That is your own or your denomination's own interpretation however. You cannot state it as a fact like this because the meaning is arbitrary and indeterminate. "you all" could just as easily be interpreted to mean that all people are god's temple.
It could mean all people are God's temple if that was who he was writing to. Paul was writing to the church in Corinth and dealing with sin within their fellowship. Forget what your denomination taught and read it in context of who Paul was writing to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Your conclusion however that "temple" refers to the local church or congregation as a body or institution, makes the least exegetical sense when just on the next page I Corinthians 6:19 says "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?".
Not that I believe in any of this stuff anymore but I still try to figure out why people rationalize it and why it makes sense to them and shapes their views.
Again the "your" in that verse is plural and the word "body" is not. It has to be refering to the body they were all a part of.
If suicide is a sin, then isn't the inaction to do everything in your power to continue to live a sin also? I would think that anything short of forcing doctors and researchers to cure you would just result in being hell-bound. If you died in the process is that also suicide? Are risky activities suicide if they end in death?
I think there a plenty of examples of why euthanasia is not any worse than high risk activities for sending you to hell.
Your = ὑμῶν
This is the genitive case of ye, you, your. There is no implied plurality.
Body =σῶμα
The primary meaning is an individual body, flesh. It can be applied to the body of the church also though if you really want.
So yes, ultimately the interpretation can go both ways. It can refer to the individual or the congregation/church. A great majority of Christian denominations do not take it YOUR intepretative context of addressing the Corinthian fellowship though and constantly ex-pew these verses as evidence to why one should not violate one's own body. In fact, it's probably the majority of churches. Many denominations would interpret it in the context of the addressing of sexual morality as a violation of the individual body. He's writing to everybody, of course you can just say everything is figuratively speaking about the congregation and has no implications for the individual.
Anyway, lets get back on topic. What was the name of that woman who was in a coma several years back and there was a huge political hubbub about her family wanting or not wanting to take her off life support? It exploded into a huge political storm that was debated in the House of Representatives and the Senate wasn't it? Why can't this stuff remain private, with family, with next of kin, with those who have power of attorney instead of being elevated to something that is debated in national legislatures?
I remember ridiculous things in that case like politicians hiring experts and Doctors to give evidence showing that she was not in a persistent vegetative state and still had cognitive thought. Well if she was still cognitively alive, she must have been going through hell to be in a coma and paralyzed for a decade. There has to be room for rational compassion here.
If suicide is a sin, then isn't the inaction to do everything in your power to continue to live a sin also? I would think that anything short of forcing doctors and researchers to cure you would just result in being hell-bound. If you died in the process is that also suicide? Are risky activities suicide if they end in death?
I think there a plenty of examples of why euthanasia is not any worse than high risk activities for sending you to hell.
I'm not sure if it has been extablished that suicide is a sin. If it is a sin it certainly is forgivable, in any case. Great questions though.
I'm not sure if it has been extablished that suicide is a sin. If it is a sin it certainly is forgivable, in any case. Great questions though.
In Catholic theology, suicide sends you to hell (or purgatory if you are lucky) because killing yourself renders you unable to confess your sins before death as the act of suicide is in itself a sin.
Suicide is not a sin and there is nothing to forgive as there is no magic old man in the clouds who would send to you eternal torment because your own personal life was such a torment that you chose to end it yourself or have someone assist you in that act of mercy. If there was, that is extremely sickening.
Your = ὑμῶν This is the genitive case of ye, you, your. There is no implied plurality.
Body =σῶμα
The primary meaning is body, flesh. It can be applied to the body of the church also though if you really want.
So yes, ultimately the interpretation can go both ways. It can refer to the individual or the congregation/church. A great majority of Christian denominations do not take it YOUR intepretative context of addressing the Corinthian fellowship though and constantly ex-pew these verses as evidence to why one should not violate one's own body. In fact, it's probably the majority of churches. Many denominations would interpret it in the context of the addressing of sexual morality as a violation of the individual body. He's writing to everybody, of course you can just say everything is figuratively speaking about the congregation and has no implications for the individual.
Ye, you, your are plural: Thee, thou, and thy are singular. That is why the King James Bible used those archaic words in their translation: they wanted to mirror the greek usage. If you read the original foreward to a King James Bible you won't find any "ye" "thee's""thou's" or "thy's". Those words hadn't been used since Shakespeare's time. They did it to keep the meaning of the greek clear.
Forget what denominations think. Being as this letter was written to a specific church and deals with personal problems of this church isn't it correct to interpret "your" to be refering to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Anyway, lets get back on topic. What was the name of that woman who was in a coma several years back and there was a huge political hubbub about her family wanting or not wanting to take her off life support? It exploded into a huge political storm that was debated in the House of Representatives and the Senate wasn't it? Why can't this stuff remain private, with family, with next of kin, with those who have power of attorney instead of being elevated to something that is debated in national legislatures?
I remember ridiculous things in that case like politicians hiring experts and Doctors to give evidence showing that she was not in a persistent vegetative state and still had cognitive thought. Well if she was still cognitively alive, she must have been going through hell to be in a coma and paralyzed for a decade. There has to be room for rational compassion here.
It got pushed into the courts because experts disagreed on the women's cognitive state and some close kin regarded starving her as murder.
The women had been raised and married in a religious sect that seen starving her as murder. There was conflicting opinions because of that of what this women's wishes would have been. Also, the power of attorney in this case was believed to be suspect because of problems within the marriage and questions about how she got into her veg state.
watching a story now on 60 Minutes that claims $55 Billion spent by medicare on treatment of terminally ill patients during the last two months of their lives. It was claimed that 30% of that amount had no impact on extending the patients life.
With those numbers, euthanasia may become more of a cost issue than a quality of life, mercy, or moral/ethical issue
Edit: BUT if that's the actual reason euthanasia is illegal, I do not know.
Quote:
- God says it's not just OK to own slaves, but it is also A-OK to beat them to death. As long as they take a couple days to die. That's royally ####ed up, and it's found in Exodus 21:20-21. Also see Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction that slavery is bad.
- God accepts sex slavery and ritual human sacrifice. As long as it's to him, rather than some competing deity. I'd talk about the Abraham and Isaac story, but that one has slight ambiguities which apologists love to exploit. Not so with Numbers 31. The cliff notes version: God tells Moses to take out revenge on the Midianites by doing the ethnic cleansing thing on them. All the Midianite men were killed. Livestock and material goods were taken as spoils. Women and children were taken as P.O.W.'s. Moses was angry that the women were allowed to live, since they might infect the Israelites with anti-YHWHistic ideas. Moses ordered all the boys and non-virgin women killed. The virgin girls were kept alive, and were taken by individual Israelites. The text doesn't explicitly say so, but anyone with half a brain knows that those young virgin girls were kept as sex slaves. 32,000 of them. On Moses' command. (Strangely, Moses didn't seem to think those virgin girls would entice people away from YHWH like their non-virgin counterparts would.) The virgin girls were divvied up between the warriors, the congregation, and the priests. And God. 32 virgin girls were given as a tribute offering to God (verses 40-41). Not to the priests. To God. And no complaints whatsoever are heard from God or anyone else in the Bible. That's royally ####ed up.
- More total ethnic cleansing in 1 Samuel 15. God told Samuel and Saul to wipe out the current generation of Amalekites, since their ancestors opposed the ancestors of the current generation of Israelites during the Exodus (verse 3). It was reparations, of a sort: death. Men, women, children, babies, everyone. It was supposed to be everything as well, but Saul kept livestock and material goods and the king. God was not happy. God had wanted Saul to destroy everyone and everything. That's royally ####ed up, and it's in the Bible.
- God mauled 42 boys for calling his prophet "baldy". 2 Kings 2:23-24. Apologists love to claim that "boys" is mistranslated, and it should be something more like "street thugs", and that calling Elisha "baldy" should be interpreted as a threat on his life. One might wonder where the hell apologists get such an idiotic notion from, but even if it were true, that still would not excuse such an action from an omnipotent deity. An omnipotent deity could easily have chosen to protect Elisha without harming the "thugs", via magical forcefield, or some other similar measure. But did he? Of course not. God's answer to pretty much any situation is death. (Noah's ark, anyone?) That's royally ####ed up, and the Bible is absolutely brimming with it.
- How does god show of his power? In Exodus 11, God kills all the firstborn of Egypt (verses 4-5), purely as a display of power. Apologists will say God was forced into such drastic measures, because Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, but this is not true. Pharaoh was already compliant, but God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 10:27 and 11:10), in order to make a grander show if it all (Ex 11:9). That's royally ####ed up, and it's promoted by the Bible.
- Enough Old Testament for now. On to Jesus' "family values". Have a look at Matthew 10:34-36. The "Prince of Peace" came not to bring peace, but to bring division, and to set family members against each other. That's royally ####ed up, and it's promoted by the Bible.
- Even though it's a later insertion into the text, most churches love to talk up 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. That's the "don't be unequally yoked" ####.
- Oh, and just for good measure... God hates everyone, according to the Bible. Romans 3:10 says everyone is a sinner. Psalm 5:5 says God hates all sinners. Not just sin. He hates all sinners. QED, God hates everyone. (Except Job, who was blameless (Job 1:1), and got tortured for his accomplishment.)
...
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I listened to Jack when he was on "Real Time" with Bill Maher, who is a well known athiest/agnostic.
I would recommend watching it:
And the religion angle is central to this discussion. Jack himself says that the opposition to what he was doing was mostly from religious people. Even if there is nothing in the bible about assisted suicide, it is religious people that are most opposed to what he was doing.
watching a story now on 60 Minutes that claims $55 Billion spent by medicare on treatment of terminally ill patients during the last two months of their lives. It was claimed that 30% of that amount had no impact on extending the patients life.
With those numbers, euthanasia may become more of a cost issue than a quality of life, mercy, or moral/ethical issue
Isn't this where all the Republican fearmongering about Death Panels came from?
I agree 100% with someone choosing the right to die depending on if they have a terminal illness or not. I think that as a free thinking and rational human being I should decide if I want to leave this world on my own terms and in as little pain as possible if I decide to do so. I have the feeling that people who argue against people being able to end their own lives have never stepped a foot into a hospice or a palliative care ward in which people are living out their existence in what can only be described as doped up misery in a lot of cases (not all but a lot of them that I have seen). It is the responsible thing to do to allow these people to make this choice rather than waiting for nature to ravish them physically and often mentally, spiritually and psychologically in the process.
While I don't believe in an afterlife or a god and I will make no qualms about that (I guess in a weird way I hope there is a god, but I completely doubt the existence of one) I think that my opinion is based on the human aspect of suffering and the belief that there is a fate worse than death.
The only issue I had with Dr. Kevorkian was that it sounds like he did things in a hasty manner and some of the patients did not have a fatal disease.
