So is 'mercy' 'killing' wrong or not?

[DivineOb]

In another thread, when discussing the horrific massacres by the Israelites upon other OT peoples, Darth Executor offers this defense of *actively* killing women and children (i.e., non-combatants)

And would you prefer having the children starve to death instead of a quick death?

That is, because the children *might* die in a painful way, it is preferable to kill them. Note that we are here talking about *active* and intentional killing.

In a recent thread in PoliSci, there has been nothing but disgust and outrage (by Christians) towards the idea that some extremely premature babies should be allowed with less than the most extreme measures taken when it is clear that there is a near-zero chance of saving them, with the few that survive likely to have extreme handicap... It was even called murder to *passively* allow a death in that thread. For example, Mountain Man says the following

If if there is any chance of saving a human life then it is unconscionable and immoral to not even try. Any doctor who turns his back on a patient who has even a 5% chance of being saved is a murderer.

Do you see why us non-believers are so confused now? What is the real message from Christian morality, then? Is it wrong to kill / allow to die if we are saving someone from a worse fate? How can a passive lack of action be 'murder' but actively killing someone be 'mercy'?

[Darth Executor]

In another thread, when discussing the horrific massacres by the Israelites upon other OT peoples, Darth Executor offers this defense of *actively* killing women and children (i.e., non-combatants)



That is, because the children *might* die in a painful way, it is preferable to kill them. Note that we are here talking about *active* and intentional killing.

In a recent thread in PoliSci, there has been nothing but disgust and outrage (by Christians) towards the idea that some extremely premature babies should be allowed with less than the most extreme measures taken when it is clear that there is a near-zero chance of saving them, with the few that survive likely to have extreme handicap... It was even called murder to *passively* allow a death in that thread. For example, Mountain Man says the following



Do you see why us non-believers are so confused now? What is the real message from Christian morality, then? Is it wrong to kill / allow to die if we are saving someone from a worse fate? How can a passive lack of action be 'murder' but actively killing someone be 'mercy'?

There is no "might" in my example. They would have certainly died. Frankly, I have no problem with mercy killing if there is nothing that can be done. I do have a problem with our society using it so liberally though.

[commonman]

In another thread, when discussing the horrific massacres by the Israelites upon other OT peoples, Darth Executor offers this defense of *actively* killing women and children (i.e., non-combatants)



That is, because the children *might* die in a painful way, it is preferable to kill them. Note that we are here talking about *active* and intentional killing.

In a recent thread in PoliSci, there has been nothing but disgust and outrage (by Christians) towards the idea that some extremely premature babies should be allowed with less than the most extreme measures taken when it is clear that there is a near-zero chance of saving them, with the few that survive likely to have extreme handicap... It was even called murder to *passively* allow a death in that thread. For example, Mountain Man says the following



Do you see why us non-believers are so confused now? What is the real message from Christian morality, then? Is it wrong to kill / allow to die if we are saving someone from a worse fate? How can a passive lack of action be 'murder' but actively killing someone be 'mercy'?

The basic problem that people (Atheists and Christians alike) have with the Old Testament commands for genocide is that they are not understood in the proper context. The apostle Paul tells us that these events are for our benefit that they may help to reveal Christ Jesus in us. Jesus even tells the Pharisees (John 5:38?) that they misunderstnd scripture and that the whole of scripture is about Him and not about principles for attaining eternal life. When you look at the Bible as a book of history, there are obvious contradictions and, if always taken literally, lead to some really crazy and heretical doctrines; like the gnostic belief that good comes from God and evil comes from Satan or some other equally frightening source, or that Christ will have a physical thousand-year reign on earth, or that we should not go shopping on Sunday (or Saturday or Friday), or purgatory. We are taught by the writers of the NT, especially Paul, Peter, Jude, John and the author of Hebrews, how to understand the OT over and over again. Most of us don't get it though because we are still trying to answer the question, "How do I fit into all this?"

As long as you are looking for you in the Bible you might as well not even read it. It is not about you and it never was and never will be.

The killing of children in the OT is for the Christian a parable about ridding the Body of Christ, the church, of various sins, even the parts of that sin that we may consider harmless and innocent.

I hope this helps.

[wattsr1]

The basic problem that people (Atheists and Christians alike) have with the Old Testament commands for genocide is that they are not understood in the proper context. The apostle Paul tells us that these events are for our benefit that they may help to reveal Christ Jesus in us. Jesus even tells the Pharisees (John 5:38?) that they misunderstnd scripture and that the whole of scripture is about Him and not about principles for attaining eternal life. When you look at the Bible as a book of history, there are obvious contradictions and, if always taken literally, lead to some really crazy and heretical doctrines; like the gnostic belief that good comes from God and evil comes from Satan or some other equally frightening source, or that Christ will have a physical thousand-year reign on earth, or that we should not go shopping on Sunday (or Saturday or Friday), or purgatory. We are taught by the writers of the NT, especially Paul, Peter, Jude, John and the author of Hebrews, how to understand the OT over and over again. Most of us don't get it though because we are still trying to answer the question, "How do I fit into all this?"

As long as you are looking for you in the Bible you might as well not even read it. It is not about you and it never was and never will be.

The killing of children in the OT is for the Christian a parable about ridding the Body of Christ, the church, of various sins, even the parts of that sin that we may consider harmless and innocent.

I hope this helps.

Hello Commonman,

The basic problem that people (Atheists and Christians alike) have with the Old Testament commands for genocide is that they are not understood in the proper context. …

The killing of children in the OT is for the Christian a parable about ridding the Body of Christ, the church, of various sins, even the parts of that sin that we may consider harmless and innocent.

Even if the killing of children in the OT is a parable for you, why do you think that you are necessarily reading such stories in context yourself (see your opening statement) - rather than reading into them that which you want to?


Regards, Roland

[DivineOb]

There is no "might" in my example. They would have certainly died. Frankly, I have no problem with mercy killing if there is nothing that can be done. I do have a problem with our society using it so liberally though.

Excellent... so now we are getting somewhere.

Would they really have *certainly died*, or *probably* died? Christian thinktank thinks it is the latter "There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237]) " from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

"often" == probably, not certainly... not 100%. Don't you think 95% qualifies as often, DE?

So now I'm still confuse on why you object to the UK doctors... if the babies 'often', or even 'almost certainly' die and/or suffer severe handicaps, what is the problem? There remains a clear example where, when children (actually born ones, not fake ones) would suffer death and/or severe handicaps and *ACTIVELY* killing them is justified. So how do you explain away this clear error in your bible?

[Darth Executor]

Excellent... so now we are getting somewhere.

Would they really have *certainly died*, or *probably* died? Christian thinktank thinks it is the latter "There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237]) " from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

"often" == probably, not certainly... not 100%. Don't you think 95% qualifies as often, DE?

So now I'm still confuse on why you object to the UK doctors... if the babies 'often', or even 'almost certainly' die and/or suffer severe handicaps, what is the problem? There remains a clear example where, when children (actually born ones, not fake ones) would suffer death and/or severe handicaps and *ACTIVELY* killing them is justified. So how do you explain away this clear error in your bible?

The doctors in the UK helping the babies out wouldn't plunge the UK down to poverty level...

[DivineOb]

The doctors in the UK helping the babies out wouldn't plunge the UK down to poverty level...

So I win (by virtue of you failing to respond to my arguments on this issue)... Thanks for playing.

I will be sure to point out to others that you support babykilling.

Of course, that would put you in good company.

[Darth Executor]

So I win (by virtue of you failing to respond to my arguments on this issue)... Thanks for playing.

I will be sure to point out to others that you support babykilling.

Of course, that would put you in good company.

What "arguments" did I fail to respond to? And where do I support babykilling?

[DivineOb]

What "arguments" did I fail to respond to? And where do I support babykilling?

I pointed out that other top apologists have supported babykilling when people would "often" (his word, not mine) die of starvation.

You did not respond, but instead, tried to change the subject.

I can only interpret this as an admission that my argument was forceful.

[Darth Executor]

I pointed out that other top apologists have supported babykilling when people would "often" (his word, not mine) die of starvation.

You did not respond, but instead, tried to change the subject.

I can only interpret this as an admission that my argument was forceful.

What do I care about other apologist's personal opinion? I disagree with a lot of them on many issues and if that is the case here then I disagree here too. I don't feel the need to defend their point of view. If you want to know Miller's send him the article then ask him his opinion. I'm not Miller and I don't speak for him. In addition, you have failed to show how the biblical instance of killing children and the british babies have anything to do with each other. You instead picked a few small parts from each argument and twisted it to make a point that does not exist.

[DivineOb]

What do I care about other apologist's personal opinion? I disagree with a lot of them on many issues and if that is the case here then I disagree here too. I don't feel the need to defend their point of view. If you want to know Miller's send him the article then ask him his opinion. I'm not Miller and I don't speak for him. In addition, you have failed to show how the biblical instance of killing children and the british babies have anything to do with each other. You instead picked a few small parts from each argument and twisted it to make a point that does not exist.

Again, so you support babykilling when the odds are severly against the baby.

Thanks for playing.

[Darth Executor]

Again, so you support babykilling when the odds are severly against the baby.

Wrong. I don't support baby killing at all. I tolerate it if there is no other way.

[DivineOb]

Wrong. I don't support baby killing at all. I tolerate it if there is no other way.

You support the *active* killing of babies when you percieve that there is little chance of the baby surviving long-term.

Am I wrong? If I misinterpreted your argument, please clearly and unambiguously indicate how I did so?

[Darth Executor]

You support the *active* killing of babies when you percieve that there is little chance of the baby surviving long-term.

Am I wrong? If I misinterpreted your argument, please clearly and unambiguously indicate how I did so?

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Not "little chance". Either NO CHANCE or the collapse of the civilization that tries to undertake the task.

[DivineOb]

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Not "little chance". Either NO CHANCE or the collapse of the civilization that tries to undertake the task.

You are missing the point.

I am not claiming that the Jews should have taken on the children/tight women/young boys (in swedish tradition).

I am saying that, had they been allowed to live, they *might* have been able to survive on their own.

Answer me this... could a Navy SEAL have been able to survive in those conditions on his own?