Posted on 09/24/2007 3:11:29 PM PDT by presidio9
You must be one of them there fundamentalist types, who thinks the Earth is flat, and it was created in a day.
Oh, c'mon. I don't think the Earth was created in a day. ;O)
“I wouldn’t’t second-guess your grandmother’s decision, since she would know how distressful the procedure would have been. And a person’s age is not irrelevant.”
A persons AGE is RELEVANT! There is no “second guessing” going on here. She put her life in HIS HANDS - just as she did with a emphatic “NO” on a feeding tube. She wasn’t fighting HIM. She didn’t want “heroic efforts” done to keep her on this earth - she left it up to HIM - as we all should ... .
At 100 years old, you don’t have a heart transplant. I doubt that you could find a decent doctor to perform that surgery - because they KNOW, at her AGE, she will die on the operating table. At 100 years old, your body is winding DOWN. You don’t easily heal. Surgery is traumatic to any body at any age and WHY at AGE 100 they typically DO NOT perform this kind of surgery.
You don’t AMPUTATE a LEG from someone who is AGE 100 and has circulation issues. The one foot was BLACK from a sore that would NOT heal. It had nothing to do with unseemliness etc .. it simply wasn’t healing - no matter what cream you put on it. The circulation was gone - no matter how many times you creamed and massaged her foot - the sore was not healing and the black area was getting larger.
If a doctor was sadistic enough to remove the limb, the leg, without our consent or hers - the STUMP would NOT heal! So you’d wind up taking more and more of her UNHEALING body - to “keep her alive” - you don’t put a 100 year old woman through this. The stump left would NOT heal so that would turn black. There is NO WAY in the world that would DISMEMBER her at 100 years old. That’s sadistic and pointless. NO decent person does THAT.
We will NEVER agree on putting a loved Grandmother at AGE 100 through this sadistic, pointless adventure. There is no dignity in that. The fact is God stepped in and let her tired heart stop and join Him in heaven.
We’re simply not a sadistic family - selfish or getting off on seeing her suffer through losing limbs, if you could find a doctor to do that or dying on the operating table ... and then displaying perverted self righteousness.
At AGE 100, you’re grateful that you were allowed to enjoy them this long on earth. You savor the memories and look forward to a reunion in healthy bodies and minds in heaven. You respect the persons wishes and give them the dignity they want on earth. At AGE 100, she served HIM well and in HIS way He let her recuperate from double lung pneumonia, without the stupid feeding tube - she had a couple months more and then HE gently took her home. She had no pain. She had no diseases other than what I mentioned. Her breathing pattern changed and finally her heart slowed down and gently stopped. It’s not suicide. It’s not murder. It’s not euthanasia. It’s simply letting God take her and NOT fighting HIM to keep her on earth - when one by one more body parts will be failing because of her AGE - yes, AGE is relevant - and especially in HER situation! She did NOT fear death - she had no reason to fear death. She had a life long relationship with Christ and saw HIM working in her life on earth.
It’s really a shame that you can’t acknowledge the OBVIOUS. People are not going to find eternal life on earth. From this experience most of the family has a living will. None of us, that are older, want heroic efforts done to keep us here on this earth.
I don’t know if this will happen, but this Grandmother, last of the Grandparents, promised that if she could from heaven, she’d meet each one of us if we die before He comes again. That’s a pact within our family. I don’t know if that will be possible, but if it is I know of many family members that will be there to greet us when God determines we should go home if it’s before the Rapture.
I have nothing more to say - only that perhaps you will come to your senses and let GOD call the shots in your life - instead fallible mortals and their silly philosophy that FIGHTS God’s will when death is knocking at the door - and in this case AGE and the body winding down was HIS will and sign that He wanted her home!
Have some faith in HIM! HE knows best!
I said, all along, a person’s age is not irrelevant. I have been agreeing with you, all along. You appear to think I have been disputing what you say.
No, it's not, it's organizationally based. The Church preceeds the existence of the Bible. Church decisions are not determined by the Bible but by the Pope. Jesus metaphorically torched the OT scriptures so badly the people who were (at the time) scripture-based crucified him for it.
When Joel Olsteen (a great guy, btw, I try to catch his program) tells his parishners at the end of his service to go find a good Bible-based church, he's not talking about us.
By your reasoning, Judiasm is also Bible-based (Old Testament).
I'm a Catholic and very proud of the institution. Catholics are certainly Christians. But we aren't Bible-based. We have the Bible, we use it, we read from it during Mass, and we find guidance in it. But the foundation (that's what we take the word 'basis' to mean) is the living Church itself: everyone from the Pope to the Cardinals and Bishops to the priests to the orders of nuns to the laity.
I'm not going to say that other religions aren't Christian. I'm not going to argue with an LDSer over whether they are Christian or not either.
Here's a better way to put it: the Bible is Catholic-Church based, because it was written by the Church, edited by the Church, and interpreted and taught correctly by the Church. Happy pappy?
So much for the Pope being infallible. ;O)
Sounds like a good basis for the Homily, actually. Jesus says the same thing to each of us when we consider making the wrong choice or taking the easier path that Satan has layed out for us.
Oh, and your comment about infallibility is pretty juvinile and clearly uninformed. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the example of JP2 slipping on a rock and busting his hip as evidence as well, given your lack of understanding.
I’m aware of that. I didn’t know much about Terri Schiavo’s case before reading here and being informed from someone here (sorry can’t recall whom) - I followed it through the news media and barely followed it then. That was my point which wasn’t clear. The Pope was dying. Terri wasn’t dying. I initially thought she was until I learned about her situation here last spring.
Take your fight to someone else. We actually agree on most stuff in this thread but your attitude with me sucks. IMO. I’m looking for discussion not these kind of comments. My mistake.
As this new faith community grew, there needed to be some sort of central place from which the outreach came, and a form was needed for the worship so that the Apostles and their designated followers could reach both the Jews and Gentiles and help them understand Jesus's Words and teachings. This organization was created around Peter, who had been chosen by Jesus to be the one to take up that work after He was gone. So the Church is BOTH Bible and organzationally based. We have the richness of the Word of God, but also the central organization around the Seat of Peter to continue to spread that Word and do God's work in the world.
...The Church preceeds the existence of the Bible. Church decisions are not determined by the Bible but by the Pope. Jesus metaphorically torched the OT scriptures so badly the people who were (at the time) scripture-based crucified him for it....
I'm a Catholic and very proud of the institution. Catholics are certainly Christians. But we aren't Bible-based. We have the Bible, we use it, we read from it during Mass, and we find guidance in it. But the foundation (that's what we take the word 'basis' to mean) is the living Church itself: everyone from the Pope to the Cardinals and Bishops to the priests to the orders of nuns to the laity....
....Here's a better way to put it: the Bible is Catholic-Church based, because it was written by the Church, edited by the Church, and interpreted and taught correctly by the Church.
Even though I strongly disagree with them, I find your posts refreshing. IMO you've better and more honestly articulated the historic Catholic view of the Bible (as I understand it, anyway) than anyone else that I've talked with, in my seven years on FR. I greatly appreciate your pinging me to your posts!
It wasn't my comment. I just happened to agree with it.
The first pronunciation from the mouth of Peter at Cessarea after being proclaimed the "Rock" was erroneous doctrine. Perhaps God meant it as an example?
The first pronunciation from the mouth of Peter at Cessarea after being proclaimed the "Rock" was erroneous doctrine. Perhaps God meant it as an example?
Except it wasn't ex cathadra. It was a word of concern for a friend that came from fear rather than confidence in Jesus' plan. And interaction between you and me demonstrates perfectly demonstrates why the Bible isn't a good basis for a religion. Witness me having to interpret it in an educated way to you because in your literalism you failed to understand it on your own. This is the necessity of both a church and The Church.
I think my Catholic friends are sometimes to eager to try to be cool with their prot friends so will go out on a limb and try to say they are 'Bible' based, too. Some even talk about being 'saved' so join in the camraderie. I understand the peer pressure, I'm from SC. But you don't have to be maleable about what your faith really is.
Even if they personally think you are going to spend an eternity in hellfire, Protestants are still going to treat you very nicely and work hard with you on common causes and clothe you when you're naked, etc. It's not necessary to try and dress the Church of Rome up into something it's not.
Peace bro.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.