Replies

The question would be:

Should they be fed if they cannot eat?

*Should they be starved to death* is loaded with accusations. That is not what I am discussing.

However, consider the verse:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

This says that if a man would not work, then neither should he eat. I *could* take this out of context and say: Don't feed anyone who cannot work. But that would be misinterpretation, wouldn't it? It says that if one wills not to work.

I don't agree with starving people to death. But I do believe that when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated, and all that is left is the shell of the body and non-human yet physical responses, then the person as it were, their soul, has for all intents and purposes left the body. Keeping the body alive is worshipping the body, not the Creator. That's they way I view it.

However, consider the verse: 2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. This says that if a man would not work, then neither should he eat. I *could* take this out of context and say: Don't feed anyone who cannot work. But that would be misinterpretation, wouldn't it? It says that if one wills not to work.

This is about as repugnant as it comes. Another scripture comes to mind : "the devil can quote scripture for his purposes" - I think, folks, we are either dealing here with a Hemlock personality or a psycho with a God complex - maybe both?

I suspicion, were we to find ourselves face to face with such a personality - we would feel a very cold chill in the room

I don't agree with starving people to death. But I do believe that when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated, and all that is left is the shell of the body and non-human yet physical responses, then the person as it were, their soul, has for all intents and purposes left the body. Keeping the body alive is worshipping the body, not the Creator. That's they way I view it.

=======

Interesting that you define it as "when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated." Oak Hay... let's just try a what if.

What if you were out deer hunting, then you tripped on the underbrush, fell to your knees, lost control of your shotgun and blew away your entire lower jaw??? But lucky for you, one of your hunting companions just happened to be a doctor who saved you from bleeding to death, then hauled your jawless body to the hospital... and Shazammmmm! you survived the entire ordeal.

But now you are a "useless non-eater" because you can no longer "chew" your food. Good thing they were able to patch your throat... so you can still "swallow"... very very difficult... but you can still swallow... otherwise you would be a "useless non-swallower" too, eh?

Can they "regenerate" your lower jaw so you can "chew" again??? Not likely. Good grief... looks like Judge Greer and company will be forced to issue an order that "thinkingman129 shall henceforth be starved and dehydrated to death" !!! Period, end of argument !!!

P.S. Maybe you can successfully avoid Judge Greer's judicial oligarchy by simply changing your screen name to "dreamingman129" !!! ;-))

But I do believe that when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated, and all that is left is the shell of the body and non-human yet physical responses, then the person as it were, their soul, has for all intents and purposes left the body

You have a theological cite for this belief?

I am a doctor,and I have worked with hospice and patients at the end of life. Terri could swallow. The judge ordered "no hydration and nutrition by natural means"(not "no medical treatment"). That action is deliberate murder. There can be no intention and no result in prohibiting "natural means" but to cause death.

Here's the court order in question:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf