RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Yes. J Iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just a thought. If the comatose person is unsaved and bound for Hell, would you send him there, or would he be more comfortable in a coma? If there was less than one tenth of one percent of a chance that he would ever regain consciousness and be able to repent, would itbe worth waiting? Or have you already taken all that into account in your previous responses? Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 16:01:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wondering..J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Discernment Izzy, Discernment. Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Ive probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I dont think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about âsnuffingâ anyone. Iâm talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of âsnuffing outâ. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Canât look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, ââ¬ÅI also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.ââ¬Â By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are ââ¬Åtamperingââ¬Â. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Ive probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I dont think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here image001.gif
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Discernment Izzy, Discernment. Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Ive probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I dont think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Terry, Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wondering..J Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Discernment Izzy, Discernment. Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Ive probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I dont think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Bite your tomgue! ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 16:01:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wonderingâ¦..J Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Discernment Izzy, Discernment. Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Iâve probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I donât think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about ââ¬Åsnuffingââ¬Â anyone.à Iââ¬â¢m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.à Quite the opposite of ââ¬Åsnuffing outââ¬Â. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Canââ¬â¢t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, ââ∠âI also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.âââ¬Ã By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are ââ∠âtamperingâââ¬ÃÂ. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Just a thought. If the comatose person is unsaved and bound for Hell, would you send him there, or would he be more comfortable in a coma? If there was less than one tenth of one percent of a chance that he would ever regain consciousness and be able to repent, would itbe worth waiting? Or have you already taken all that into account in your previous responses? Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 16:01:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wonderingâ¦..J Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Discernment Izzy, Discernment. Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense. (In certain situations.) Iâve probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue. Playing God can work both ways. I donât think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. Nature does not take it's course. God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out. He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority. You play God. When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self. Self is not what it is all about. When you do itfor the least of His, you do itforHim. Think about those things. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about ââ¬Åsnuffingââ¬Â anyone.à Iââ¬â¢m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.à Quite the opposite of ââ¬Åsnuffing outââ¬Â. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Canââ¬â¢t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, ââ∠âI also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.âââ¬Ã By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are ââ∠âtamperingâââ¬ÃÂ. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
I have to finally put my two cents in on this one. I cared for my former husband for several years after he was disabled. I wouldn't trade those years for anything. Now granted, he was able to communicate and take care of his basic needs but he had to use a wheelchair when we went out and could not take care of many of the things men handle like home and vehicle maintanence. I spent a lot of time having him "teach" me to do things LOL My point is that I believed that my marriage vows were in sickness and in health and held to that belief. I understand this man's dilema but he is not free to divorce and remarry as long as she is alive. I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. Izzy compared her with an infant. Would we stop feeding our baby if it was the same situation? Just something to consider. Of course we cannot judge this man's motives but I wonder if he has made his decision based on fleshly desires or on what he truly believes God would have him do. Laura
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Bruce, Bruce, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You made some very valid points, which are quite true. But, now--what if the wife had a Living Will in which she had written that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if she was comatose? Would you then think it was right to keep her alive by feeding tube? What if the wife was young, and had not yet written a living will, but had communicated verbally to her husband the same desire? Should he not obey her wishes? How do you know that the person's soul has not already gone on to be with the Lord when they are comatose for a long time? You stated that you do not believe one should be kept alive by artificial means forever. So how long do you think they should be? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Woodford Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Izzy, You wrote:Okay, Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, programmed answers. I was hoping for a little thought on this subject. What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a marriage? Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a life? Does your God come in a pre-programmed box? .Nevermind. Izzy PS In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding tube from someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very vegetative state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation! ROFL!!! Dear Sister, Please forgive me for communicating that I'd given your question no thought! I certainly did, but you asked what God would require, and so I thought it best not to express opinions but to the the Holy Spirit of God speak to the situation through His own Word. But now you have asked some other questions: -What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? If one has departed, if the soul and spirit are separated from the body, the body is dead. There is no more need to care for such. Bury the body and the one who was formerly married to the departed one is free to marry another. Romans 7 is clear on that score. -Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? No I do not. -What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a marriage? It is never God's desire that a young married woman whose husband is physically or mentally incapacitated should bear children by any other man while her husband is still living. Rather, in the midst of her deep trial, it IS his purpose to make Himself known to her in all of His sufficiency for her every need. -Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind? Yes, when people share what is on their mind, I am often compelled to consider their perspective. Thank you for doing just that here! -As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a life? Dear Sister, If the incapacitated spouse is in need of being well cared for, they are still a spouse and their spouse is still married. God is never rigid and unfeeling!! The Lord Jesus was tempted in all pointas like as we are apart from sin and in that he himself suffered bneing tempted, He is able to succour (help) them that are tempted.But LIFE is never to be found in a spouse, in a happy marriage, in bearing children etc. If anyone enters a marriage relationship thinking that LIFE is found there, they are going to be sorely disillusioned! BUT, if they realize that LIFE is only found in Christ (I John 5:11,12), then regardless of their circumstances, good relationships or bad, smooth sailing or daily pain and aggravation...they can still experience a full, joyful and meaningful life by maintaining coomunion with and drawing their sustenance from their Lord! Your brother in Christ, Bruce _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Laura, I agree with you completely. There is no greater love than to care for the helpless. That is why you cared so well for your disabled husband. (People who havent done what you do have no idea what a sacrifice and joy it is.)Thats why I am taking my Dad, who has Alzheimers, out for lunch and an outing todayeven knowing that he wont remember it for 5 minutes afterwards. But he enjoys it for the moment. And he still needs hugs and much love. But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. As I stated, I would have a problem with denying treatment to even someone who even has an infant mentality. However, the issue I wish to explore here is whether one is obligated to force a person who is comatose to remain alive by artificial medical intervention. I think that is as unethical as euthanasia; and I think the two issues are often blurred. In all honesty, I have compassion for this man and his wife, and her parents, too. But she is not comatose. So, I think it would be like killing an infant to deny treatment. I think we should all constantly evaluate the issues that advances in medicine have thrust upon us. Fifty years ago she wouldnt have had a chance to live this long, and we wouldnt have to grapple with the implications of it. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question I have to finally put my two cents in on this one. I cared for my former husband for several years after he was disabled. I wouldn't trade those years for anything. Now granted, he was able to communicate and take care of his basic needs but he had to use a wheelchair when we went out and could not take care of many of the things men handle like home and vehicle maintanence. I spent a lot of time having him teach me to do things LOL My point is that I believed that my marriage vows were in sickness and in health and held to that belief. I understand this man's dilema but he is not free to divorce and remarry as long as she is alive. I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. Izzy compared her with an infant. Would we stop feeding our baby if it was the same situation? Just something to consider. Of course we cannot judge this man's motives but I wonder if he has made his decision based on fleshly desires or on what he truly believes God would have him do. Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless NameofYahShua!! This would all be funny if it were not so tragic. Anyone ever see the movie, "Miller's Crossing". The central theme in the movie is ethics. One main character is constantly troubled by the lack of ethics of others. Oh, by the way, he's a vicious mob chief killer. Forced medical treatment?!?!? The woman has a feeding tube. She breathes on her own. She is only receiving nourishment. The husband has denied her therapy ever since he received money for therapy. He has fought against treatment for simple things i.e. bladder infection and been overruled by courts. A feeding tube ... you know, like the breast to an infant who would die without it (or spooned food) ... like an IV that is used to keep alive scads of people daily. Oh, by the way, SHE CAN SWALLOW but the judge has DENIED permission for her to be fed by mouth by one willing to take the time to do so. The only "artificial" means she needs to be kept alive is someone willing to spoon feed her. The biggest problem with this nation and the world today is that those who are supposed to know better (professing believers) can't even get their facts straight because they are so overwhelmed by fornication (compromising with the world). Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, Bro. Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
FYI. Chris, a feeding tube is artificial medical life support treatment. If the patient has not consented, it is forced treatment. Izzy, -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Barr Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question \o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless NameofYahShua!! This would all be funny if it were not so tragic. Anyone ever see the movie, Miller's Crossing. The central theme in the movie is ethics. One main character is constantly troubled by the lack of ethics of others. Oh, by the way, he's a vicious mob chief killer. Forced medical treatment?!?!? The woman has a feeding tube. She breathes on her own. She is only receiving nourishment. The husband has denied her therapy ever since he received money for therapy. He has fought against treatment for simple things i.e. bladder infection and been overruled by courts. A feeding tube ... you know, like the breast to an infant who would die without it (or spooned food) ... like an IV that is used to keep alive scads of people daily. Oh, by the way, SHE CAN SWALLOW but the judge has DENIED permission for her to be fed by mouth by one willing to take the time to do so. The only artificial means she needs to be kept alive is someone willing to spoon feed her. The biggest problem with this nation and the world today is that those who are supposed to know better (professing believers) can't even get their facts straight because they are so overwhelmed by fornication (compromising with the world). Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, Bro. Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.” By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here image001.gif
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Hi Izzy, You asked:what if the wife had a Living Will in which she had written that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if she was comatose? I think artificial means would have to be defined more specificly. Feeding a person, bathing them, keeping them warm or cool, giving them water are artificial means! Would you really want to withhold such basic needs from one who was unable to do these things for themselves? Many people who are conscious and aware of their surroundings cannot do these things for themselves! Why should being comatose be a reason to withhold such basic care for the helpless? You asked:Would you then think it was right to keep her alive by feeding tube? I would certainly not think that one whose body carries on functions necessary for life should be denied food or water! If someone cannot breathe on their own, and keeping them alive is dependent on a machine to breathe for them, I would call that artificial means and I personally would not want my family to go through the process of keeping me alive by such a means. You asked:What if the wife was young, and had not yet written a living will, but had communicated verbally to her husband the same desire? Should he not obey her wishes? If I was the husband of one who had expressed such a desire, I would ask a lot more questions such as , What do YOU mean by artificial means? Any human assistance whatsoever? OR Normal body functions which no longer function and can only be performed by machines? You asked:How do you know that the person's soul has not already gone on to be with the Lord when they are comatose for a long time? Izzy, I don't. But I could also ask you, How could you be sure that the person's soul HAD DEPARTED, simply because they were comatose for a long time? You asked:You stated that you do not believe one should be kept alive by artificial means forever. So how long do you think they should be? Izzy, when I think of artificial means used to keep a comatose person alive I think of necessary bodily functions that can only be done by machines. (i.e. there is not sufficient brain activity so a person cannot breathe on their own, their heart will not beat on it's own, etc). How long such should be continued would be up to the next of kin. My daughter was on a missions trip to Ecuador this summer, 4 hours from civilization by canoe and another 6 hours by bus from a hospital! She was comatose for a number of hours, almost quit breathing a number of times and was running an extremely high temperature. She was kept alive by artificial means and a lot of prayer by her co-workers! Your brother in Christ, Bruce _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
PS If I were married to a certain someone whos name I will not mention (but you can guess!), I would happily snuff him out a day early. One must consider each situation on its own merits. ROFL! Oh, dear, I think I feel another one of those cat frenzies coming on.or maybe its just the atmospheric effect of Hurricane Izzy? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, I am not talking about snuffing anyone. Im talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. Quite the opposite of snuffing out. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today. Cant look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of RD, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Just something to muddy the thought process. What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before? Could happen. Terry ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you state that, I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that. By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are tampering. You may be right. I am still thinking it through. I really haven't come to a conclusion. Laura IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Is there another baseball game on tonight? LOL Laura
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Yes1 Im cracking up! Iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Is there another baseball game on tonight? LOL Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Izzy: When you marry, it is for life. The two of you become one. Poor health does not alter that. Would Jesus dump His bride? Terry - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Ethics question By the way, I did see this woman on TV tonight, and she is not really comatose, as I assumed. She seems to be at about the level of an infant, mentally. So I am undecided about whether it is right to refuse artificial medical treatment in this case, when is unable to feed herself. I certainly have more of a problem with it. What do you all think? And (ignoring unproven allegations of her husbands abuse), do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation to remain married to a person in a vegetative state for years? Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:42 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Wickedness waxing more and more OK. This brings up an interesting subject: Is there a right to die? Personally, I dont want anybody forcing my body to live in a vegetative state by artificial means if Im already departed. I think it is the cruelest thing to do. It is obviously wrong to KILL someone artificially via drug injection. It is just as bad to artificially FORCE someones body to stay alive via feeding tube. Give the person a decent interval to recover, but 13 years??? When your body stops eating, it is saying Time for me to go. It is sickening to see all the 90+ year old gomers in the nursing homes living day after day connected to a feeding tube; like so many wrinkled up old fetuses attached to umbilical cords. The person does not suffer if you allow nature to take its course and die. I dont blame her husband for not wanting to be married to a corpse longer than 13 years. Our society has the perverted idea that we must keep the dead alive and murder the unborn. Shes already GONE; so get over it. Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris BarrSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:56 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Wickedness waxing more and more \o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless NameofYahShua!! OK, this woman collapsed mysteriously in 1990.Her husband sued doctors and won $1.3 million for her care.Husband never spent a nickel on any rehabilitative therapy -- only sustenance care.5 years ago he began trying to have her feeding tube removed and won't allow her to be hand fed. She breathes on her own.Oh, by the way, that is when hubby started shacking up with another whom he subsequently had a child by.Then it is discovered that a bone scan done in 1991 revealed numerous trauma spots as though she had been severly beaten in the past.Oh, by the way, the lawyer the husband has hired is a "right to die" expert ... and he has been paid with part of the $1.3 million originally awarded for the woman's care.Oh, and if the woman is allowed to starve to death (as the court has been ordering but the parents have been fighting) then hubby gets the rest of the money for himself.www.baynews9.com/site/New...ryid=24706www.terrisfight.org/lead.htm Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, Bro. Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Izzy, You asked:...do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation to remain married to a person in a vegetative state for years? Matthew 19:6 says: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:11,12 says: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Romans 7:2,3 says: For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. I Cor.7:10,11 says:And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. I Cor.10:13 says:There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Your brother in Christ, Bruce _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Okay, Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, programmed answers. I was hoping for a little thought on this subject. What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a marriage? Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone elses frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a life? Does your God come in a pre-programmed box? Nevermind. Izzy PS In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding tube from someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very vegetative state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation! ROFL!!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Woodford Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question Izzy, You asked:...do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation to remain married to a person in a vegetative state for years? Matthew 19:6 says: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:11,12 says: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Romans 7:2,3 says: For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. I Cor.7:10,11 says:And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. I Cor.10:13 says:There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Your brother in Christ, Bruce _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
Izzy, You wrote:Okay, Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, programmed answers. I was hoping for a little thought on this subject. What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a marriage? Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a life? Does your God come in a pre-programmed box? .Nevermind. Izzy PS In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding tube from someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very vegetative state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation! ROFL!!! Dear Sister, Please forgive me for communicating that I'd given your question no thought! I certainly did, but you asked what God would require, and so I thought it best not to express opinions but to the the Holy Spirit of God speak to the situation through His own Word. But now you have asked some other questions: -What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? If one has departed, if the soul and spirit are separated from the body, the body is dead. There is no more need to care for such. Bury the body and the one who was formerly married to the departed one is free to marry another. Romans 7 is clear on that score. -Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? No I do not. -What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a marriage? It is never God's desire that a young married woman whose husband is physically or mentally incapacitated should bear children by any other man while her husband is still living. Rather, in the midst of her deep trial, it IS his purpose to make Himself known to her in all of His sufficiency for her every need. -Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind? Yes, when people share what is on their mind, I am often compelled to consider their perspective. Thank you for doing just that here! -As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a life? Dear Sister, If the incapacitated spouse is in need of being well cared for, they are still a spouse and their spouse is still married. God is never rigid and unfeeling!! The Lord Jesus was tempted in all pointas like as we are apart from sin and in that he himself suffered bneing tempted, He is able to succour (help) them that are tempted.But LIFE is never to be found in a spouse, in a happy marriage, in bearing children etc. If anyone enters a marriage relationship thinking that LIFE is found there, they are going to be sorely disillusioned! BUT, if they realize that LIFE is only found in Christ (I John 5:11,12), then regardless of their circumstances, good relationships or bad, smooth sailing or daily pain and aggravation...they can still experience a full, joyful and meaningful life by maintaining coomunion with and drawing their sustenance from their Lord! Your brother in Christ, Bruce _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
