|W|P|This is the best commentary and thoughts on the Schiavo case that I've heard so far, and I 100% agree with you.
Jon Fortt|W|P|Randy,Thanks for your response. I apologize if my "life worship" comments seemed to be focused on you. I'm not saying you're a "life worshipper" -- that was not my intent. I don't know enough about you personally to make such a statement. But I am saying it's something we Christians need to be very careful of, particularly in this situation.
When I talk about life worship, I'm talking about the danger of equating mortal life with eternal life. The difference between those two things is getting garbled in the political language these days. That's why as a Christian, I feel queasy when I hear terms such as "the sanctity of human life" or "a culture of life." Of mortal life? What does that mean? Why is that good?
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying about compassion. I believe the entire Schiavo/Schindler family needs our compassion right now.
I'm just not sure what the most compassionate course of action would have been in this case. Keeping her on the tube for 15 years and then disconnecting her? Keeping her connected indefinitely? Leaving custody with a husband who had started another family? Handing custody to her parents?
|W|P|I'm a new visitor to your site Jon, and I'm sure your busy. I would however apprecite your ear for a moment. I am a Christian, and have a public place of my own for thoughts that I post to now and again. I've got some questions and would appreciate some input.
I don't think this is the best place for such a conversation though, but I couldn't find a contact form or email address to direct this to.
I would apprecite an email, if you would be so kind. My email address is shawnw@dvigroup.net.
Thank you for your time.
|W|P|Seems I can't spell appreciate... oops David Tieche|W|P|First off, let me say that I love nibbling on pagan fertility symbols. They're fantastic.This story just reveals, I think, how people fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and think of it as a "demographic" or a "voter base" or a "market" to be exploited.
The crazy thing is, I can imagine Christian Bookstores selling these. I suppose the rationale would go something like this: if you're going to give out Easter Baskets, and you're going to eat something chocolate, might as well give your kids something that has actual significance, as opposed to little duckies.
Kind of like parents give their kids "Resurrection Baskets" instead of "Easter Baskets." Not sure how I feel about that. I mean, think how messy that could get. I wonder what other bad ideas Russell Stover execs turned down?
Chocolate Shrouds of Turin: made from premium white chocolate, with raspberry glazed icing.
Dark Chocolate Roman Nails: Nine-inches of melt-in your mouth goodness.
Popcorn Ball Tomb Boulders: Made from Tutti Frutti flavored popcorn, you won't need a legion of Romans to move these tasty treats off the shelves.
Judas Bag of Chocolate Coins: 30 pieces of betrayal never tasted so good.
Peeps: You know about Peep's Bunnies and Duckies, but now meet "Triple" the Marshmallow Rooster. He won't have time to crow three times, and he'll be gone by dawn.
Chocolate Hyssop Stalk: Don't offer this to anyone else, keep it for yourself and quench your own thirst for that perfect blend of award-winning chocolate and premium liquers.
I can see this as a skit.
|W|P|Actually, I work at a Russell Stover store, and I have to say that we got a few requests for these things. I don't really get the attraction of chewing on a torture/murder device to celebrate the life, death, and resurrection of a great person. I mean, I doubt there is any demand for little chocolate guns on MLK Day, nor do I think there should be.Personally, I am highly amused by all the little kiddies who are going to be chowing down on their sex symbols bright and early on Easter morn. (And, David, the little duckies are highly symbolic, as are the eggs and bunnies, they're just a symbol I think some Christians might be uncomfortable with giving to their children.) Thus far we've managed to avoid any other overtly religious candies, but I'm really hoping for a delicious chocolatey nativity scene by next Christmas.
|W|P|I used to work for Russell Stovers... they are horrible horrible people... The two brothers(Tom and Scott Ward) who own the company bicker and fight like children and the level of office politics is exceeded only by their sugar highs...Ever since I quit, running and screaming from that place (after a mere 9 months of employment) I will never put any of their candy in my mouth(Whitman's and Pangburns = Russell Stover, so none of them) ... in fact the knowlege I gained regarding ingredients and handling procedures and quality standards in the chocolatier business... I steer clear from all candies now... which I thought was going to be really hard given my love of chocolate... but, I kind of think of Chocolate now in the same way I think of hot dogs... ignorance is bliss... but I know too much.
|W|P|I am one of the almost three hundred employees russell stovers in Cookeville layed off right before the holidays. The owners of this company do not care about anyone but theirselves. Ever since greg carlson came on board everything went to pot. Taking our machinery and sending to other plants west of the Mississippi. The unfortunate employees in cookeville are just left out in the cold before Christmas. |W|P|On the other hand, Rachel: Do you see Jesus leaving things as they are, with no hope of any recovery until she dies of "natural causes"? That's after all, the other choice here.I think the real issue is: who gets to make this decision, given that she is brain-dead (and I'm aware that some are disputing that, but I don't give much weight to non-doctors' opinions on this)? Complicating things is the fact that Terri's "husband" is now married to (or at least living with) another woman, so some seem to think this tarnishes his legal standing. I don't know if that is really true. I suspect not, or the judges involved would not have made the choices they made. Do the parents of adult children have any legal standing in the decision? Evidently not, again from the judge's decisions.
So, sorry Rachel. You can't make this easy by trying to imagine what Jesus would do, since either choice is pretty horrible.
See further comments on my blog at http://homepage.mac.com/kimgh/Kim's%20Musings/B731481435/C101043411/E509061587/index.html
David Tieche|W|P|I see your point, but on the other hand, can you see Christ hooking up Terri to three machines which enable her to live, or agreeing to that? For a companion article to this blog which deals with the same ideas (hey great minds think alike), go to this site:
http://hangerclips.blogspot.com/2005/03/gain-world-forfeit-your-soul.html
Jon Fortt|W|P|In fairness, this depends on one's definition of life support. Terri Schiavo shows no ability to respond to her natural environment. So she can't really make eye contact. She can move her eyes, but she cannot focus on an object and follow it through space.The portion of her brain that controls personality and voluntary function is off (some would say 'dead'), and has been for years.
Doctors say people in this state are not conscious of hunger, because they are not conscious in the way that we understand consciousness.
Imagine an empty car with the accelerator jammed and no one steering.
Russell|W|P|Okay first I really like you cross readers, such a wide verity of fair opinions. You know as I have heard on the news and I am witnessing even on this forum, Christians are pretty much split down the middle on this one. I do not know how it is becoming such a right verses left thing. But that’s baloney, it’s not. The Senate vote and almost every poll that I have heard shows this is almost even on all sides. Yes, of course there are some “Nut Jobs” almost violently protesting the feeding tube being removed. But, a lot of them are some of the same guys or at least same types of people that used to protest abortion clinics, now those are some people that really make me sad to be associated with as a Christian. I guess to them though this is another case of somebody else choosing to take the life of another person. Kind of like taking the life of an unborn child. Now I know you pro-choicers hate being confronted by that fact. For the record, I do not include Terri’s family and anyone that personally knew her in that category.
I suspect for some people, even Christians it’s just easier to be anti whatever the “Christian Right” is on almost any issue. Now I do not mean fair thinking, level headed Christians who are a little conservative in their viewpoints on things. I meant those messed up, do whatever the Republican Party says, use the Bible as an excuse for hate, and leave no room for common sense and independent thought Christians.
I can see the argument that in the earliest part of conception it is very hard to associate a fetus with a human. Now for Terri it’s not hard to see she is alive. Yes almost with complete certainty she is in what they say is a Vegetative State. Nevertheless, this is still life. It is a shame that she did not have a Living Will, which would have solved this. I have spoken with my fiancée because of this and now know her wishes on the topic but the lesson is to have a written living will.
What are we suppose to do? Her husband says she wants death and her family says she wants life. If it were a small decision like funeral arrangements, it would be easy for me to side with the husband. But in the sake life vs. death even when the life quality of life is so marginal if any like this. How can we let any chance of life falsely being taken away if there is any doubt on the wishes of Terri? It just seems like nonsense to me.
Why not let her live. Arrange for her husband to release all legal and financial responsibilities. So the family can facilitate what ever needs may arise. But it is definitely not for me to decide.
By the way, I never once read any verses that showed Jesus said it was wrong to use medical science for health issues. That is a weird conclusion to draw out of this. It sounds good, but the truth is hard to see for me.
Brad|W|P|Lazarus was brain dead and he was body dead! Jesus came, and He was deliberately late, so that the power and glory of God would be shown. I always have to laugh at those WWJD bracelets. Jesus would come on the scene, speak to Terri to raise up and be whole and she would obey Him! This would also happen if the Apostles or Paul came on the scene. Jesus wouldn’t even have to touch her, He could just speak from afar off as He did with the Roman’s Soldier servant! Through all of this my prayer is that God will reveal Himself to us again with such compassion and love. Jesus taught us that if we believe than God would use us to do the works that He did and even greater works! (John 14:12) Is this pie in the sky thinking? You bet! Our God had it written that faith for us is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen, and I don’t know about you guys, but I sure don’t see what I read about in the Bible. Be blessed and God’s will be done.
PS. I have heard so much condemnation from Christians towards Terri’s husband. I ask you to pray for him, whether you agree or disagree with him, the guy has to be going through it!
|W|P|I cannot believe that I am still hearing Christians wanting to starve a woman to death. Might I remind my Christian brothers that our Lord said " When you did it for the "least" of these, you did it for Me." If feeding is to much to do for someone, can I decide not give insulin to my wife if she is unconscious? My wife has schizophrenia, should I ask you all to decide if her "quality of life " is at an acceptable level for you to allow her to live? Disabled people have wonderful lives, they also have bad ones, same as you all. Some of you go through your entire life unhappy, should we starve you to death? Do you think that is crazy? I guess disability may very well be in the eye of the beholder. Jon Fortt|W|P|I think it's important to note that you are presuming both Terri Schiavo's desire to continue in this persistent vegetative state, and her mental ability to make that decision. The preponderance of evidence thus far has shown that she is not aware, and has thus lost personality. I think it trivializes the facts in this case to suggest it's simply a question of Terri Schiavo's happiness. It's a question of her very conscious existence. A majority of doctors involved have basically said she no longer consciously exists. |W|P|My wife "lost her personality" when she became schizophrenic. She has laid her head on my lap and tried to exhale her last breath but her body forces her to breath again. That is a sample of our bad days. Must I now see if public opinion says her "quality" or "personage" or lack of remembering what conscious is will allow her to continue to live? When our grandchildren are here or if we go out for icecream her day is wonderful.I am very concerned to hear life being defined as anything other than life. Questioning whether or not personage is a prerequisite for life is terrifying. If you can add your personal requirements for life to be life, what is to stop anyone else from adding theirs? I know it is hard to look at the disabled without prejudice. Anyone who does not live with or among them thinks " My God, I would not want to live like that." I confess I think the same way at times. I lived among people with no sewage, no t-paper, no shower or bath, and they ate their dogs. But that was my prejudice. I know this is hard but please, think of the mother of the child with down syndrome. Do I or you have the right to say that the child has no personage and we would not want to live like that so quit feeding them because they cannot feed themselves? Jon Fortt|W|P|I think perhaps it's important to distinguish two portions of the brain: the brain stem and the cerebral cortex.The brain stem controls one's reflexes, and it's often called "the primitive brain." Blinking, swallowing, laughing when you're tickled, kicking your leg up when someone hits that spot on your knee -- all those things are controlled in the brain stem. Click here for more information.
As the above article notes, the longer someone is in a vegetative state, the less the chances of recovery. It mentions that people in such a state longer than 6 months face an extremely reduced chance of recovery. Terri Schiavo has been in this state for 15 years.
So, again I wonder why so many are engaging in life worship. Is it that you're afraid that Terri didn't accept Christ before her thinking brain turned off, and therefore you wish for her to regain consciousness so that she can? Or are you simply opposed to ever disconnecting someone from life support?
Is it that you're mistaking brain stem activity for cerebral cortex activity? What is it?
Russell|W|P|Their might be a difference between worshiping life and defending it. Their may be a misunderstanding of the main question here. What does/did Terri want? It is really not up to me or anybody to decide what levels of life are worth saving. I guess I would agree with letting her die if I was sure that dying is what Terri wanted. Maybe she wanted to stay alive no matter what. There is not enough evidence to say confidently that she would want to die under these circumstances.
Jon Fortt|W|P|Randy,Actually I call it "life support" because that's what the judge called it in his order here. I try to base my characterizations on actual facts, not emotional bait.
As for whether mortal life is itself sacred, here is a definition:
sa·cred Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.
Life itself is important in that it gives us an opportunity to worship God. It has plenty of potential value, based on our ability to make decisions. (That's part of what amazes me about this Schiavo ruckus; so many of the people who want her to "live" are death penalty supporters.) Eternal life is sacred; mortal life is a beautiful formality. Consider the overwhelming possibility that insomuch as free will and potential consciousness comprise life, Terri Schiavo has already passed beyond mortal life.
This does not mean that every person who loses consciousness is as good as dead. It is possible for people to go into comas and come out of them. It is possible for people to lose their faculties to the point where they are no longer themselves, and can no longer think or communicate. When that happens, and people show no signs of consciousness, we obey their documented wishes about how to deliver medical treatment. When their wishes are not known, we often turn to their legal guardians. In this case, that's Terri Schiavo's husband by law.
Anyway. On the sacred nature of eternal life, 2 Corinthians 5:4-5:
For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Also, I do not believe that Jesus died for mortal life as you refer to it. Man's mortal life itself was not in danger. Jesus died for our eternal lives, and you have yet to explain how Terri Schiavo's eternity is at stake in this situation. If you're trying to explain that, please go ahead.
No one is questioning whether God can work through suffering. But I'm not sure we're talking about suffering here. Remember: A majority of doctors say Terri Schiavo is not conscious. She has not been conscious for 15 years, and quite possibly never will be. No consciousness = No suffering.
So if you're suggesting I'm denying the power of the cross and the empty tomb, you are making a rash and foolish statement. You should be very slow to level such an accusation against any Christian. Surely this topic is too nuanced for you to jump to any such conclusions.
Finally, it's interesting that you quote 1 Corinthians 6:20. It, and the verse before it state:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with a situation where a woman's brain has been destroyed, leaving her unable to think or function beyond reflex. It is debatable whether an unconscious person is capable of honoring God with her body.
It seems you are arguing that as long as a person's brain stem is functioning, you're certain that the person's soul continues to dwell in the body – even if that person's conscious life is over. I'm not so sure about that.
I won't argue it either way. I'm content to question why the pro-feeding-tube people are so sure of themselves, and so set on equating mortal life with eternal life.
|W|P|Your link didn't work though I found the video here. Hilarious! I just now came across your blog and find myself somewhat at a loss at what to say. You've got some really good things to say and I would be sad that I hadn't come upon your blog if it weren't for the cyber wonder that are archives :D |W|P|26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him. Remember my new Christian friend, that these words were written by John to the church. He was by no means telling them to ignore him anymore than he was telling them to ignore everyone else. Your friend brought you to the Lord, I pray he is with you now. I share in your excitement and pray you are but one of many to come. I praise God for your friend and for you. Welcome, and bring all of your friends. Tell them they are welcome to.
|W|P|Jon-He has an official website now...
http://www.HeadToChrist.com
// js
David Tieche|W|P|Jon (and others)You did a nice job addresssing the whole hypocrisy thing, but there's another reason why I tend to drift to criticizing the Religious Right more than I do, say, other leftist institutions or spokesmen.
For example, Bill Maher, the comedian, satirist and former host of "Politically Incorrect" recently said this quote:
We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it’s something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can’t be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head.Now, I disagree fundamentally with that statement. I also tend to think it's rather bigoted, and way too far-reaching in its implications. But I'm not threatened by it, and I don't think God is either. I think his comment opens up the door for some interesting conversations. What it says to me is that Maher hasn't really seen Christ-followers, or at the very least hasn't interacted with authentic, honest, sincere and good Christians who are doing good things.
So Maher is wrong.
Now, juxtapose that against the Religious Right. The reason I get so livid at the Religious Right is because they purport to represent God. And when you claim to represent God, you better get it right. So when you say things like, "Racism is a political issue, not a spiritual one" or when you reduce all moral issues to two: abortion and gay marriage, you're not just wrong, you're misrepresenting God.
As Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners said in a speech I atteneded at Grace Cathedral church in San Francisco, "I have a hard time believing that if Jesus came back, the first things he would do would be a capital gains tax cut and the occupation of Iraq."
So do I.
The Secon Commandment says to not take God's name in vain. I think that means, in part, not putting God's stamp on things that God wouldn't say. Whe you claim to speak for God, you better not ignore vast amounts of Scripture, like Micah and Amos and Isaiah. You better not ignore data. If you do, you're twisting people's views of God. I think that's why Jesus reserved his harshest word for the Pharisees.
Being wrong is one thing.
Being wrong and saying that God agrees with you is quite another.
|W|P|Dave, I absolutely agree...I wouldn't want ot be "that guy" that speaks for God without the power of the HS to back him up...that's what the HS is here for, right? Communicator...Acts 4:31 says "...and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness"