Originally posted by zilch:
Is this a fundie gotcha?

No.

And because you honestly believe it was morally acceptable we must agree to disagree because this conversation serves no further purpose than to create enmity between us.  You will not convince me otherwise and vice versa.  End of thread.

we must agree to disagree

okie dokie.

because this conversation serves no further purpose than to create enmity between us.

I see no need for enmity.

theo,

Why do you think it would be better if the hospital was forced to close?  In either case the coma patients end up dead.  Why does the hospital closing make it morally acceptable?

If the hospital was forced to close the repercussions of its closing would not be on the doctors who had already swore to the Hippocratic Oath.  The doctors violate the oath they are supposed to uphold when they kill the patients.  By killing the patients they also eliminate any possiblity of the smallest percent of chance that everything could turn out to be alright.  They eliminate the possibility of a “miracle” by taking things into their own hands.

I see no need for enmity either.

Theo,

How would you address a counter argument that though the doctors eliminate the possibility of “miraculous” healing they keep the possibility of helping others open.  Also, the patients would have died anyway (as stipulated by your case) so there is no real possibility of miraculous healing and as such to do nothing and let the hospital be shut down closes the possibility of helping others.

How can MEN eliminate the possiblilty of a Miracle?  If “GOD” is going to perform a miracle and mere men can prevent it, doesn’t that make men Gods unto themselves?

The Oath of hipocrates is a nice bit of History, However i think I might like my doctors to hold themselves to a modified standard.  Perhaps something like “do the least Harm”
  Wasn’t this thread about The founders, God and the state.
  I know how you feel DOF, it’s tough to read, post and work all in the same day.

Rick, I am curious to what you believe the Supreme Court’s purpose is in our government.
To my knowledge they are sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Now, would you please point out any outstanding rulings that defy their oath?

Judges are appointed, for life or retirement, to the Supreme Court so as to allow themselves the ability to make judgments on contitutionalities without fear of being politically influenced.  It is through the Judiciary branch that the minority can be somewhat protected from a tyrannical majority.  This system isn’t perfect especially since the introductions of political parties (damn federalists and democratic-republicans). 

Since you are prone to exaggerated claims, please allow me this slippery slope fallacy as an analogy: What will you do if your beloved far right administration decides we should all live as Quakers (though there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle).  Yes, this situation will (hopefully) never happen, but given the diversity of Christian interpretations, it won’t be long before some of these Christians get their feathers ruffled. 

Ok, now on to Socialist Swine.  If I remember correctly, in the analogy the patients in question are on life-support.  If there were going to be a miracle, wouldn’t it be the patients surviving without life-support, which has happened in rare cases.  I say pull the plug, let God decide who will live, and help those you can.

A more relative analogy would be, as a Christian (pretend for a moment if necessary) do you spend your time witnessing to a nonbeliever while watching a fellow Christian slips further and further away?

James,

I agree with you.  I would think that the rational choice would be to pull the plug if faced with such a dilemma.  If the coma patients are going to die either way.  I would pull the plug so that I could transfer resources to other patients whom might benefit from them.

Originally posted by Socialist Swine:
Also, the patients would have died anyway (as stipulated by your case) so there is no real possibility of miraculous healing and as such to do nothing and let the hospital be shut down closes the possibility of helping others.

Sorry I should have presented my hypothetical case better.  The view I provided it from was of a participant in the case and so it seems to eliminate the possibility of miracle.  I should have given it from a “God” perspective where miracle is still possible though it may be highly improbable whether or not we consider its possibility in reality.  Sorry if that changes the discussion.  My fault.

Originally posted by Lordklegg:
How can MEN eliminate the possiblilty of a Miracle?

They can’t.  They can however significantly reduce the chance of one happening.  God wills a miracle.  Therefore usually in order for a miracle to happen God’s will must be done.  God’s will almost always isn’t for people to die at the hand of people (in this case anyways).  To unplug the hypothetical victims in this case is to believe that God will not save them and that you are doing the best for the majority even though the majority may not be in imminent danger.  To let someone else unplug them means everything is out of your hands and anything that will happen will be very unexpected and likely a “miracle.”

God most often works miracles when people realize it is out of there hands and only His will will be done.  To say that God can still do a miracle when you stick a gun to your head and pull the trigger is certainly true, but it is highly unlikely that He will intervene and take our free will from us at this instant.  God does not like to be tested, but he prefers more often that he come through to show his power while we are being tested.

Originally posted by James:
A more relative analogy would be, as a Christian (pretend for a moment if necessary) do you spend your time witnessing to a nonbeliever while watching a fellow Christian slips further and further away?

The nonbeliever is already on the way to hell, thus “dead.”  The Christian falling away is already going to Heaven, but is just slipping.  I’m assuming that the Christian will not slip so far as to reject the basics that make him a Christian.  I believe in once saved always saved, but if the basics are not believed in anymore, than that person probably didn’t really believe in them to begin with.  (note: this is my personal interpretation of scripture)  If the Christian slips so far as to lose the basics then he was not Christian to begin with and also “dead.”  Assuming this is not the case with the Christian my choice would be to “raise the dead” before “healing the sick.”

Theocrat - What is this miracle you speak of that will save this hapless hospital?

Hmm… I believe I made a prediction that after the election we would see an increase in posting from the fundies.

Originally posted by deadscot:
What is this miracle you speak of that will save this hapless hospital?

Does it matter what the miracle is specifically as long as the hospital is saved?

Originally posted by deadscot:
Hmm… I believe I made a prediction that after the election we would see an increase in posting from the fundies.

Ironically I found this site while trying to find a quote that ended up not being on this site.  I chose to stay because glancing through the topics I noticed intriguing discussion and a general open mindedness to discussion supported by evidence.  Not something that seems to happen much anymore.

Theo said:
I believe in once saved always saved, but if the basics are not believed in anymore, than that person probably didn’t really believe in them to begin with.

I realize this is a tangent of a tangent, but this logic has always bothered me.  It goes: if they are saved then they cannot ever become unsaved, but if they become unsaved then they were never really saved to begin with.  It’s circular.  The problem is that the terms “saved” and “unsaved” or so subjective as to lose all valid meaning.

Actually, that alone wouldn’t be a problem except that this logic is then used to say (for example) “That person is saved, and cannot be unsaved, therefore I don’t really need to worry about them” while at the same time saying “That person has fallen away and must therefore have never been saved to begin with, so it’s not my fault and my theology can remain intact.”

From a Christian viewpoint, I don’t think “saved” and “unsaved” should be words that we bother with (not in this sense, at least).  The best we can do is point people to Jesus, wherever they are (saved, fallen, slipping, unsaved, whatever).

What this means in a practical sense is that, in answer to James’ dilemma, you witness to both.  In reality there’s no reason you can’t.  But for the sake of the dilemma, let’s assume that they’re both going to die immediately after you witness to one of them.  In that case, I’d say just pray, pick one, and trust God to sort it out (though I guess, barring any new information, I’d probably pick the unbeliever).  But ultimately it doesn’t matter who I pick because it’s not my job to save the world.

Theocrat wrote: Does it matter what the miracle is specifically as long as the hospital is saved?

Yes, because I want to see what type of miracle you can contrive that makes it all better.  If I didn’t think it mattered I wouldn’t have asked.

I chose to stay because glancing through the topics I noticed intriguing discussion and a general open mindedness to discussion supported by evidence.  Not something that seems to happen much anymore.

Are you referring to Ellie?

Adam,

Ockham has a good little book about the topic you brought (it’s only like 80 pages or so).  It’s titled Predestination, God’s Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents.  It’s a good book.  Duns Scotus also writes about that issue as well but I can’t remember any specific references at the moment….

Thanks for the book tip, SS.  I’ll keep an eye out for it (maybe I’ll luck out and get a gift certificate for Christmas).  It sounds interesting.

Originally posted by Adam Heine:
Actually, that alone wouldn’t be a problem except that this logic is then used to say (for example) “That person is saved, and cannot be unsaved, therefore I don’t really need to worry about them� while at the same time saying “That person has fallen away and must therefore have never been saved to begin with, so it’s not my fault and my theology can remain intact.�

This is a tangent of a tangent, so hopefully this will be a satisfactory answer to end the tangent.  Being human I can not know whether or not someone is saved.  I can only assume based on their actions and words.  From God’s perspective their is no circular reasoning because he would already know whether or not they were saved when they went through the motions.

Originally posted by Adam Heine:
What this means in a practical sense is that, in answer to James’ dilemma, you witness to both.  In reality there’s no reason you can’t.  But for the sake of the dilemma, let’s assume that they’re both going to die immediately after you witness to one of them.  In that case, I’d say just pray, pick one, and trust God to sort it out (though I guess, barring any new information, I’d probably pick the unbeliever).  But ultimately it doesn’t matter who I pick because it’s not my job to save the world.

Agreed.

The type of miracle that happened was all the people came out of their comas before the power was shut off and didn’t need the machines to keep them alive.  IF that doesn’t work for your miracle, deadscot, then whatever you want to make up that makes everyone in the story happy is fine by me.

Originally posted by deadscot:
Are you referring to Ellie?

No.  For example in this thread, I have seen it proven that the FFs were not Christian because they rarely to never mention Jesus Christ specifically and were more likely deist.  This thread is enlightening because I haven’t heard any of those quotes that suggest the FFs may not have cared much for religion at all.

On a side note, my biggest pet peeve is stereotypes.  If you intend to stereotype someone make sure you have a commonly accepted definition of a stereotype and conclusive evidence to back up why someone fits that stereotype.  I know I have not posted enough yet to be labeled a “fundie.”  Though I guess depending on your definition of fundie maybe I am.  It is my impression though that fundie is synonymous with Conservative Christian or Religious Right, neither of which, I assure you, I belong to.

Theocrat, I can see from your posts that you don’t fall under the “fundie” tag, as there is a difference in the tone of the posts that perhaps you may notice yourself.
  I am curious though where you fall, have you tried “your political compass”  My wife and I both fall close to Les about -5 -5, although our renter, who likes to read here, is closer to John Kerry 3, 3.

It is my impression though that fundie is synonymous with Conservative Christian or Religious Right
- Theocrat

The word, “Fundamentalism,” like “Liberal,” “Conservative,” and many others, is badly distorted by the media.  Christians invented the term “Fundamentalism” back in 1910 or so as the “Modernist” movement began to worry those who felt it undermined the heart of their faith. 

In the beginning it was about the Bible being literally true and inerrant.  All that political stuff got stuck on it in the ‘80’s and now fundamentalism seems to have been devoured by political agendas.  And the modernist movement just sort of diffused into “mainstream” Christianity and got lost.  No one’s heard of it for years.

‘Course it matters more what the words mean now, than a century ago. 

In other news, blogs wouldn’t be half as interesting if it weren’t for the differing opinions.  You have to have a difference of charge to light up a bulb.

As for who’s saved, etc., let’s ask all those angels dancing on the head of that pin over there…  Maybe they’ll know.

Theocrat, I can see from your posts that you don’t fall under the “fundie� tag, as there is a difference in the tone of the posts that perhaps you may notice yourself.

Actually, my recollection is that he’s a self-confessed fundamentalist as opposed to a “fundie”.

I retested myself on the political compass when I joined this site because the first time I took the test I was definitely of the Religious Right.  However, I’ve had quite the change of mind of where politics fits into my faith as I’ve studied the Bible closer and compared it to the little I know about other government structures and their purposes.  I used to fall 2,1 and now I fall -4,-1.  I’ve thought about making an entry to somewhat describe the change of thought, but it would likely be too theological for the tastes of the particiapants on this site and stating the secular reasons only would not do it justice either.

Really, if we’re going by the Hippocratic Oath, then we need to think about amounts of hurt caused…perhaps you wouldn’t directly hurt the people on life support by keeping them on, but you’d be indirectly responsible when the electricity was cut off for their hurt and then for all the hurting that resulted from the hospital closing.  So really, you’d be more in line with the oath if you took them off support.

On the contrary, I think it would be quite interesting, Theocrat.  My issues are with people who present a lot of opinions without evidence, and generally lack logic.  I think it’s interesting to talk to someone who thinks things out, no matter whether their opinions differ from mine or not.

theo,

I too would actually enjoy reading about why your political leanings changed as well.  It seems that “Christian” and “family” values are the fuel towards the shift to the right in US (and to some lesser extent western Canadian) politics.  I would be interested in how Biblical study has led you to adopt more leftist views.

Theocrat wrote:The type of miracle that happened was all the people came out of their comas before the power was shut off and didn’t need the machines to keep them alive.

Okay.  What I was trying to get at was that by taking your logic one step further, they shouldn’t have gone to see a doctor in the first place and given god every opportunity to perform a miracle.

If there were a god, and if god gave man free will and if there were an afterlife…that’s a lot of if’s.  Wouldn’t the free will of man and his knowledge and discernment take precedence?  I’m sure god wouldn’t hold anyone in a coma responsible for not having been ‘saved’ if a doctor had to take them off life support, would she?

This thread is enlightening because I haven’t heard any of those quotes that suggest the FFs may not have cared much for religion at all.

Have you not read through this monstrosity of a thread?!?