We often see "news" stories about some unfortunate person, suffering from a terminal disease or a horrific injury, or even an irresolvable birth defect, such that it requires a huge amount of money to keep them alive. One side says, "Let's let nature take its course," while the other side excoriates these decision makers for "putting money over the infinite value of a human life."
Is STAYING ALIVE the ultimate Good in human existence?
Well, if you don't believe in an afterlife, I suppose it is. But if you DO believe in an afterlife, and particularly if you DO believe Christian teachings about the Afterlife, then the ULTIMATE goal is to live happily and without end in the Presence of God. Right?
So if a person is, for example,...
Brain dead,
Suffering from endless, excruciating pain,
No longer able to live the life that they would want to live,
...then what's the big deal about allowing them to die? (or even assisting the process?)
I'm not talking about someone who is suffering but wants to live - that is a different case altogether. I'm talking about people who either want to die, are willing to die, or have lost the mental capacity to make a rational decision about life or death.
Is it morally untenable to let them die, if THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT, and to keep them alive would be a serious burden on the Living? (How many people demanding that these people be kept alive would be willing to pay for their 24-hour care out of their own pocket?)
If someone is "saved" and they are at peace with being allowed to die, then we, as Christians, believe that they will be at peace, with Jesus, for eternity. What's "wrong" with that?
For those who believe in "Heaven," LIFE is not the ultimate good; to cling to it irrationally is folly.
Is STAYING ALIVE the ultimate Good in human existence?
Well, if you don't believe in an afterlife, I suppose it is. But if you DO believe in an afterlife, and particularly if you DO believe Christian teachings about the Afterlife, then the ULTIMATE goal is to live happily and without end in the Presence of God. Right?
So if a person is, for example,...
Brain dead,
Suffering from endless, excruciating pain,
No longer able to live the life that they would want to live,
...then what's the big deal about allowing them to die? (or even assisting the process?)
I'm not talking about someone who is suffering but wants to live - that is a different case altogether. I'm talking about people who either want to die, are willing to die, or have lost the mental capacity to make a rational decision about life or death.
Is it morally untenable to let them die, if THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT, and to keep them alive would be a serious burden on the Living? (How many people demanding that these people be kept alive would be willing to pay for their 24-hour care out of their own pocket?)
If someone is "saved" and they are at peace with being allowed to die, then we, as Christians, believe that they will be at peace, with Jesus, for eternity. What's "wrong" with that?
For those who believe in "Heaven," LIFE is not the ultimate good; to cling to it irrationally is folly.
