of life support for brain-dead folk as murder, either. Presumably because they recognize that what is important about persons has something to do with their minds.
If there is indeed a logical impediment as to why Kirk's comments on the Schiavo case cannot be extended to the Holocaust, then please clarify. Neither of the defences you've presented do so.
Sorry, no unjustified burden of proof shifting allowed. My defense was that Kirk's comments applied to end of life decisions made by patients, their families and their doctors, and were not intended as principles applicable to things like murder. This is completely consistent with what Kirk claims in his posts above, and nothing you have said so far constitutes any reason to your original allegation seriously. You're the one making the allegation, so you make it stick.
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by bbarr
Nope, this only follows if the person that was Terri Schiavo still exists. Since those in PVS have no minds anymore, it is extremely plausible that Terri Schiavo left the building (so to speak), when her cerebral cortex turned to mush.
Sorry, this only follows if "person" is defined such that person <=> mind; a definition that I contest.
Nope, this doesn't follow either, and for the same reason as above. ... Note that the RCC doesn't count the removal of life support for brain-dead folk as murder, either. Presumably because they recognize that what is important about persons has something to do with their minds.
Not really. A brain-dead person is one whose body is irreversibly incapable of any life-functions (e.g. circulation, respiration) in the absence of external intervention because of a complete absence of brain activity. In the absence of external intervention, all life-functions will cease immediately and the person will be "dead" in the traditional sense of the word. Removal of life-support is not murder because the individual is no longer alive.
Terri Schiavo, however, is not brain-dead.
Sorry, no unjustified burden of proof shifting allowed. My defense was that Kirk's comments applied to end of life decisions made by patients, their families and their doctors, and were not intended as principles applicable to things like murder. This is completely consistent with what Kirk claims in his posts above, and nothing you have said so far constitutes any reason to your original allegation seriously. You're the one making the allegation, so you make it stick.
The RCC does not draw a fundamental distinction between euthanasia and suicide/murder (as relevant). If the RCC has the right to comment on the latter, then it follows that it has the right to comment on the former (as a subset/special case of the latter). I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof on you - you've already taken it upon yourself with your defence.