In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Prebe]

Interesting Rus. So, what dogma will you say that I adher to? Positive definition please.

[Fist and Faith]

If you really believe the unborn baby is human, then in your worldview only born humans are legally protected from being slain; you are sanctioning the killing of humans whose only crime is not being born yet. The unborn are still fair game for legal elimination while the born are not.

It's a long, long way from:
Neither will live if you do nothing. Killing the baby will save the mother.
to:
Only born humans are legally protected from being slain.

For me, there are extremely few scenarios where I think it's acceptable to kill the unborn baby. This is one of them. Look, folks, there are sometimes horribly difficult choices to be made in life. Some of those of us who do not believe as rus does see this scenario as one. Horrifying to even think about. But it happens. And I see it as stupid to let both die when killing one will save the other.

Sure. I know you think this. (Although I think you are unreasonable to use the adjective "stupid", since there is good solid reasoning behind the beliefs, just as there are beliefs behind the reasoning.)

I've never seen any good, solid reasoning behind the beliefs. But I'm only saying that's stupid in my worldview. I'm not saying it's stupid for those who believe as you do to do that.

My whole point of actually posting on this one was to show that the other side will indeed be persecuted when the one side wins. There won't be any "toleration", 'all living together in happy peace'. My side will be persecuted, and toleration will be something not applied to those who share my beliefs. At least don't pretend that this is a mark of "tolerance".

As I said, the Church should be allowed to do what it did. And the nun and hospital can continue to do what they did, of course. And the ACLU might not succeed.

Of course, I guess there's funding issues. If the hospital is run on tax dollars, the law of the land says abortion is legal, and the woman wants to survive rather than die with her child, then the hospital can't justify not following the woman's wishes. If the people don't like that, they can get the law changed.

A hospital that is run on Church dollars can refuse.

And pregnant people can find out ahead of time where to find the closest doctor and hospital that will do what they might want done.

So why am I fighting on what appears to be the losing side? Because I have come to believe that it is the right side to be on. My main thesis is that I have discovered that modern conventional wisdom - that I myself accepted and believed - is mostly full of falsehood, and especially that it is based on false understandings of faith. Who I was ten years ago would be responding to the me of today like a cross between Av and Fist. (Uh no offense, guys, put down the crossbows....)

My "wisdom" has nothing to do with any understanding of faith. I don't base what I believe, think, or do on what your, or any, faith says, regardless of the accuracy of my understanding of it. And, of course, I am quite sure my wisdom is not full of falsehood. I may not have all the answers, but the ones I do have are true.

[Rawedge Rim]

the crime of neglect of the mothers impending death or the willfull killing of the baby. I know which one I think is "the greater" harm.

Either way, in your scenario, someone dies. Either the mother to be, or the child to be. Both are at this point, in the big scheme of things, of equal importance. Either choice is a tragady. One must pick one of them according to the dictates of thier conscience, and still be in the wrong regardless.

[SoulBiter]

Hmmm interesting discussion. In this particular case we have a situation where if nothing is done both will die (in this world) but regardless of what you do the baby dies but you do have one option to save the mother and that is if you kill the child.

Rus, Im not arguing against you on this, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Is it that a child was killed without being given a choice (even though the child would have died anyway)? Would it have made a difference if the child had been old enough to decide and chose to give his/her life? (I know thats impossible given this situation but hypothetically). Would it make any difference if the positions were reversed? What if the mother was going to die regardless but the baby would live if a procedure was performed that would lead to the death of the mother? What if the mother 'wanted' to give her life for her child? What if she made the choice to sacrifice herself to save the child?

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[rusmeister]

Hmmm interesting discussion. In this particular case we have a situation where if nothing is done both will die (in this world) but regardless of what you do the baby dies but you do have one option to save the mother and that is if you kill the child.

Rus, Im not arguing against you on this, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Is it that a child was killed without being given a choice (even though the child would have died anyway)? Would it have made a difference if the child had been old enough to decide and chose to give his/her life? (I know thats impossible given this situation but hypothetically). Would it make any difference if the positions were reversed? What if the mother was going to die regardless but the baby would live if a procedure was performed that would lead to the death of the mother? What if the mother 'wanted' to give her life for her child? What if she made the choice to sacrifice herself to save the child?

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The difference is that you are proposing active killing. If one accepts an eternal scheme of things, one in which temporal moral action has eternal impact, then the main thing is to avoid evil actions, which have eternal effects. Since temporal (the first) death is not the ultimate tragedy, then it is not THE thing to avoid at all costs. But killing others (ahem, "ending their lives") IS.

Laying down your life is fine. This is not the same as asking someone to kill you (suicide for you, murder for the other person). For the traditional Christian (I kind of have to exclude non-traditional ones, because it is unclear what they believe). Of course, a risky procedure where the doctors are trying to save both - where there is no deliberate killing or deliberate action that will surely lead to the death of one - is not the same thing, and it is reasonable and moral to agree to such a thing.

Does that clear anything up for you?

[rusmeister]

Interesting Rus. So, what dogma will you say that I adher to? Positive definition please.

dogma Look up dogma at Dictionary.com
c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.

www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dog ... hmode=none

I know which one I think is "the greater" harm.

It really wouldn't change my opinion.

I just vehemently disagree.

As with so many other things, it should be their CHOICE.

If you believe something to be absolutely true; not merely 'your opinion' but a general truth - including the belief that there is no absolute truth, then you have a dogma. If you think it true, and will not budge an inch on it, you are dogmatic about it. Personally, I admire dogmatists much more than wishy-washy people who are too intellectually timid to believe things to be actually true - the natural sciences, for instance, are based on a load of dogmas. So is theology.

Obviously you are more competent to state your dogmas than I am. But it is evident that you do hold some things to be actually true and non-negotiable.

[SoulBiter]

Hmmm interesting discussion. In this particular case we have a situation where if nothing is done both will die (in this world) but regardless of what you do the baby dies but you do have one option to save the mother and that is if you kill the child.

Rus, Im not arguing against you on this, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Is it that a child was killed without being given a choice (even though the child would have died anyway)? Would it have made a difference if the child had been old enough to decide and chose to give his/her life? (I know thats impossible given this situation but hypothetically). Would it make any difference if the positions were reversed? What if the mother was going to die regardless but the baby would live if a procedure was performed that would lead to the death of the mother? What if the mother 'wanted' to give her life for her child? What if she made the choice to sacrifice herself to save the child?

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The difference is that you are proposing active killing. If one accepts an eternal scheme of things, one in which temporal moral action has eternal impact, then the main thing is to avoid evil actions, which have eternal effects. Since temporal (the first) death is not the ultimate tragedy, then it is not THE thing to avoid at all costs. But killing others (ahem, "ending their lives") IS.

Laying down your life is fine. This is not the same as asking someone to kill you (suicide for you, murder for the other person). For the traditional Christian (I kind of have to exclude non-traditional ones, because it is unclear what they believe). Of course, a risky procedure where the doctors are trying to save both - where there is no deliberate killing or deliberate action that will surely lead to the death of one - is not the same thing, and it is reasonable and moral to agree to such a thing.

Does that clear anything up for you?

Yes. Im clear on where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification.

I have to say this situation is at best a catch22.

If the doctor fails to act they both die... this could be considered killing by way of non-action.

If the doctor acts one of them dies at his/her hands. This could be considered killing by way of action.

It seems so easy when you are looking at it from this viewpoint but when you change it every so slightly it looks totally different.

Example:
You see a house on fire and you go in. Two people are trapped by beams that have fallen in from the 2nd floor. One is critically injured and is going to die. If you move either beam, the fire and rubble will fall in and kill the other person. You have moments to act or they both die from the fire that is closing in.

If you dont act are you guilty for the death of both?
If you save one and the other dies by your actions are you guilty of the murder of the other?

When I look at it from the example POV, I would say that I should save the person that is not critically injured. Especially if I dont know if they are preparted for eternity and have no way of finding out.

But from an eternal POV, lets say the one critically injured doesnt have his eternal affairs in order but is concsious. The other is prepared for eternity but is not critically injured. From the Eternal POV I should give the one who is not prepared for eternity every opportunity, even if its only minutes to repent and accept Jesus (from a Christian perspective). Matter of fact I should be doing what I can to get that person ready for eternity.

[rusmeister]

Hmmm interesting discussion. In this particular case we have a situation where if nothing is done both will die (in this world) but regardless of what you do the baby dies but you do have one option to save the mother and that is if you kill the child.

Rus, Im not arguing against you on this, I just want to understand where you are coming from. Is it that a child was killed without being given a choice (even though the child would have died anyway)? Would it have made a difference if the child had been old enough to decide and chose to give his/her life? (I know thats impossible given this situation but hypothetically). Would it make any difference if the positions were reversed? What if the mother was going to die regardless but the baby would live if a procedure was performed that would lead to the death of the mother? What if the mother 'wanted' to give her life for her child? What if she made the choice to sacrifice herself to save the child?

The difference is that you are proposing active killing. If one accepts an eternal scheme of things, one in which temporal moral action has eternal impact, then the main thing is to avoid evil actions, which have eternal effects. Since temporal (the first) death is not the ultimate tragedy, then it is not THE thing to avoid at all costs. But killing others (ahem, "ending their lives") IS.

Laying down your life is fine. This is not the same as asking someone to kill you (suicide for you, murder for the other person). For the traditional Christian (I kind of have to exclude non-traditional ones, because it is unclear what they believe). Of course, a risky procedure where the doctors are trying to save both - where there is no deliberate killing or deliberate action that will surely lead to the death of one - is not the same thing, and it is reasonable and moral to agree to such a thing.

Does that clear anything up for you?

Yes. Im clear on where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification.

I have to say this situation is at best a catch22.

If the doctor fails to act they both die... this could be considered killing by way of non-action.

If the doctor acts one of them dies at his/her hands. This could be considered killing by way of action.

It seems so easy when you are looking at it from this viewpoint but when you change it every so slightly it looks totally different.

Example:
You see a house on fire and you go in. Two people are trapped by beams that have fallen in from the 2nd floor. One is critically injured and is going to die. If you move either beam, the fire and rubble will fall in and kill the other person. You have moments to act or they both die from the fire that is closing in.

If you dont act are you guilty for the death of both?
If you save one and the other dies by your actions are you guilty of the murder of the other?

When I look at it from the example POV, I would say that I should save the person that is not critically injured. Especially if I dont know if they are preparted for eternity and have no way of finding out.

But from an eternal POV, lets say the one critically injured doesnt have his eternal affairs in order but is concsious. The other is prepared for eternity but is not critically injured. From the Eternal POV I should give the one who is not prepared for eternity every opportunity, even if its only minutes to repent and accept Jesus (from a Christian perspective). Matter of fact I should be doing what I can to get that person ready for eternity.

Well, in Orthodoxy none of us ever know anything for certain about the status of others before God - we have enough trouble watching after our own! So being concerned about who is "prepared for eternity" in making choices about life and death is not our concern. We should only be concerned in doing what's right, and let God take care of the eternal fate of others. Being saved for us is, in a sense, NOT a finished action. We say
1) We have been saved - by Christ's death and resurrection
2) We ARE BEING saved - by our free will and acceptance of Christ;s salvation in the course of our lives, and
3) We will be saved at the end of time.

#2 means that we are STILL free to reject that salvation, that we can let go of the life buoy and, like the woman in the 3rd Indiana Jones film, hold tighter on to our own treasures, and so fall into the abyss. There is no "Once saved, always saved" - ie, salvation as 'a one-shot deal' that clears you for all time in Orthodoxy like, say, Baptists believe. It would mean a negation of our free will. So we have to run the course to the end. Finish the fight and keep the faith.

So all of that leaves us with the temporal situation being important, but not nearly as important as the eternal one. We are to value human life. We are to value it so much that we won't harm or kill ANYONE at ANY stage of that life, not a baby in the womb, not an old man who can't walk, not even a total mental retard, one little better than a vegetable.
We mustn't harm or kill even if lives - anyone's lives - are in danger.

If 10 people in a burning house can't get out of the only exit except by killing two helpless people that are blocking the exit who cannot otherwise be moved, are they justified in killing them? The worldly mind says "Yes", seeing this life as the only life, and death as the worst thing that can befall one. The Christian mind says 'No', looking forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

On death - the main point to hammer home is that physical death is NOT the worst thing that can happen to us - and it's going to happen to us sooner or later anyway. (The distinction between killing and murder for the Orthodox or Catholic Christian might also have to be dealt with at some point, but hopefully not on this thread.)

[Prebe]

Rus quoted this part in order to explain to me that I'm dogmatic

It really wouldn't change my opinion.

You can call it [the fetus/child] human if you like. You can call it Alphonse or Candy. It really wouldn't change my opinion.

So, not being persuaded by Rus' appeal to emotion is dogmatic?

As for the these:

I know which one I think is "the greater" harm.

I just vehemently disagree.

I "think" and I "disagree" and that makes me dogmatic?

As with so many other things, it should be their CHOICE.

So, believing that someone should have the choice is adhering to the dogma of choice?

Just like I'm adhering to the dogma of falsifiable scientific definitions?

Just like I'm being dogmatic for not using the word "truth", because you (and everyone else) have failed to adequately define the concept?

Just like I'm being dogmatic for not believing your god exists, because you can't provide a shred of tangible evidence?

If all that does indeed fall within the official definition of dogma, well, you have a proud dogmatist reborn on your hands. But then I'll have to think of something else for you

[SoulBiter]

We should only be concerned in doing what's right, and let God take care of the eternal fate of others.

I was with ya except for this and maybe you didnt mean it the way it came out. I cant imagine that the orthodox Church says that we shouldnt be concerned about whether others are 'prepared' for eternity. And if that is what they say then that is a really good reason for there to be a schism that created all these independent churches.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This last command was given to all Christians and if we are only to be concerned with our own salvation then we would be saying that the great commission is void.

Being saved for us is, in a sense, NOT a finished action. We say
1) We have been saved - by Christ's death and resurrection
2) We ARE BEING saved - by our free will and acceptance of Christ;s salvation in the course of our lives, and
3) We will be saved at the end of time.

Although I was raised Baptist, I have to say I agree with the above.

We mustn't harm or kill even if lives - anyone's lives - are in danger.

If 10 people in a burning house can't get out of the only exit except by killing two helpless people that are blocking the exit who cannot otherwise be moved, are they justified in killing them? The worldly mind says "Yes", seeing this life as the only life, and death as the worst thing that can befall one. The Christian mind says 'No', looking forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Im not with you here either. If everyone beleived that then the Nazi's would rule the world today. All it takes for evil to not just exist but to thrive is for good men (and women) to stand aside and do nothing.

Address in Novi Sad, Serbia on October 22, 1999

Patriarch Bartholomew states that "War and violence are never means used by God in order to achieve a result. They are for the most part machinations of the devil used to achieve unlawful ends. We say "for the most part" because, as is well known, in a few specific cases the Orthodox Church forgives an armed defense against oppression and violence. However, as a rule, peaceful resolution of differences and peaceful cooperation are more pleasing to God and more beneficial to humankind."

Peace and War in The Eastern Orthodox Church
Part 2 of 2
Part 1
From the January 2003 "Messenger"

The Orthodox Church therefore is not pacifistic, although it in practices encourages governments always to pursue the “preferential option for peace.” Nonetheless, the Church recognizes that this world is fallen and is not yet equivalent to the kingdom of God. For this reason, governments in general cannot be held to the strict requirements of the gospel. Although under God’s authority, they belong to the fallen world. At times statesmanship fails, and Christians are called by their governments to defend their commonwealth by means of war, for to fail to do so would result in an increase in the measure of evil in the world.

[rusmeister]

Rus quoted this part in order to explain to me that I'm dogmatic

It really wouldn't change my opinion.

You can call it [the fetus/child] human if you like. You can call it Alphonse or Candy. It really wouldn't change my opinion.

So, not being persuaded by Rus' appeal to emotion is dogmatic?

As for the these:

I know which one I think is "the greater" harm.

I just vehemently disagree.

I "think" and I "disagree" and that makes me dogmatic?

As with so many other things, it should be their CHOICE.

So, believing that someone should have the choice is adhering to the dogma of choice?

Just like I'm adhering to the dogma of falsifiable scientific definitions?

Just like I'm being dogmatic for not using the word "truth", because you (and everyone else) have failed to adequately define the concept?

Just like I'm being dogmatic for not believing your god exists, because you can't provide a shred of tangible evidence?

If all that does indeed fall within the official definition of dogma, well, you have a proud dogmatist reborn on your hands. But then I'll have to think of something else for you

Hey Prebe,
Let's cut through the phoney-baloney:

dogma Look up dogma at Dictionary.com
c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.

Tell me you do not think the things you think true and I'll withdraw my use of 'dogmatic' in regards to you.

[rusmeister]

We should only be concerned in doing what's right, and let God take care of the eternal fate of others.

I was with ya except for this and maybe you didnt mean it the way it came out. I cant imagine that the orthodox Church says that we shouldnt be concerned about whether others are 'prepared' for eternity. And if that is what they say then that is a really good reason for there to be a schism that created all these independent churches.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This last command was given to all Christians and if we are only to be concerned with our own salvation then we would be saying that the great commission is void.

I'd say rather that I didn't mean it the way you understood it.

To try to clarify, of course we should desire the salvation of all. But we should also be aware that it is not we who convert them, and our responsibility for others is rather limited. We do what we can, above all we try to live out our faith (it's worth a thousand words!) to share with others the hope that is in us. But it is not we who will save them. It is God (See "Prince Caspian" - the book, I mean) if they will at all let Him. So no argument at all with the commission to preach. I'm just saying that it is not we who save others. Fist's idea that I have been trying to convert others here is not true. I don't believe I can convert others. Maybe I can convince a few people on some important questions - even one might be the whole reason I was on these boards.

We mustn't harm or kill even if lives - anyone's lives - are in danger.

If 10 people in a burning house can't get out of the only exit except by killing two helpless people that are blocking the exit who cannot otherwise be moved, are they justified in killing them? The worldly mind says "Yes", seeing this life as the only life, and death as the worst thing that can befall one. The Christian mind says 'No', looking forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Im not with you here either. If everyone beleived that then the Nazi's would rule the world today. All it takes for evil to not just exist but to thrive is for good men (and women) to stand aside and do nothing.

This is odd to me. I said "helpless people". Not people determined to prevent the rest from escaping. How is that like Nazis? If the people blocking the exit are helpless then the whole moral onus passes to the others. I agree with your sentence on evil thriving. Again, that is a reason why we can accept the idea of a just war. But the situation I described wasn't about just war. It was about whether abortion - the murder of a baby in its mother's womb - can ever be justified.

It's bad to kill. But it's not bad to die.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Giant

[SoulBiter]

Im not going to answer the rest in quotes because it gets too large after a time. I think we agree on many things here but I think sometimes you jump to a conclusion that I dont understand Christianity as a whole and thus you seek to enlighten me. The problem is that when you do that, it takes away from the topic.
'
First saving the person in my example. I realize that 'I' dont 'save' anyone in the eternal sense. In fact Im pretty sure I didnt alude to that at all. (You sometimes do have a habit of assuming that even Christians dont understand their own religion and/or have a lesser understanding than you do) But..... In my example Im just giving them extra mins that could be the mins when they decide to repent and trust God. The only other part of that was that I might bring up salvation to that person. Thus doing my part to the Great Commission. Assuming I was in that situation, perhaps that is the reason that God would put me in that situation to begin with.

The second part. You did say helpless people but I think maybe our hypotheticals are getting a bit extreme. I dont know how two people could block a door so much that they could not be moved to save the others and in such a way as I couldnt move them to save those people but I could kill them to save those people. So if the people were blocking the door, I assume that they are doing so on purpose.

But lets go back to the original issue. The abortion to save the mother. You never did answer my hypothetical which was very much the same situation.

You see a house on fire and you go in. Two people are trapped by beams that have fallen in from the 2nd floor and both are unconscious. One is critically injured and is going to die. If you move either beam, the fire and rubble will fall in and kill the other person. You have moments to act or they both die from the fire that is closing in.

These two situations.. the abortion and the fire... are the same situation. Do you save the one that is most likely to live or would you allow both to die in the fire?

[rusmeister]

Im not going to answer the rest in quotes because it gets too large after a time. I think we agree on many things here but I think sometimes you jump to a conclusion that I dont understand Christianity as a whole and thus you seek to enlighten me. The problem is that when you do that, it takes away from the topic.
'
First saving the person in my example. I realize that 'I' dont 'save' anyone in the eternal sense. In fact Im pretty sure I didnt alude to that at all. (You sometimes do have a habit of assuming that even Christians dont understand their own religion and/or have a lesser understanding than you do) But..... In my example Im just giving them extra mins that could be the mins when they decide to repent and trust God. The only other part of that was that I might bring up salvation to that person. Thus doing my part to the Great Commission. Assuming I was in that situation, perhaps that is the reason that God would put me in that situation to begin with.

Whoa whoa whoa!
I'm not the only one who jumps to conclusions. You have a strange conclusion about my thought that I do not hold. I didn't get to any idea that 'you don't understand Christianity as a whole'. Certainly I think you don't understand Orthodoxy as a whole (even my own understanding of that is limited) but that's another kettle of fish.

What I am speaking to is the tendency to exaggerate our role in the salvation of others. Yes, we play a role, and so something depends on us but everything does not depend on us, and when we fail as instruments God can and will use others. But it's hard for us to talk about salvation when much of our understandings differ. What is salvation? What is evangelization? If we have different answers, then exposition is necessary to avoid completely misunderstanding each other.

The second part. You did say helpless people but I think maybe our hypotheticals are getting a bit extreme. I dont know how two people could block a door so much that they could not be moved to save the others and in such a way as I couldnt move them to save those people but I could kill them to save those people. So if the people were blocking the door, I assume that they are doing so on purpose.

But lets go back to the original issue. The abortion to save the mother. You never did answer my hypothetical which was very much the same situation.

You see a house on fire and you go in. Two people are trapped by beams that have fallen in from the 2nd floor and both are unconscious. One is critically injured and is going to die. If you move either beam, the fire and rubble will fall in and kill the other person. You have moments to act or they both die from the fire that is closing in.

These two situations.. the abortion and the fire... are the same situation. Do you save the one that is most likely to live or would you allow both to die in the fire?

The trouble I see with your hypothetical is that you are putting yourself in the position of choosing who will live and who will die - specifically, choosing that someone will die; causing death. Let me add to your hypothetical that both want very much to live. Now we can talk. How do you choose who must die? And what gives you the right? And is death the ultimate evil? Given that it is not - to the Christian, anyway, and I'm assuming you share that with me - then the choice of killing one becomes simply a moral evil. The situation is presumably not your fault - but you are answerable for the actions you yourself take. If everyone dies because of an awful situation, that situation is not your fault. Your fault is in choosing that Cynthia (or Tom) must die.

There is an enormous difference between accepting death to oneself from external causes beyond our control and causing it to self or others. The whole problem - the evil - is in causing death. Causing death to those that cannot resist - that do not have equitable means of doing so (like an enemy soldier, for instance) - is murder, and that is what is forbidden to us.

I'm speaking to what is common in Christian tradition, and assume you share it. (It's an ever more risky assumption as many forms of modern Christianity spiral away from the commonality of that tradition.)
But I'm not patronizing you.

[sindatur]

Seems to me Rus, you're geting dangerously close to allowing someone to die, by not operating on them because God is testing them (and their family). How do we know the appropriate time and way to interfere?

And...if the Afterlife/Eternity is so precious, then why is it bad to send someone to their "Just Rewards:, in order to lengthen someone's (Or numerous Someones) life here?

[rusmeister]

Seems to me Rus, you're geting dangerously close to allowing someone to die, by not operating on them because God is testing them (and their family). How do we know the appropriate time and way to interfere?

And...if the Afterlife/Eternity is so precious, then why is it bad to send someone to their "Just Rewards:, in order to lengthen someone's (Or numerous Someones) life here?

Second question first, because it is not our job and we have no right to do so. We are not God, and that is my whole thesis. Save everyone you can. Just don't kill anyone.

The whole question is whether it is moral to save someone by murdering someone else. The answer is no.

That also includes the answer to your first question. Save all you can. Don't kill. On that principle, interfere away!

[sindatur]

Seems to me Rus, you're geting dangerously close to allowing someone to die, by not operating on them because God is testing them (and their family). How do we know the appropriate time and way to interfere?

And...if the Afterlife/Eternity is so precious, then why is it bad to send someone to their "Just Rewards:, in order to lengthen someone's (Or numerous Someones) life here?

Second question first, because it is not our job and we have no right to do so. We are not God, and that is my whole thesis. Save everyone you can. Just don't kill anyone.

The whole question is whether it is moral to save someone by murdering someone else. The answer is no.

That also includes the answer to your first question. Save all you can. Don't kill. On that principle, interfere away!

But, I thought you were suportive of a Just war? War by it's very nature is killing the other guy before he kills you and yours

And how about if you have a chance to kill the person trying to kill your wife or child before they're able to perform that act?

If it's God's job to decide who dies, why isn't it sacriligious to work against his design by performing surgeries that might save someone?

[rusmeister]

Seems to me Rus, you're geting dangerously close to allowing someone to die, by not operating on them because God is testing them (and their family). How do we know the appropriate time and way to interfere?

And...if the Afterlife/Eternity is so precious, then why is it bad to send someone to their "Just Rewards:, in order to lengthen someone's (Or numerous Someones) life here?

Second question first, because it is not our job and we have no right to do so. We are not God, and that is my whole thesis. Save everyone you can. Just don't kill anyone.

The whole question is whether it is moral to save someone by murdering someone else. The answer is no.

That also includes the answer to your first question. Save all you can. Don't kill. On that principle, interfere away!

But, I thought you were suportive of a Just war? War by it's very nature is killing the other guy before he kills you and yours

And how about if you have a chance to kill the person trying to kill your wife or child before they're able to perform that act?

If it's God's job to decide who dies, why isn't it sacriligious to work against his design by performing surgeries that might save someone?

That's another question - a distinction between killing and murder. But with a baby it is always murder.
SB already posted a couple of Orthodox statements. Yes, we do acknowledge the idea of just killing. But a baby is not such a case. It's also notable that priests may never kill under any circumstances and remain functioning priests.

[Rawedge Rim]

Second question first, because it is not our job and we have no right to do so. We are not God, and that is my whole thesis. Save everyone you can. Just don't kill anyone.

The whole question is whether it is moral to save someone by murdering someone else. The answer is no.

That also includes the answer to your first question. Save all you can. Don't kill. On that principle, interfere away!

But, I thought you were suportive of a Just war? War by it's very nature is killing the other guy before he kills you and yours

And how about if you have a chance to kill the person trying to kill your wife or child before they're able to perform that act?

If it's God's job to decide who dies, why isn't it sacriligious to work against his design by performing surgeries that might save someone?

That's another question - a distinction between killing and murder. But with a baby it is always murder.
SB already posted a couple of Orthodox statements. Yes, we do acknowledge the idea of just killing. But a baby is not such a case. It's also notable that priests may never kill under any circumstances and remain functioning priests.

and what scripture are you basing that last factoid on? Keeping in mind the difference in "Killing" and "Murder"

[rusmeister]

But, I thought you were suportive of a Just war? War by it's very nature is killing the other guy before he kills you and yours

And how about if you have a chance to kill the person trying to kill your wife or child before they're able to perform that act?

If it's God's job to decide who dies, why isn't it sacriligious to work against his design by performing surgeries that might save someone?

That's another question - a distinction between killing and murder. But with a baby it is always murder.
SB already posted a couple of Orthodox statements. Yes, we do acknowledge the idea of just killing. But a baby is not such a case. It's also notable that priests may never kill under any circumstances and remain functioning priests.

and what scripture are you basing that last factoid on? Keeping in mind the difference in "Killing" and "Murder"

Hi, RR, and Happy New Year!
It ought to be obvious that most people generally agree that enemy soldiers that kill each other are not murdering each other; most tend to agree that capital punishment, whether lamented or not, is not murder. Obviously, some people in our time think abortion is not murder, but this is certainly not even generally agreed upon.

Orthodoxy has a high view, not only of Scripture, but of the Church that produced the Scripture. Scripture is not the only source of authority.
www.oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book= ... 20Doctrine
Check out Church canons.

www.incommunion.org/2009/02/26/may-christians-kill/
According to this site, it's Canon V of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

For an intelligent treatment of why we don't accept "Sola Scriptura", check out this 4-podcast series (I just finished it myself):
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_1