John is not the only person suffering the slow and pain-racked death that is cancer.

Betty was as well, with the chemo remission evaporating after around 5 short years as her ovarian cancer returned and was sent home to die, with, death sentence, stage four ovarian cancer!

Several assisted dying advocates and doctor death offered her assisted suicide. Or as others might say, sanctioned by the state, murder! And just as evil as a soldier putting bullets into the chest and head of an unarmed, non-combatant?

However, Betty is not poor, but is a cashed-up multimillionaire who heads for Europe and a few European clinics and successful clinical trails around 1966, of alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213.

And, following one short hour of day clinic treatment that did not include hair loss or nausea or any evident damage to healthy tissue, was sent home with all evidence of cancer no longer seen in the scans!

As the days, weeks and months passed the breast lump disappeared and the vision in her right eye returned, which unbeknown to her had along with several other facilities, been compromised by an inoperable tumour at the back and base of her brain, which had along with the undiagnosed breast cancer been removed by a single hour of radioisotope, CONVENTIONAL, nuclear, ontological day clinic, medicine!

Betty was extremely lucky given the total world supplies at that time of alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213 was just 3 grams, due to an asinine prohibition of MSR thorium. the then source of her miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213.

The embargo placed by the lobbying of big pharma, big nuclear and the 3 trillion dollars a year, fossil fuel industry. who all saw there profit curve tracked straight down, if ever MSR thorium was allowed to develop and be deployed!?

Why do we want to KILL folk who yet may be cured, but for our self imposed embargo on all nuclear power, even poorly or completely misunderstood unconventional nuclear power and its life-saving spinoffs! Not to mention, power for less than 3 cents PKWH!
Alan B.

democracy worked quite well when our laws were somewhat based on the 10 commandments. Now we have adopted idiotic irrational secular humanism with moral relativity. If any sane person can't see slaugthering unborn babies is wicked then I doubt their is any hope for the elderly. Its amazing how gracious God has been to such a wicked generation who have flooded academia, Government, education and Parliament. In NSW a professing Catholic woman (State Premier) does a filfthy deal with the Greens etc to kill babies up to birth. They then celebrate the wickedness of this legislation. I pray for God's mercy however I think it was Billy Graham who said that if God does not judge America He will need to apologise to Sodom and Gommorah.

Thank you Spencer.

I fear for the future of the Nation with the changes to the Law relating to abortion and euthanasia, together with the confusion between biological sex and gender identity.

.

Dear Spencer,

.

You ask :

« If a majority of people agree with a position [legalising euthanasia], does that make it right? »

It’s not a question of morality, Spencer. It’s a question of the fundamental human right to life and death.

There can be no life without death and no death without life. Life and death are two sides of the same coin. If life is a fundamental human right, then death is too.

As you say :

« There is no need for a commandment that says, "You shall not commit euthanasia." »

Indeed, there is no such commandment. There never was one. The bible makes no mention of any such commandment. On the contrary, many theologians claim that the bible teaches that the “creator” endowed us with the faculty of free will so that we may act voluntarily, not by obligation or compulsion.

Surely, for those who believe in such a “creator”, that should not be interpreted as an invitation to choose between morality and immorality. That would undermine the very essence of “free will”. It would be tantamount to saying “you are free to sin if you like, but if you do you will burn in hell !”.

That hardly qualifies as “free will”. It’s coercion, and very severe coercion at that – for those who believe in hell, of course. Better forget about “free will” in those conditions. There is no acceptable alternative – and, therefore, no real freedom.

What sort of “creator” would play such a fiendish game ? It's perfectly sadistic.

Allow me to suggest that you might like to read the following article that deals with the question of legalising euthanasia :

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115&subId=300148

.

Cutting to the chase, Spencer, your minority faith should trump the civil code.

Similar to the "Discrimination" Bill. Which would give your minority group new powers and protections to target other minority groups.

Banjo P,

<<It’s not a question of morality, Spencer. It’s a question of the fundamental human right to life and death.>>

That kind of morality or view of human rights gave Hitler & the Nazis the right to murder 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

The 'right' gave Stalin the opportunity to murder 20 million people in the Gulag.

The Chinese Communist Party leader, Chairman Mao Zedong, was the worst in the 20th century, slaughtering 35-45 million, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/05/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao/

And you call that a matter of human rights and not of morality??

You deny the facts of history that a nation's rights are driven by its morality. When Australia kills through VAD, it is following utilitarian ethics (the end justifies the means). It already has horrific outcomes in The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Many good points in your article OzSpen.

NNS,

<<Many good points in your article OzSpen.>>

What do you consider are the points:

(a) In favour of voluntary assisted dying (VAD), and

(b) Against VAD?

LesP,

<<I fear for the future of the Nation with the changes to the Law relating to abortion and euthanasia, together with the confusion between biological sex and gender identity.>>

Do you have some thoughts on where the Nation is going? Do we have the early stages of the 'slippery slope' with VAD and abortion? With both Vic and WA having legislated in favour of VAD and Qld contemplating the same legislation, are we going to see a repeat of euthanasia in The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Canada?

I have an issue that is bothering me. Where are the chaplains in the presence of those asking for VAD, who can speak about what happens at death for the soul. We are taking the death of VAD too lightly when there are eternal repercussions. Where will people be 1 minute after their last breath?

See: http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2020/01/05/evidence-for-the-afterlife/

'I have an issue that is bothering me. Where are the chaplains in the presence of those asking for VAD, '

I think you know OzSpen that most chaplains these days are either not allowed or unwilling to speak the truth of eternal life these days. It would be considered hate speech unless you lied and told everyone they were going to a better place. Look at how the world went absolute beserk when in love Izzy Folau posted scripture warning people to turn to Christ.

runner,

<<I think you know OzSpen that most chaplains these days are either not allowed or unwilling to speak the truth of eternal life these days. It would be considered hate speech unless you lied and told everyone they were going to a better place. Look at how the world went absolute beserk when in love Izzy Folau posted scripture warning people to turn to Christ.>>

This is why we need true freedom of religion in Australia so those who want to share their faith and what happens at death can do it - without recriminations.

As I see it now, Australia is not a land where freedom of speech is truly available. We can speak on issues, but if we dare to bring Jesus and eternal life into the discussion, it is treated as forcing religion on people. Or that horrible word: proselytising!!

That's what we are not doing. We share the glory of eternal life now and in the future because we know there is an eternity where people will meet their Maker at the moment of death (see Hebrews 9:27).

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote (in relation to the fundamental human right to life and death) :

« That kind of morality or view of human rights gave Hitler & the Nazis the right to murder 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

« The 'right' gave Stalin the opportunity to murder 20 million people in the Gulag.

« The Chinese Communist Party leader, Chairman Mao Zedong, was the worst in the 20th century, slaughtering 35-45 million »
.

No, it didn’t give them the "right" to do any of that, OzSpen.

Fundamental Human Rights are based on “natural law” (the law of nature) – not on morality. They are an inherent attribute of sovereignty and dignity of every human being, irrespective of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, culture, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

Fundamental Human Rights are universal in their application and not limited to any particular code of religious morality of which there are almost as many as there are religions (about 4,300 in all) – which reminds me that if, by some incredibly extraordinary stretch of the imagination, they did, you should have also mentioned the 123 religious wars in the world throughout history which represent roughly 2% of all deaths by war, i.e., 2% of 1,640 million = 32.8 million, to which should also be added the estimated 6,000-8,000 people executed during the 350 years of the Inquisition.

Fundamental Human Rights are not a question of right or wrong. There is no morality in nature, OzSpen, only whatever is most efficient for the survival of the species by a process of evolution based on trial and error.

The Holocaust and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong whom you mention, have nothing to do with euthanasia or “voluntary assisted dying”.

You make no mention of them in your article and there is absolutely no reason why you should.

It would be monstrous to suggest that they were “voluntary” victims.

.

The points I was referring to were the issues sorrounding assisted suicide, as well as your reasons to not support it.

A lot of time people just have opinions, their emotions, and perspectives based on their own reasoning. But not know how things play out in other nations that have already crossed this path.

Based on opinions only this topic would have people clash heads on what counts as moral, and what is a more merciful approach. But looking at how the situation destabilizes and harms those who never ask for assistance to die, that changes everything. Kind of like in theory agreeing to socialistic perspectives and movements, before understanding where they lead and why to avoid them.

I agree with you about not supporting assisted suicide. But now I have reasons to back up my distaste for it. Thank you for the good points to consider.

To Banjo Paterson.

What makes life and death a fundimental human right? Think about it. We don't get to choose to be born, and most people don't choose how or when they die. It is a natural state of the world, everything that is alive is either born, hatched, or grew from a seed (or some other biological way of birth); and also everything dies.

To say that there is a fundamental human right to life and death is not to state a natural law of the world, but instead it hints at humans having this right whereas animals do not.

Life is a fundimental right that most civilizations honor and protect. Killing an animal is a small thing that might be allowed for hunting, for food from farm animals, and for protecting yourself. But with people the moral laws we have keep us from killing other people for the thrill of the hunt, or for food.

This is not a fundimental natural order of things, it's a moral order of things. Therefore think carefully on the question. What makes life and death a fundimental human right? If you find an answer know that it is on the same playing ground as whether it's right or wrong to voluntarily kill someone. Making assisted suicide on the same level as capital punishment, war, and murder being moral or not. Think carefully before you answer. Because this is already a slippery slope from assisting someone who chooses to die, versus choosing for them that they meet the conditions to be "helped" in this way.

Banjo P,

<<The Holocaust and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong whom you mention, have nothing to do with euthanasia or “voluntary assisted dying”.>>

Take a read of what I wrote in the article: '

In Germany in 1920, there was a publication by a lawyer, Karl Binding, and a psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, called The Permission to Destroy Life Not Worth Living, that opened the floodgates and led to open discussion and legislation to permit euthanasia in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Initially, it was seen to have a beneficial social effect in dealing with the so-called "useless" sick'.

VAD has moved to non-VAD in The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. These countries have demonstrated the 'slippery slope' moving from voluntary to non-voluntery.

.

Dear NNS & OzSpen,

.

NNS wrote :

« We don't get to choose to be born, and most people don't choose how or when they die. It is a natural state of the world … »

That’s correct, NNS. Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. They are universal phenomena, unlimited in time and space. Like all reality, they exist independently of ideas we may have concerning them. Laws of Nature are not of our choosing and they have nothing to do with morality.

Water boils at 100° C at sea level. Gravity exists throughout the universe. Electrons all have an identical electrical charge. Copper conducts electricity. There are no Laws of Nature that are limited to planet earth, to our galaxy or the Andromeda Galaxy, nor are there any that hold just for the 21st Century or any other century.

Life on earth is a Law of Nature. All life species evolve, self-reproduce and die according to the Law of Nature. Life on earth has nothing to do with morality.

Like all laws, the Law of Nature engenders rights. Life and death is a Law of Nature and all life species have the right to live and die.

However, as Darwin pointed out, the evolutionary process favours the “survival of the fittest” in the struggle for life against predators and natural phenomena. Nothing to do with morality.

Morality is a human concept, designed to maintain peaceful and harmonious relations among the members of human societies.

As Patricia Churchland explains :

“Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. All organisms have genes that enable them to survive and reproduce, but mammals also have genes to produce the chemical oxytocin and vasopressin, which prompt them to care for their young. In some mammals such as humans, the same chemicals encourage animals to form long term relationships and to care for each other. Such caring is the biological root of morality. The origins of morality are both neural and social”

.

Banjo Paterson.

I think you've misunderstood the whole thing completely. Natural laws, and natural principles are not a set of rules to live by. They are or they aren't. There are no rights to them, just how things are.

Therefore there are no natural rights from the discriptions you gave, nor from the discriptions I gave. Any right we attribute is a moral thing, not a natural law.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« Natural laws and natural principles are not a set of rules to live by. They are or they aren't. There are no rights to them, just how things are »

No, Not_Now.Soon, it’s more complex than that.

In the realm of nature, whatever order is the most efficient may be considered to be the most just. Justice is the natural order.

By application of the same principle of efficiency of nature, it is not difficult to imagine that the physiological evolution which favoured the development of superior intellectual capacities in human beings to all other living species was accompanied by the development of religious belief and conscience.

As nature patiently continued to fashion its masterpiece of efficiency, we gradually devised a set of laws and regulations largely inspired by those imposed on us by nature, completed by others founded in religious belief or which were simply the fruit of our developing conscience based on humanitarian considerations.

A hallmark of such laws and regulations for most of western civilisation is the Moses code which, according to Christian tradition, is believed to have been compiled about three and a half thousand years ago (though there is no consensus among scholars regarding the dating of the code).

Supposedly, a thousand and a half years later, just fifty years after the birth of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been the principal promoter, perhaps the founder of Christianity, following a vision of the “resurrected” Jesus whom he never met, exercised a determining influence on the religious belief and philosophy of which we still find trace in modern, man-made law, today (known under its technical term of “positive law”), alongside traditional Mosaic law and Noahide code.

Our distant ancestors no doubt meant well in integrating the right to life into our positive law but, whether it was by ignorance or misguided religious belief (considering suicide to be a “sin”), they failed to recognize life and death as a single process.

It is the process that is an inalienable and imprescriptible human right.

.

Hey Ozspen,

"Now, euthanasia promoters don't use the word 'kill', but it is the only accurate word to describe the reality of what happens."

How would you know?
Is this because that is what makes logical sense to you without experience;
- Or is this what you actually know from first-hand experience?

I took a beloved pet dog to be euthanised many years ago.
Did I kill him, well yes technically I did - but to frame it that way is to remove oneself from the reality of the situation.
My dog was terminally ill with a 100% mortality rate.
There was nothing I could do to save him and he'd suffered enough.
I didn't really kill him, because the leukemia had already taken his life away.
What I did was put him out of his misery, and it was the final act of kindness I could give him.
You're focus on the word 'kill', when it doesn't describe the reality of the situation adequately.
You're trying to make it black and white, and are inadvertently denying the grey area in between.

"Even though it is clear from this Dutch example that it is impossible to control VAD, is this the right kind of morality Australia should follow?"

Why is it clear from the Dutch example that it is impossible to control VAD?
What's clear to me is that the Dutch system is flawed.
What you need is a system that is foolproofed against misuse.
Can a foolproofed system be developed to deal with this issue?
- Well that's the challenge isn't it?

[Cont.]
"How do we know what is good? We need a fixed standard of good by which to judge right and wrong, rather than a person's opinion of what is good."

Start by removing 'religion' as your moral compass and put 'ethics' in that space instead.
Why? Because Christians are too ignorant and close-minded.
First they 'Leave it up to God', then when things go wrong they claim it was 'God's will'
Christians speak of 'Morality', but what does that mean?
The difference between morals and ethics is that ethics is knowing the difference between right and wrong and morals is how you act upon that knowledge.

So you CAN'T have good morals if you don't firstly have 'ethics'.

- Use These Tools

1. Truth (the way to get to it on any issue is by separating arguments that do hold merit from those that don't)
2. Ethics 'Everyone has the right to live how they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative or detrimental effect on others'.
(Ethics of Fairness means 'What you do for one you do for the other').
3. Arguments that hold merit
4. Ability to see 'The Bigger Picture'

"When Luke Gormally, director of London's Linacre Bio-Ethics Centre, was in Australia he warned that legalising euthanasia could lead to 'killing the disabled and dependent for economic reasons'. He also warned that euthanasia would endorse youth suicide because of the 'wholly negative message' it would send to youth.

'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.

I think it better that 10 people who want euthanasia for the right reasons be denied it than 1 person be given euthanasia for the wrong reason.

- But denying people who want euthanasia for the right reasons is still a serious issue for those who find themselves in that situation, which is why you've got to get the policy right, instead of ignoring and dismissing it and thinking that ignoring and dismissing these peoples problems or suffering is somehow more ethical than helping them to end that suffering.

To Banjo Paterson.

What you're describing sounds very close to a concept I've heard as "spiritual laws." Basically the principles that everything and everyone is governed by regardless if they know them or not. The idea is that "do not murder" or "do not kill," are spiritual laws and that by breaking those laws there are consequences. The laws in the bible could be counted as spiritual laws as well as legal laws, based on them being from God, and that most of them being incorporated into legal mandates throughout the world. Arguably laws and principles from other religions could be counted as spiritual laws and given the presumption of governing everything. Karma in Hinduism for instance would be considered a spiritual law that affects multiple lifetimes of a person. However the downside for the arguments for spiritual laws is knowing what is actually a spiritual law, and what is something made up from a different religion. It's with that in mind that I'd rather discuss laws and rights, as a moral thing because that is the simplest yet still accurate descriptions of laws and rights, without complicating it with arguments of which religions (and thereby which religious laws) are the correct ones.

As for the laws of nature that you've described as being the most efficient and the most just, what you are doing is basically making a belief system (call it religious, call it spiritual), and philosophizing it in a brand through calling it a law of nature. I've heard of a similar philosophy on something called the law of attraction be described as a law of nature that can grant wealth or hardships based on what you focus on. Again the same issue with the potential spiritual laws out there is the same issue with your philosophized "natural laws," that go to the point of what actually is and isn't a natural law.

(Continued)

[Cont.]
Just to make it interesting Spencer lets change stuff around.
Let's say that tomorrow someone invents a ground breaking technology, Where for $100 our brains can be preserved in a jar and we can remain conscious, free from our physical bodies and pain - but escaping death.

You'd then find somehow to complain that it's wrong for everyone to stay alive and escape God's Judgement by not dying a natural death.
In this scenario, you'd be advocating death instead of life.

- Think about that -

(Continued)

For simplicity sake and without trying to pull more weight around on specific beliefs (through calling it a law from nature, from God, or from anything else), we can look at the matter from the point of rights and laws are a moral thing. Nothing with more authority over that to argue over.

On the other hand if you still want to consider suicide as a natural right. Then that means we should look at nature or the consequences that we've seen from suicides. In the natural world there is predator and pray, cause and effect, tragedy and fortune. None of those that we can see come from a stance of justice nor efficiency. A sickness doesn't hit the unjust only, but hits populations as a whole. Nor do predators hunt the unjust only, but they find the easiest sources of food. The weakest among the packs, or the most defenseless of the animals. Nor can cause and effect be counted as a tool of either justice or efficiency. Many populations have to go through hardships while they learn what not to do that causes hardships, and what they should do to prepare for winter or for other struggles.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The idea of a natural law based on nature itself that you've presented is a false idea. It's just not true. However more to the point suicide and assisted suicide, the moral case of suicide, as a right, can be looked at through not just differing systems of morals, but also through cause and effect. And as something to observe or study, suicide itself is harmful to the community that it happens in. The grief of one can be the source of motivation for another. Making the times suicide occurs be something that happens in groups over a small period of time instead of just occurring occasionally on a regular interval of time. As an observation of cause and effect, (and arguable any laws of nature) suicide harms any positive impact on the population it occurs in, and thus is not a law of nature.

More then that though, by looking at the countries that have legalized assisted suicide, a second and more damning conclusion can be seen as OzSpen has pointed out. The course of actions that follow legalizing assisted suicide destabilizes other rights that we've already established in society. Such as patients being killed (assisted in being killed) when they've not wanted any such thing.

If you look at it in terms of cause and effect, then both suicide and assisted suicide break the standards it would require to be deemed as a "natural law."

Armchair Critic,

<<How would you know? Is this because that is what makes logical sense to you without experience; Or is this what you actually know from first-hand experience?>>

I know from first-hand experience in my State that did not have VAD. I sat beside my dying mother in a hospital bed when a nurse said to me, 'we can cause it to happen quickly with an extra shot of morphine'. He wanted to kill her quickly 'with an extra shot of morphine'. Mum's pain was being managed so I told the nurse, 'As long as there is breath in my body I'll oppose your desire to euthanise her'.

I know what I'm talking about from first hand experience in a State that had not legalised euthanasia.

<<Why is it clear from the Dutch example that it is impossible to control VAD? What's clear to me is that the Dutch system is flawed. What you need is a system that is foolproofed against misuse.>>

You are yodelling, mate. What is crystal clear is that no foolproof system will be found because all people - including doctors and nurses - are contaminated with the disease of depravity. 'The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?' (Jeremiah 17:9).

No human being is able to tame this depravity without God's help. The VAD will infect all those involved in VAD in Australia. I am not making a prophecy. This is a fact based on Scripture.

.

Thanks, Not_Now.Soon, but I can’t say I share that vision.

I think I have amply explained my understanding of life as a Law of Nature like all other Laws of Nature such as gravity, the identical electric charge of electrons, the boiling point of water, etc. I also explained how Natural Law inspired much of our current positive law as did traditional Mosaic law and Noahide code.

These are the facts. They are not just hypotheses and they have nothing to do with the “concept of spiritual laws” that you mention.

I also explained that as life and death are two indissociable sequences of a process, it is the process that is an inalienable and imprescriptible human right. Unfortunately, our current positive law only recognizes the first sequence, life, as an inalienable and imprescriptible human right.

This is to ignore – or, perhaps, even worse – to deny reality. There can be no life without death (and vice versa).

I’m afraid there is nothing I can add to that.

So, if you don’t mind, I shall now sign off this thread.

.

Armchair Critic,

<<Start by removing 'religion' as your moral compass and put 'ethics' in that space instead.
Why? Because Christians are too ignorant and close-minded.
First they 'Leave it up to God', then when things go wrong they claim it was 'God's will'
Christians speak of 'Morality', but what does that mean?
The difference between morals and ethics is that ethics is knowing the difference between right and wrong and morals is how you act upon that knowledge.>>

Those statements are loaded with your presuppositions:

** Ethics is preferable to religion as a moral compass. Who said so? AC did.

** Christians are too ignorant and close-minded. But AC is not when he wants religion replaced by ethics.

** Your view of 'leave it up to God' is tainted with your ethical worldview rather than a Christian worldview.

** 'Christians speak of 'Morality', but what does that mean? Here is another example of your close-mindedness. If you got rid of your anti-Christian baloney, you'd go to the Christian Scriptures to discern what Christian morality is:

+ 'Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals"' (1 Corinthians 15:33);

+ 'He [Jesus] said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. All these evils come from within and defile a person”' (Mark 7:20-23);

+ 'For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God' (Ephesians 5:5);

+ Etc. Etc.

And you have the audacity to ask what 'morality' means to the Christian. You are myopic in your knowledge of Christianity and its moral position.

What could be a higher morality/ethical standard than, 'In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets' (Jesus according to Matthew 7:12).

strange the way people dig in so hard against the One they will give account to, especially when He was so merciful to be their Saviour if they faced up to the truth.

To Banjo Paterson.

You've explained it well enough. I just don't agree with it. I get the sympathy involved in the arguments for assisted suicide or for suicide itself. But I don't trust it. Any other arguments outside of sympathy are just justifications with out merit. Sorry to say, but that includes the law of nature you described. I explained why I disagreed earlier.

At this point we can just settle with disagreement with eachother and move on.

Spencer, do you ever wonder why these questions and issues you raise and seem to struggle with are easy for me to get to the right answer to?

Like for me I can get to the bottom of the issues you raise very easily, but for you it seems like you're a boat in a storm and your compass is spinning aimlessly out of control?

Why is that?

"Those statements are loaded with your presuppositions:"

Well truth be told my statements are loaded with decades of experience.
- And they're based also upon 'arguments that hold merit' if you paid attention.
Do you think that I have no backstory or dealings with Christians?
Do you think I say the things I do just for fun?

"Ethics is preferable to religion as a moral compass. Who said so? AC did."
No it's an argument based on merit.
With ethics I can judge the pro's and con's of all religions.

"Christians are too ignorant and close-minded. But AC is not when he wants religion replaced by ethics."
Again, merit.
I'm not sure I emphatically stated that I wanted all religion replaced by ethics.
I said YOU should set religion aside to learn ethics; so that you wouldn't fumble around on simple issues that you seem to consistently struggle with.
I care NOT whether or not you believe in a supernatural being, or your own personal salvation.
I DO care about your ability to make good judgements that can impact upon others.

"Your view of 'leave it up to God' is tainted with your ethical worldview rather than a Christian worldview."
No, again based upon merit.
My ethical worldview isn't tainted, it's your religious worldview which in reality is flawed.

[Cont.]
When you make a judgement to 'Leave it up to God', you're throwing all care to the wind and embracing ignorance, then when things go wrong you say it's "Gods Will";
- But really it was your choice in the beginning to throw care to the wind and not stay on top of things yourself, when you 'left the matter up to God'.
And in doing that you created the outcome that you're attributing God's will to.
I can show you a clear example of where this happened in the news just this week with Christians not taking Coronavirus seriously, and where their attitude was inadvertently putting others at risk of harm.
In which case it would never have been God's will other than their own will.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9116&page=0#301098

This woman in the article was willing to put her child at risk of harm, if something happened she'd have said it was "God's will (that her child got the virus)"
It wouldn't be Gods will at all, it would be her will in sending her child to go to school and being placed at an increased risk of harm BY HER,
It was HER WILL in failing to ensure her childs physical and emotional wellbeing, which is HER JOB and RESPONSIBILITY as a parent.
Don't blame God for one's own shite.

You Christians need to learn the difference between God's will, and Man's will.

What does the child suffering COVID-19 think of their mums decision?
"You sent me to school and put me and the whole family at risk of harm, you stupid misguided moron"
Are they wrong to think that of their mother?
Ethics says "Everybody has a right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt have a negative or detrimental impact upon others."
Well her decisions had a negative or detrimental impact on others did they not?

[Cont.]
You think morals are 'guidelines' for correct behavior;
(because you don't know the difference between morals and ethics)
- But I see ethics as 'rules' for correct behavior.

Rules of right and wrong that determine one's ability to make 'moral' decisions.
She broke the rules, because she had no ethics.
She didn't even know there were rules.

She thought that by reading the bible she had some 'moral high ground' but all she had was her 'head up her ass'.

She has substituted religion in the empty space that was originally reserved for ethics.
Her 'morals' are a spinning compass in the Bermuda Triangle, like yours.
Her worldview is ignorance and a danger to others.

So what happens when this moron woman dies and finds herself at Judgement day? (if it exists)
She's like "Oh I had faith in you Lord", and God says "What when you helped infect a further total of 624 people including 12 deaths and all the other impacts like a huge ripple effect you caused by your one single decision. How exactly did you DO UNTO others?"

I don't assume to know the mind of God if he exists, but if he does, I expect your lot is going to have to face up to a lot of shite like this.

[Cont.]
"Christians speak of 'Morality', but what does that mean? Here is another example of your close-mindedness. If you got rid of your anti-Christian baloney, you'd go to the Christian Scriptures to discern what Christian morality is:"

I don't need to learn the recipe for how you failed.
I'm not going to learn anything from your failed system that doesn't produce good results.
You need to learn the recipe for how my system succeeds where yours fails.

"What could be a higher morality/ethical standard than, 'In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you..."

Well you are starting in the right place.

'Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'; or
'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated'.

- But it's from right back there the scripture twists you into knots and you become lost, like that spinning bloody compass.

As for your mum, yes palliative care, it is what it is.
The important thing is that its not about you, or whatever decisions you find too difficult or confronting to make.
It's about what your mum wouldve wanted.
If your decisions were consistent with her worldview then you acted the right way.
But if she told you before things got bad that she doesnt want to be kept alive and suffering more than she should then maybe your decision wasn't the right one, but this isn't for me to know or say.
I hope she didn't suffer any more than she needed to.

Keep in mind that's my 4 comments Spencer, so I won't be able to respond again to this thread again today if you respond to me.

To Armchair Critic.

I know you've used up your allowed replies in this thread, and if OzSpen replies, then you might want to focus on his response more then mine.

However there is one observation I have to offer too. Situations and experience where I've tried one ethical approach and seen the results, versus trying it the way prescribed in a few verses in the bible that teach on a simular situation (if not on that very situation). From these experiences I've found more value in what's in the bible, then what's debated in ethics.

This is one of the times that strengthen my faith in God and to search more what's from Him then to rely on my own understanding (either through ethics or my own thoughts and assuming they are also from God).

In this instance giving something to God doesn't mean to give up on the matter, or to be unthinking on the matter. But it does still mean to trust Him regardless how well you act in the situation. Some people might be better at giving a matter to God then I am, so perhaps they might be unthinking about it as well. But from what I've seen the examples of actually giving something to God and having faith in Him more often then not has better results then the ones where we try our hardest to make it right.

Just an observation from the other side of the coin.

Armchair Critic,

<<"Those statements are loaded with your presuppositions:" Well truth be told my statements are loaded with decades of experience.
- And they're based also upon 'arguments that hold merit' if you paid attention.>>

Would you believe I have 70 decades of experience? The length of experience does not determine the content of morality/ethics. In your interaction with me, you say <<I can get to the bottom of the issues you raise very easily, but for you it seems like you're a boat in a storm and your compass is spinning aimlessly out of control?>>

To the contrary. I'm not like a boat in the storm in my world view. It is built on the solid foundation provided by the Lord God Almighty with his absolutes of morality.

In my interaction, I have attempted to expose the holes in your world view that a philosophical truck can drive through.

<<No it's an argument based on merit.>>

That's AC's definition of 'merit'.

Armchair Critic,

<<Ethics says "Everybody has a right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt (sic) have a negative or detrimental impact upon others.">>

Who invented that slogan for ethics?

Jesus' view is radically different:

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:43-48).

Your slogan for ethics is far removed from the Christian understanding:

'"If you have enemies who are hungry, give them something to eat. If you have enemies who are thirsty, give them something to drink. In doing this you will make them feel ashamed.” Don’t let evil defeat you, but defeat evil by doing good' (Romans 12:20-21).

Armchair Critic,

You were crude and rude in your response at: Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 24 March 2020 6:22:16 AM.

Your claim was that: 'You think morals are 'guidelines' for correct behavior; (because you don't know the difference between morals and ethics) - But I see ethics as 'rules' for correct behavior. Rules of right and wrong that determine one's ability to make 'moral' decisions. She broke the rules, because she had no ethics.
She didn't even know there were rules>>,

You are wrong again as you invent my 'guidelines for correct behavior'.

'Once while in Australia for a speaking engagement, [Dr Norman Geisler] was engaged in dinner conversation with a medical student. “What is the subject of your lecture series?” he asked. “Ethics,” I replied. “What is that?” he inquired. I took a moment to recover from my shock. Here was a bright young man about to enter a profession involving some of the major ethical decisions of our time who did not even know what ethics was! I said softly and gently, so as not to offend him for his ignorance, “Ethics deals with what is right and what is wrong.”' http://www.equip.org/article/any-absolutes-absolutely/

If I follow your 'guidelines' for correct behaviour, I must allow every other person on the globe to do what is right for him or her - determined by human standards. You are advocating an ethical system where human beings are the measure of right and wrong in ethics.

"Since moral rightness is prescribed by a moral God, it is prescriptive. For there is no moral law without a Moral Lawgiver; there is no moral legislation without a Moral Legislator. So, Christian ethics is, by its very nature, prescriptive, not descriptive. That is to say, ethics deals with what ought to be, not with what is. Christians do not find their ethical duties in the standard of Christians but in the standard for Christians (the Bible)" (Geisler ibid).

Armchair Critic,

<<You need to learn the recipe for how my system succeeds where yours fails.>>

It succeeds with: 'Ethics says "Everybody has a right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt (sic) have a negative or detrimental impact upon others."'

Your system of ethics is out of the minds of human beings. Having no 'negative or detrimental impact upon others' is determined by the individual.

+ For Hitler it meant the slaughter of over 6 million in the gas ovens;
+ Stalin slaughtered approx. 20 million.
+ Mao Zedong murdered 42.5 million in the Gulag.
+ Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 1.5-2 million.
+ Idi Amin in Uganda killed around 300,000 - all for the good of their countries and to purify the human race.

Your utilitarian ethics has a horrible track record and I haven't discussed the impact of terrorism.

Hey OxSpen,
(Sorry if the responses are out of order, and if I missed any questions)

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin these are not examples of people acting in an ethical manner.
These are examples of 'End's justifies the means', with their actions having negative and detrimental impacts upon many people.
- A mentality you're well aware of because you mentioned it in your article.

"Would you believe I have 70 decades of experience?
The length of experience does not determine the content of morality/ethics."
- Fair enough I'll take your point on that, and why would I have reason to think you would lie about your age?

"I'm not like a boat in the storm in my world view."
- Well when you write the articles, are you asking Dorothy Dixer questions where you want to steer us towards YOUR beliefs, or do you actually want OUR opinions?

Or do you want an opportunity to correct our opinions, like you're marking a test?
- Doing God's work, steering us all in the right direction?

You have these strange leaps of logic.
First you conclude that because another nation promotes a failed system, that it's impossible for anyone else to do better where they've failed.
Then you say "Is the kind of morality we want..", "Is this the ethical system we want.."

The system you outlined isn't ethical, which means any assumed morals attributed to it are misconceptions.

You shouldn't be using their system as an example that 'nobody can do better' in order to promote your own Judeo-Christian values of not killing;
Why not simply figure out which parts are unacceptable;
- Based not upon religion, but upon respect and human dignity?

The worlds had religion spinning around for 2 thousand years and all you're doing is headbutting a brick wall with the same cracked record.

You're not capable of moving forward and helping create a better system because you're constrained by your existing beliefs.

[Cont.]
You're too concerned about how God (if he or she exists) might judge YOU if you act to help end a persons suffering, then the person suffering themselves.

Your religion claims to be concerned about others, but really you're just concerned with your own salvation come judgement day, are you not?

You're only concerned that your salvation itself might be negatively or detrimentally impacted by having to make such a difficult decision, so you'll choose to do nothing and in your indecision and in hindsight try to preach and claim you acted morally, when all you did was throw your hands in the air.

I told you about my dog, dying from leukemia.
He'd gone blind and was bleeding from his arse and penis. Can you imagine how that would be?
Maybe I should've just let him suffer a bit longer to spare myself of any potential guilt or wrongdoing?

"Who invented that slogan for ethics?"
- Probably me, but it's derived from John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle, something that came after Jesus's time.

"You are wrong again as you invent my 'guidelines for correct behavior'."

- I didn't invent 'the idea of acting in a manner that does not harm others'.
I just pointed out that people practicing your religion are quite happy to act in a manner that harms others.

It's not about every individuals IDEA of what right and what is wrong.
It's about what IS right and what IS wrong.
I have to follow the rules too.

"In my interaction, I have attempted to expose the holes in your world view that a philosophical truck can drive through".

The only thing you successfully argued on a basis of merit was that one's age does not necessarily relate to one's wisdom.

Do you see how I write?
It's a collection of 'arguments that hold merit'.
Truth, Ethics, Arguments That Hold Merit, and The Bigger Picture.
- That's how I beat you every time Spencer but it's not about winning or losing.

Hey Spencer,

I just wanted to make an extra note about this statement I made.

"You're only concerned that your salvation itself might be negatively or detrimentally impacted by having to make such a difficult decision, so you'll choose to do nothing and in your indecision and in hindsight try to preach and claim you acted morally, when all you did was throw your hands in the air."

When I said this I wasn't specifically referring to you or your mum.
I already spoke in regards to that in an earlier comment.
(Whether your actions were consistent with what she believed or what she wanted)

The comments above were generalised about the mentality of Christians, and not meant to be personal criticism in any way of the matters regarding your mothers passing.

I just wanted you to know that.

Sorry if my responses are all over the place today.
We have some quite troubling times ahead, and I'm a little concerned about how things will go in the coming weeks, and I'm worried about whether my own parents who are about your age will make it through.

I wish you, your friends and family good health in the months ahead.
- And anyone else reading for that matter, good luck to you all -

Hey Not_Now.Soon,
Thanks for your thoughts and contribution;
"In this instance giving something to God doesn't mean to give up on the matter, or to be unthinking on the matter. But it does still mean to trust Him regardless how well you act in the situation."

I'm guess I'm still pondering this, I suppose I focus on what I consider 'ignorance', or even 'wilful ignorance' as the act that causes harm to others.

Armchair Critic,

<<Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin these are not examples of people acting in an ethical manner. These are examples of 'End's justifies the means', with their actions having negative and detrimental impacts upon many people.>>

Your response is false because of the ethics of:

+ Hitler: In Germany during World War 2, Hitler's goal was to develop a more perfect race. A pretty good goal one could think? But his way to attain it was evil (killing six million Jews and millions of others). Hitler most definitely acted in an unethical way.

+ Oxford University Historian, Professor Robert Service wrote of Stalin, 'One thing is sure, it was Stalin who instigated the carnage of 1937 to 1938. He and nobody else was the engineer of imprisonment, torture, penal labor and shooting. Yet though he didn't need much temptation to maim and kill, he had a strategy in mind. Stalin knew what he was hunting in the Great Terror and why. There was a basic logic to this murderous activity', http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4670963

And you have the audacity to state that this is not an unethical example of Stalin in action.

+ What were Mao Zedong's ethics? He said, 'purging today’s society will lead to a great society in the future. What would be purged and to what extent? After considering the knowledge through history about his Cultural Revolution, I believe he is referring to destroying or changing traditional institutions such as religion, social hierarchy, and family. This assumes that there is something presently wrong about these institutions. But this would also mean that humans living in the present would lose their lives to benefit human lives in the future', http://medium.com/international-workers-press/the-cultural-revolution-ethics-in-perspective-662906e14804

These are examples of ethics in action, leading to horrific genocide.

Hey Spencer,

"Your response is false because of the ethics of:"

- You're dropping your marbles all over the place mate.

I said "these are not examples of people acting in an ethical manner. These are examples of 'End's justifies the means'."

And you conclude my statements are false because:

1."Hitler most definitely acted in an unethical way."
- Yes I stated that.
2. "And you have the audacity to state that this is not an unethical example of Stalin in action."
- I'm pretty sure I also stated that.

Do you think I'm unaware of the crimes of the NKVD?,
The killing room in Kiev, arms and legs chopped off for fun and blood and bodies piled up.
People being forced to eat others, knowing the next day others will eat them.
Having your guts opened up and your intestines nailed to a telegraph pole, and then whipped around the pole for amusement until you pull your whole insides out.
- Things that would make Mengler squeamish.
Being marched out into the forest to dig your own grave is probably the fate of the lucky ones, if you can call that luck.

3. "These are examples of ethics in action, leading to horrific genocide."

None of this stuff is ethics.
Again, it's just an 'End justifies the means' belief system.
And an 'End's justifies the means' belief system is the hallmark of terrorism.
Nothing to do with 'Ethics' in a true sense.

Ethics is KNOWING the difference between right and wrong.
Morals is how you act upon this knowledge.
Know the difference.

You seem to conflate 'Ethics' as one particular persons belief system, which it's not.

God Can Protect You From COVID-19
http://youtu.be/lzT8nmKf_gY

This is the second example I've found within the week.
I can argue that there's a pattern forming here.
Do only Non-Christians get Coronavirus?
(They don't as we saw in South Korea, but I digress)

Why are Christians promoting an ideology which is certain to have a negative and detrimental impact to others?
Do they think causing harm to others will get them into heaven?
This is how their religious ideology is flawed and twisted.

Does anyone want to try and argue with me that these people ARE NOT 'Leaving it up to God', as I alluded to earlier.
Even worse they're promoting an ideology that Christians are immune to Coronavirus.

I bet the Christian people in South Korea decided after everyone HAD contracted COVID-19 that it was 'God's Will', did they not?
- As I alluded to earlier.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Argue on a basis of merit that your religious belief system IS NOT a danger to others.

And whats Spencer with his moralities and righteousness got to say about it?
Nothing, because it's an inconvenient truth.
He's got his fingers in his ears and loudly speaking 'LAlalalalalalalalala - I'm not listening'
(That's what my little sister did when she was 8)

I'm sure he'll be swinging defensively with accusations regarding some weird baseless technicality, then start quoting verses, and then more verses to give credibility to the earlier ones.

C'mon Christians, doesn't anyone here want to argue on a basis of merit that your religion is a beacon of light and hope, of morals and righteousness and NOT a clear and present danger to the rest of society?

I don't think any of you can.
The facts speak for themselves.

And you think you have the answers to all of life's problems?
You people are so lost you can't even follow the golden rule.
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
- You lot really can't even make it onto first base.
Sad really.

Armchair Critic,

<<Why are Christians promoting an ideology which is certain to have a negative and detrimental impact to others? Do they think causing harm to others will get them into heaven? This is how their religious ideology is flawed and twisted.>>

This is irrational reasoning. Some of the most beneficent actions world-wide and for centuries have come from within the Christian community.

Even atheist/agnostic Richard Dawkins acknowledges this, 'There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse', http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2018/march/leading-atheist-dont-celebrate-decline-of-christianity-in-europe

I will not respond any further to your ridiculing of me.

"This is irrational reasoning. Some of the most beneficent actions world-wide and for centuries have come from within the Christian community."

I'm not talking about being deliberately and openly harmful to others;
I'm talking about actions that are harmful to others through Christians willful ignorance.

Christians 'Leave it up to God', making the choice themselves to throw all care to the wind, i.e. 'Man's Will' and then attribute the bad outcome as being 'God's Will' instead of their own, when their choices were the direct cause of the outcome not anything that should be attributed to God.
I've got 3 examples now.

1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-18/the-scots-college-hosts-assembly-amid-coronavirus-fears/12064148

The woman who sends her child to school (leaving it up to God)
SHE sent the child to school - It was HER will i.e 'Man's Will'
And then should the child get COVID-19 -Then it would be 'Gods Will'.

2. God Can Protect You From COVID-19
http://youtu.be/lzT8nmKf_gY

3. Margaret Court's Church Says 'The Blood Of Jesus Will Protect Patrons From COVID-19'
http://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-first/perth/a200313pjxng/margaret-courts-church-says-the-blood-of-jesus-will-protect-patrons-from-covid-19-20200313

These are actions that are likely to have a negative and detrimental impact on others, i.e 'harm'.

Can't you see this?
What is irrational about it?

What I'm demonstrating here is that Christians ideology or belief system shows a distinctive pattern of exhibiting actions that are likely to result in causing harm to others.

These actions are not consistent with the idea meant by 'Do unto others'.

- Unless you'd like to instead try and argue that being infected with COVID-19 by someone else's willful ignorance is how YOU would like to be treated?
Good luck with that, I invite you to try if you're foolish enough.

Are you saying you believe these actions are consistent with the Golden Rule and that this is how you'd like to be treated YES or NO?
And would you be willing to swear your conviction to this matter on the Bible?

I'm not really sure you're capable of reason or arguing issues on a basis of merit Spencer.

- Well, you can lead 'em to water, but you can't force 'em to drink -

[Cont.]

I'll tell you what, I'll teach you a lesson.

The lesson is this: 'Doing nothing IS A choice'.

Pretend you're driving down the road at 80ks and you hear this glug-glug-glugging of the wheelnuts as your rim is about to come off, potentially sending you and your loved ones into a fatal accident.
Do you do nothing and ignore it?
Do you 'Leave it up to God'?'

Or do you thank God for giving you a brain with which you can figure things out for yourself and pull the car over and tighten the wheelnuts up?

You could keep driving.
And when you wake up in hospital and one of your family is deceased whilst 2 others are in critical condition, do you tell yourself it was 'God's Will' you found yourself in the hospital, or your own fault ('Man's Will') for being ignorant and dismissive and throwing all care to the wind.

'Doing nothing IS a choice.'

Have a good weekend and stay safe.

Here's another free lesson Spencer,

If you ignore and dismiss 'Arguments that hold merit'

You will not be well-grounded to make rational judgements.

There's a difference from doing everything you can do, and knowing that's all that you can do, letting God be in charge of what happens next; as opposed to being irresponsible and doing nothing, even though you can.

Regarding willful ignorance. I see this across to many populations and demographics it seems to be throughout society instead of in just one population or another. However I think another accurate discription instead of willful ignorance, is arrogant disagreement. For instance consider these examples of being willfully ignorant even when the information is presented plainly to a person. It's not ignorance if you hear the information and reject it.

•Those who deny global warming, could be considered willfully ignorant, or that they reject it as a scam and don't believe it.
•Those that argue that abortion is ok by saying that no one knows when life starts, or that the baby in the womb feels no pain. When pointed out that this is false they ignore it. They just don't believe it or don't care.
•Those that deny that homosexuality is natural ignore and disagree with the information provided that experts say it is; just like those that deny homosexuality is unhealthy ignore and disagree with the information that says that it is.
•Then there's the Covid virus. There's a wealth of information to push the fears of the virus, then there is also those who think the whole thing is blow out of proportion. It's not a Christian thing because I hear that view to not take it seriously from nonChristians too. Nor is it even the majority of Christians that hold the view.

Coming late, I enjoyed reading all the thoughtful comments.

I agree with the author that VAD should not be for medical doctors, who must follow the Hippocratic oath and neither make such decisions nor execute them. If VAD is to be practiced, then such difficult decisions and executions should be left for others, perhaps a separate occupation.

I agree with Not_Now.Soon that one must first do what they can, only then leave the rest to God.

I agree with Armchair Critic on differentiating between God's will and man's will.

Retrospectively we can tell that whatever happened was God's will, but can we claim that God's-will will always be the same in similar circumstances? No, even because circumstances will never be EXACTLY the same.

God's will is holy and will always be done, but assuming that we can find out His will from a book such as the bible, is mistaken. The 10 commandments are not universal standards, only a general good advice for the people of Israel. Otherwise, how come this same bible, despite instructing "thou shalt not murder", condemns and decrowns King Saul for failing to kill Agag, the Amalekite king?

Finally, the whole question of "assisted death" and the concept of "sanctity of life" are turned on their head once we learn that killing/murder is not truly possible since it is only the physical body which dies - the soul remains and nothing whatsoever can kill it:

"Weapons cannot shred the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind dry it. The soul is unbreakable and incombustible; it can neither be dampened nor dried. It is everlasting, in all places, unalterable, immutable, and primordial." [Bhagavad-Gita 2:23-24]

My condolences, Spencer, in your grief over your mother passing away and leaving her mortal body.