Log in

No account? Create an account

"I'm not dead yet!"

Jokingly, I've mentioned my desire to be a completely useless organ donor—when I'm gone and the doctors take a look under the hood, I want them to find that everything has been completely used up. Because really, who wants to be in perfect health except for being dead? Seems like a waste.

Joking aside, however, this article has awakened other reservations about organ donation. "Multifaceted" is an understatement on the bioethics of life and death, in terms of both complexity and emotional weight. That said, I'm already in disagreement with current law on abortion, which in large part is allowable based on a too-narrow definition of life. Could being an organ donor put me next in line for death by redefinition? Something worth watching…


These two statements are the most disturbing to me.

"We try to think of organisms as engaging in a work of self-preservation. To be living is to be engaged in that work. To die is to cease to be engaged," said Meilaender.

I know people who have jobs and families that fit into this category.

"But suppose we have a body like that. I wouldn't bury it. It's lost some human capcities, but it's not ceased to be a living being."


I think our current American culture causes us to forget what atrocities have been performed because of freaky philosophical ideas.

What's so bad about death, anyway?

Edited at 2009-02-13 10:08 pm (UTC)
Off topic: Are you in line with a more Reformed theology?
More or less, yes…
Jeff and I are struggling with whether or not we can stay at Grace since it's now openly teaching Calvinist view from the pulpit (it never has before). Do you have an opinion about whether or not this should be something that makes or breaks a church membership? In either direction, really.
This is totally opinion (thank goodness that's all you asked for!): my criteria for leaving would probably be linked to my criteria for joining. So if there was a doctrine that was a dealbreaker for me, I'd only join a church that followed (or prohibited) whatever was at issue in its statement of faith. In all the rest, liberty, because I'd be putting myself under the authority of that church.

Different people give varying weights to various doctrinal viewpoints, so I don't believe there's a single right way to approach it. There are lots of doctrinal points that aren't dealbreakers for me at all (Calvinism, for example, wouldn't necessarily make my personal list), which makes it easy for me to be sure those that are on that level are in agreement with a church's statement of faith prior to membership. That might make my perspective not much help here, though.
It's our kids that cause us to think more about it. I think (actually, I know) that it wouldn't matter a hill of beans if it were just Jeff and me. I'm old enough and wise enough to discern, study and toss out what I'm not sensing is from God. But if they're going to teach it in the classes or if Parker is going to hear it from the pulpit often (and he takes notes), then we have to figure out how to address it. I know you probably think that we think about this stuff too much!
Oh, no! But I'm afraid I'm not someone who tends to take issue with much of Calvinism (rightly understood)—we teach it here, on purpose! :) But I know you're not asking about the merits or shortcomings of Calvinism (or anything else), but rather, how to navigate differences under authority of the church. So that's how I tried to tackle the question.
I'm sure you're THRILLED that I picked you to bounce off of. :D

Calvinism wasn't taught at Grace until three months ago. So it's been a sort of "whoa... wait a minute" type of thing. I don't like being taken off guard, doctrinally speaking. Especially not when my kids are there. I don't mind discussion with Parker but it's not so comfortable to say, "We're not sure we're on board with what's being taught". Cause, I'm mean, it's our CHURCH. And we WANT to be comfortable there. I at least want to think that the essentials and the main things that flow from that are fitting with our own thoughts. I've got no problem with minor differences... I'm just not so sure whether this is minor. It's not "essential"... but it's not tossable. You know?

I guess my question would be this: If you were to be forced to relocate your church home (say you moved towns), would your search be limited to those whose stance on Calvinism matched your own?

I don't mean to bug you. I've got a handful of people outside of Grace that I would take these thoughts to. And you're one of them. :D
It wouldn't be—that's not dealbreaker-level for me doctrinally. But that's all preference; my principles, of course, inform my preferences, but they're still just preferences. By that, I mean that I don't think people for whom that's a dealbreaker-level issue are necessarily wrong; it just doesn't happen to be at that level for me. I'm not nearly certain enough on my doctrinal preferences in that area for it to be a good criterion, and even if I were more certain, I'm not sure the difference would be great enough for me to count it as error rather than viewpoint.
Thank you for staying with me here. :D
No trouble at all!