Retiring from Mud Wrestling… Hapless Critters,… and The Rule.

Wednesday 26 November 2014 Tim 5 Comments

guilty

This facebook screenshot is an excellent example of the sort of Socialist thinking that Libertarians must endure night and day.
It contains political/ ethical ideas which are evil and unjust, and so easily provokes the wrath of those of us who know better… yet is wrath really the most appropriate reaction?

I apologize to Eternal vigilance fans for my recent absence.
Home life is hectic at the moment, and after the Whore-fest/ Parliamentary elections, it is quite common for me to enter a period of meditation… like the survivor of a train wreak.
Im sitting here in a Muddle… tryin to figure out a new Game plan…. the old one clearly does not work.

Having arrived at the conclusion that *Stupidity and ignorance* are the chef enemies of Liberty, Truth, and justice rather than simple malice, envy, etc I am hoping to temper my Seething disgust and rage against the Zombies, and to see the situation as requiring more compassion on my part… seeing that the Zombie Sheeple know not what they do.

That Face-booker above is sincere in their desire to improve society…no malice… just very Bad reasoning.

I am trying to convince myself that a more meek approach than my usual explosions would conform better to the Christian Ideal of holding up a light…. and may yield more positive results.
It may help to moderate my moods… make me more resilient, and a closer imitation of St Paul.
I’m not sure about this… yet I want to try….
The moral test comes when confronted with such pig headed Socialist lunacy as below….
I have to bite my hand… pour myself another shot….
Sometimes Saying nothing is better than tearing up all your shirts.

Can I re-program myself to better deal with Human realities???

mkkii

That is my mountain I must scale.

I cant expect my ideological adversaries to do me the same courtesy.
To simply attribute your antagonist to be Evil is the most simplistic…. the most gratifying… and often the most *un-thinking* thing a person can do.
Yet this conclusion is not conducive to constructive dialogue and enlightenment… but to war.
Thus if it is constructive dialogue and enlightenment you are seeking to promote, then you need to have compassion for those who need guidance… not hatred or disgust.

When the Founder of Eternal vigilance set up this Blog he wisely included one rule, and in typical Libertine fashion that rule has been ignored (by me)… to my folly… and to the detriment of the Cause (s)

The Blog Rule…
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Eph4vs29.

So this is not a new Idea… It’s a Christian principle I have struggled to apply.

Can an old Dog learn new tricks?
Dont be too hard on me if at times I resort back to my old guile slinging self… maybe just quietly post me a link to this rave so that I can remind myself of the Program. 🙂

Philosophy, Sick Of It All

The Road Less Traveled

Saturday 22 November 2014 Richard 3 Comments

It’s been pretty quiet lately here at Eternal Vigilance.

I don’t speak for my co-bloggers, but the main reason I haven’t been posting is because …
I’m sick of politics. Sick of it all. Post-civic depression?

Instead of politics, I plan to post more philosophy. 🙂

Epistemology, Evolutionism, Proverbs, Semantics, Twisted Sister

I’m an agnostic. (Don’t ask me why.)

Friday 14 November 2014 Richard 3 Comments

Last month I posted the following Facebook status.

I’m an agnostic. (Don’t ask me why.)

I meant it mainly as a joke.

Let me explain. An agnostic is someone who doesn’t know. So if you ask me why I’m an agnostic, I’m going to answer, “I don’t know!”

I meant it mainly as a joke, but I also meant it partly as a statement of fact about me.

The term ‘agnostic’ was coined by 19th century English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (who, incidentally, is best remembered as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his advocacy of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution). He derived the term from the (Ancient) Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning “without”, and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning “knowledge”. Hence, the literal meaning of ‘agnostic’ is someone without knowledge. Huxley said

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle … Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Agnosticism is not a creed. Agnosticism says nothing about anything. That’s how it’s entirely possible (and, in my opinion, entirely desirable) to be both an agnostic and a Christian.

Agnosticism is not a creed. It’s a method(ology) only. And it’s about what conclusions are certain. (I’m not sure, but I think I’m not entirely certain about anything.)

I’ve studied more than enough philosophy to know not to put too much trust in the evidence of the senses or the deliverances of human reason. That’s one reason why the following is one of my favourite scriptures.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight. (NASB)

Do not lean on your own understanding. Seems pretty agnostic to me.

ACDC

When the teardrops start

Thursday 6 November 2014 Richard 4 Comments

AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd charged with attempting to procure murders

Crimson Thorn, Gospel music, Voluntary Euthanasia

RIP Brittany Maynard

Monday 3 November 2014 Richard Leave a comment

Jesus said they’ll know Christians by our love
Do not judge or you will be judged
Holier than though, have you never sinned?
The Bible says all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Jesus came for the sinners, not the righteous
All men are sinners
He ate with sinners and had compassion for them
God poured our his love and the sinners turned and followed Him

Holier than thou
Turning people off to God because of despisement in your voice
Holier than thou
Pharisees and Sadducees
Holier than thou
Show compassion for those who do not yet know Christ
Holier than thou
Love the sinner, hate the sin

If they were only shown the love of Jesus and not your despisement and condemnation

For God so loved the world
That he gave his one and only Son
That whoever believes in Him
Shall not perish but have everlasting life
For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world
but to save the world through Him

Satan loves it when you make a mockery of God’s love
Claiming to be a Christian but spitting venom and hate
The Bible says the world will hate Christians, because it rejects Christ
Not because we acted like a bunch of jerks
Turn your self-righteousness into humility
Accept others with their faults as God accepted you
Who made you a judge, holier than thou?
It makes me want to cry to see the harm you do

The sinner you see may have never before been shown love
Pain may be all they know, but Christ can heal their wounds
As ambassadors for Christ it’s our job to lead them to Him

They should know we are Christians by our love
The Bible says they’ll know we are Christians by our love!

Green Party, James, Mana Party, National Party, Socialism

Won’t somebody else please feed the children?

Saturday 1 November 2014 Richard 1 Comment

I got an email from Metiria Turei, co-leader of the Greens.

Education is the best route out of poverty. But hungry kids can’t learn and are left trapped in the poverty cycle. Let’s break that cycle lunchbox by lunchbox. We can feed the country’s hungry kids, if we work together.

I have taken over the Feed the Kids Bill which Hone Harawira introduced to Parliament. The Bill is at a crucial stage of its progress – part way through its First Reading – and may be voted on as early as next Wednesday 5 November.

The way the numbers stack up in the new Parliament the Bill will be voted down unless we can persuade the National Party to change its position and support it to go to Select Committee.

If the Bill goes to Select Committee, MPs will be able hear from parents, kids, teachers and others about what they think are the best solutions for feeding hungry kids at school. There are lots of ideas about how school food could be delivered and who should get it. The key thing is to have the public debate about addressing child poverty, and come up with the best solution for helping hungry kids.

Please help this happen, by emailing John Key, asking that National support my Bill at least to Select Committee.

Because of the potentially short timeframe, you’ll need to send your emails as soon as possible and before Monday 3 November at the latest.

I’m probably not going to email John Key but if I did I wouldn’t be urging him not to support the bill. At least, not on its First Reading. If National Party MPs vote for the bill on its First Reading, it can go to the Select Committee stage. I agree with Turei that

The key thing is to have the public debate about addressing child poverty, and come up with the best solution for helping hungry kids.

Won’t somebody else please feed the children? No doubt the best long-term solution for helping hungry kids is not state food. But as quick-fix statist solutions go this one is surely unexceptionable. Paying state(-funded) schools to feed hungry kids is an advance on paying state(-funded) parents to feed them, isn’t it? The Bill targets the funding for school food at Decile 1 and 2 schools, too. The Feed the Kids program could probably be nearly fully funded by concomitant deductions in the benefits or WFF tax breaks of the parents of those children attending the schools in question. Isn’t this an advance for “a hand up, not a handout” safety net state welfare system? Or am I missing some serious unintended consequences?

I went to primary school in the U.K. in the early ’70s. We had school milk at morning break and school dinners at lunchtime. Morning milk was a third pint of silver top, and lunch was typically a dollop of mince meat, a dollop of mashed potatoes and a spoonful of (mushy?) peas. Followed by a serving of stodgy pudding and watery custard. All lovingly served by the matronly school dinner ladies. It all seemed perfectly normal, because it was. (But then came Thatcher the Milk Snatcher …)

While our MPs debate the merits or otherwise of the bill, and alternative statist approaches such as the existing “income management” regime, my thoughts are with the children who continue to go to school without breakfast or lunch. Children like the early John Banks who grew up in poverty in the 1950s. “Of course, I support sandwiches and food in schools,” says Banks. “I would have loved some sandwiches and some food in schools, but that is not the answer.”

So what is the answer?

According to Banks, the way out of child poverty is children living in homes “with unconditional love, and I never knew anything about that,” and having access to a world-class education. But the state cannot provide unconditional love.

According to the Bible, it comes down to us. James tells us simply

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)

Children whose parents send them to school sans breakfast and lunch are, in effect, orphans. Won’t somebody please feed the children?

Voluntary Euthanasia

Euthanasia (Part 4)

Friday 31 October 2014 reed 8 Comments

My fellow bloggers have blogged their perspectives about euthanasia so it seems fair that I should too.

The term euthanasia covers several situations:-

1) Killing oneself.
2) Another person killing himself.
3) You helping someone kill himself.
4) You killing someone.
5) Another person helping someone else kill himself.
6) Another person killing someone.
7) The state helping someone kill himself.
8) The state killing someone.
9) The state punishing a person for helping someone else kill himself.
10) The state punishing a person for killing someone.

Each of these situations has different moral considerations which makes euthanasia a difficult topic for me to discuss. At the moment my interests for discussion are only the situations involving the state.

I’m pragmatically absolutely opposed to the state killing someone (8), mainly because the state is clumsy, filled with incompetent, arrogant people who think they know best and they are largely immune to accountability. Likewise, the state helping someone kill himself (7) is dangerous for the same reasons. If the state were to change in character I might reconsider these positions.

It is wrong for the state to punish a person for helping someone else kill himself (9). Killing someone who reasonably wants to die is victimless except in the situation where it was likely the dead person would have changed his mind (e.g. a recently paralised person).

It is wrong for the state to punish a person for killing someone (10) if it was reasonable and truly done out of mercy. It is not on a par with murder. If done according to the dead person’s wishes then there is no victim.

Laws that punish people should be justifiable with regard to the harm done to the victim.
No victim, no injustice, no justifiable punishment.

Alternative Medicines and Treatments, Break on through to the other side, Charity, Christian Libertarianism, Compulsion, Dispensationalism, Easy Listening, Faith, Fighting Cancer, Freedom, Heroism, Justice, Liberate your Mind!, Love, Merciful Grace, Mercy, Prohibition, Quandaries, Salvation, Self-ownership, Theism

Christian grace and compassion for the Suffering. Against suicide, yet tolerant of euthanasia.

Monday 27 October 2014 Tim 2 Comments

Mother-Theresa-with-Baby-Mother-Theresa-41801 (1)

Two different perspectives about Life, Death, Suffering, and Euthanasia have appeared here recently…

Why No Christian Should Support Euthanasia, by Blair Mulholland

and

God’s gift to the terminally ill by Richard Goode.

Most thinking people fall squarely into either of these camps.

I would like to suggest that there is a third way… a middle course.

Having come down from my mountain I’d like to wade in 🙂 … Mine is the lonely path… loved by few… because it appears to these antagonists that I’m too cosy with their enemy… not resolute enough… yet I believe it to be the best course.

I support certain aspects of Blair’s Anti-Euthanasia post to a high degree… yet ultimately I support Richard’s conclusion regarding Opium.

Both are arguing from the premise of ‘the sanctity of human life.

It’s a very interesting subject because it’s one of these issues which if the Christian is not careful, he will find himself supporting harsh and inhumane Laws out of a misguided sense of piety (like the twats who support drug prohibition).
It is ‘one of those’ controversial issues which some Christians insist gives them the right to impose *Un-Libertarian* prohibitions on others…. thus these so-called Christians also tend to insinuate that Real Christians *cant be Libertarians*… that there can be no separation of Church and state.

It is my experience to note that most of the Anti-Euthanasia Religionists do this because they still have not figured out the dispensational distinctions of the Christian living under grace, from the OT Jew living under the Law.
They dont yet grasp the reality that Euthanasia is just like the issue of Smoking Cigarettes…. that a Christian can be ideologically *against Cigarettes* yet also ought to be Ideologically *against a prohibition on cigarettes*… and that it is quite right to speak out against the vise of smoking cigarettes… if they be so moved…. yet to maintain a libertarian respect, and compassion for cigarette smokers and their rights rather than the Legalistic spirit *self righteous persecution and hate*.

dare

Let me speak about what I mean with myself as the example.
As a Christian I do believe in the sanctity of human life, and that it would be insulting to God and a gross lack of faith, for me to ‘Commit suicide’ out of depression… yet I also know that we are not under the Law, and that God is a merciful God.
I do believe that he put things like Alcohol, Opium, etc on the Earth to alleviate pain and I am not so silly as to not be able to distinguish someone wishing to avoid a Ghastly and excruciating death, from someone callously throwing their life away out of spite, or sloth.

Not appreciating these distinctions is a bit like those dullards whom cant distinguish Loving discipline from child abuse (forgive my terseness).

Assisting a terminally ill person to end their own life, or taking your own life rather than facing the torture of a brutal enemy, are not the same things as assisting a Depressed, faithless, Godless, and ungrateful, (yet otherwise healthy) person to harm themselves.

The thing is that I dont think *prohibitive Laws* have anything good to add to this situation for the Obvious reason that a depressed person determined to kill themselves is in no way obliged to obey Human conventions…. which is all a prohibition is… when not underpinned by a personal ethic… and those whom actually have such a personal ethic *dont need any such law*.

Depressed yet otherwise able bodied people don’t need help to kill themselves.
Only the dying fear that the longer they endure, the less capable they become to take their own life in a peaceful way…. And so then may come to rely on their loved ones for assistance.
The people who want such prohibitions simply seek to persecute the caring Doctors and Family members whom assist their patients and loved ones from ending their sufferings.
I think many are acting out Malice against people whom dont share their personal religious sentiments, which is far Colder …. far less forgiveable than simple ignorance or delusion, … cloaking their evil hearts under the guise of ‘concern’ and religious piety.

This is the very antithesis of Christian Love.

Worst of all is that fact that many supposed ‘Orthodox’ Christians employ false doctrines … resorting to the time of Jewish Law, and Christs preaching to the Jews about being found worthy to enter his kingdom.
They attempt to say that a Christian risks loosing their eternal salvation if they choose Euthanasia…. Because they have failed to ‘endure unto the end’… etc.

This is a clear demonstration of mishandling the word of truth and results in a horrible in-humane doctrine which increases the un-necessary misery and human suffering in the world and when these false doctrines are used to Rally zealots into lobbying the government against Libertarian Law reform…. It causes unbelievers to despise Christianity as Barbaric and oppressive.
It causes Christianity to stink and makes a mockery of the Grace and compassion of God.
It Damns men’s souls via unbelief.

The Truth is quite different.
Under God’s Grace…. In this dispensation we are free from the Law, and salvation is absolutely a free gift…. Not determined at all upon our good works, endurance, etc.

So the Libertarian Christian (like me) does believe in the Sanctity of Human life, and intends to do what I believe is the Godly thing to do… with as much bravery as I an muster…to endure… and face my own fate (Following in the footsteps of my Heroic Grand Father) yet I confess that certain terminal conditions terrify me… and I reserve the right to chicken out and take matters into my own hands.

I know that such a decision would be to opt for the ‘weaker’ path for the Christian to take, yet I am confident of God’s grace and mercy.

I certainly don’t desire any legal prohibitions to prevent me having this option, and I would never be so cold and uncaring as to desire to prohibit others having the right to make this decision for themselves either… or loving parents making the painful decision that it is not in their child’s best interest to postpone the inevitable!

*This is a fundamental principle of Christian Libertarianism … That we are not the property of society… or the government…. We own ourselves… and it is up to us whether or not we will impose upon ourselves certain religious convictions regarding our own death.*
Parents must have their parental rights and responsibilities respected by the state.

Though I hate the false doctrines which try and ensnare fearful souls back under Law, and I have contempt for people whom seek to use the Law to unnecessarily prolong human suffering, I have no problem with people peacefully… and without recourse to political coercion propagating their belief that Euthanasia is wrong…. From forming associations which seek to propagate that belief… from boycotting Doctors whom are known to assist terminal patients to end their lives with dignity.
This is how Libertarianism works… Nobody *forcing* their opinions on others.

* The most important Political reality is that having legally assisted suicide (of itself)does not effect any third party’s rights…. And thus such prohibitions cant be justified*… I’m not saying there cant be any legal challenges Re: debts, and other contractual obligations)

When it comes to my loved ones, there is no way I would assist any of them to die, if they have still have the power of reason, yet have not receive the Gospel.
Death in that case will not end their suffering… it will be but the beginning.
Yet I would assist them if they are trusting in the Resurrection of Christ…. and even though…. perish the thought that many may so choose…. I would not seek a law to forbid people from arranging for their own death… or assisting their loved ones… even if they reject Christ.
God has given them the right to go to their deaths un-repentant, and in their own sins.

Christianity is properly a tolerant liberal faith…which seeks to make the world a better place via preaching the gospel and Christian values to whomsoever hath an open ear… not a Religion of Political force.
Christianity seeks to convert hearts and minds… not impose an artificial draconian order.

Man’s knowledge and powers of Medical intervention have made these sorts of Moral dilemmas far more acute as we understand a lot more about things like Opium, Diseases, and how to prolong life than in the past, and so a lot of the so-called ‘life’ many people ‘endure’ at the end is wholly due to the Un-natural interventions of Humanity… orchestrated in the name of ‘the Sanctity of human life’… ie this so-called ideal results in untold more *un-necessary and futile* misery.

*And it is to a large degree this *artificially engineered period of misery* which we are talking about here… as if Nature… and Human concerns were left to themselves… death would naturally end this misery a lot sooner.
Ie Medicine could concern itself more with ‘Mother Theresa…hospice care’ rather than Frankenstein type fanaticism…. Living Heads in a Jar… trying to steal a few last breaths… under delusions that this is honouring God.

And If I am ever undone…. laid out flat… writhing in agony … beyond repair… I hope my caregivers are not Frugal with the ‘Milk of the poppy’….
Fear not for me… My time will be done…. And my soul is secure in Christ.
Likewise all you whom have loved ones knocking on Heaven’s door… Tell them to trust their souls to the Gospel of Grace and the Resurrection of Christ… and to ‘relax’… accept death … in the faith and hope of God’s Love and promises.
That’s what I intend to do.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

God’s gift to the terminally ill

Thursday 16 October 2014 Richard 9 Comments

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Here’s a Biblical argument for euthanasing the terminally ill.

The argument relies on a couple of reasonable assumptions which I now make explicit.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. …

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (KJV)

I assume that God gave us plants for all sorts of purposes, not just to eat. Creating the known universe, including our solar system, our planet and all life upon it including us was quite a feat. The account given in the Book of Genesis, of the origin of God’s green earth, is necessarily highly abbreviated. It cannot reasonably be argued that God did not intend us to use trees for building material as well as fruit, nor can it reasonably be argued that God did not intend us to use Cyperus papyrus to make the manuscripts that the Books of the Bible were originally written on, notwithstanding that these non-nutritional uses aren’t specifically mentioned in Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis.

I also assume that we can tell what a plant is for simply by looking at its actual uses. Take any plant. What’s it good for?

Now I’m fond of using Genesis 1:29 (“I have given you every herb bearing seed”) as an argument for legalising cannabis. The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes. I think the ALCP’s cause is righteous. And I don’t think it’s eisegetical to suggest that God gave us cannabis for our recreational use among other things but I do acknowledge that it can reasonably be argued that getting high is not among the uses God intended for it. No matter, I don’t think principled exceptions disprove the general rule.

Sometimes I meet the objection, but what about deadly nightshade? Did God give that to us to eat too? But this objection just lends further credence to my view that God gave us plants for more than just food. So what about belladonna? Well, what’s deadly nightshade good for? It turns out that belladonna is a medicine and dispensable to a healthy diet.

Belladonna tinctures, decoctions, and powders, as well as alkaloid salt mixtures, are still produced for pharmaceutical use, and these are often standardised at 1037 parts hyoscyamine to 194 parts atropine and 65 parts scopolamine. The alkaloids are compounded with phenobarbital and/or kaolin and pectin for use in various functional gastrointestinal disorders. The tincture, used for identical purposes, remains in most pharmacopoeias, with a similar tincture of Datura stramonium having been in the US Pharmacopoeia at least until the late 1930s. The combination of belladonna and opium, in powder, tincture, or alkaloid form, is particularly useful by mouth or as a suppository for diarrhoea and some forms of visceral pain

Which brings us to the miracle plant that is the topic of this post, the opium poppy. Surely, God intended us to use this plant for the strongest of strong pain relief! Morphine is the predominant alkaloid found in the opium poppy, and in the 21st century it is still the analgesic of choice for pain management in the terminally ill.

Jesus himself is said to have been offered a drink containing opium (according to one interpretation) on the cross, but declined to accept.

They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. (KJV)

Now to the argument. Morphine is not just an analgesic. It is also a respiratory depressant. It slows breathing and, in sufficiently high doses, slows breathing to a stop. Its effects as a respiratory depressant are inseparable from its effects as an analgesic, both brought about by activation of the central nervous system’s μ-opioid receptors. Is it by design that these two remarkable effects of morphine are, as it were, yoked together? I suggest that it is.

I suggest that morphine’s design ensures that when a terminally ill patient is in severe pain, and the dose of morphine administered is increased appropriately, it also tends to kill the patient. That’s euthanasia by any other name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FRwnkrolYc

Uncategorized

Why No Christian Should Support Euthanasia

Monday 13 October 2014 Blair Mulholland 18 Comments

The news recently of a 29yo woman seeking the right to have her suicide assisted by others has brought out a few odd opinions, to say the least, especially from those who purport to be Christians.

The simplistic argument (and it is simplistic), is that it is compassionate to allow the voluntary death of someone if there is no longer pleasure in their life, but only pain and suffering. Is it not our purpose as Christians to alleviate suffering?

Well… sort of. Christianity is about life. We, as ministers of Christ, are here to offer life, and life in abundance. If it is a battle between suffering and life, then we are on the side of life. However, this is not what Brittany Maynard, and others like her, face. The battle is between suffering and death. The argument is being made that death is better than suffering. But Christians who advocate this betray a deeply flawed theological view of their faith.

At the very least, the Christian must reject gnosticism – that ancient heresy that despises the body and sees the body as a prison of the soul. Unfortunately, this is a prominent view among Protestants and Evangelicals. They see the body as responsible for sin and pain and death, and to die is to finally escape the body and be a “free spirit”, so to speak. To escape is to be be at peace. But this is not Christianity. It is a damnable lie. Souls and bodies are supposed to be together – that is how God created us. To separate them, through death, is not God’s will, and a soul separated from the body that does not commune with Christ is by definition unfulfilled and in torment, a captive to its own passions, pride and selfishness, all of which can only be satiated by the body. So on this basis alone, to take one’s own life and destroy the image of God in oneself is, without the intercession of the Church, an act that eternally condemns the soul to despair. It’s better to stay alive and suffer in the body than go through that!

But this is not just about fear of what lies beyond. Nor is it even about the “redemptive power of suffering”, an offensive concept to many people, although I believe it to be true. (If you want to read a good explanation of redemptive suffering, Andrew Damick does it very well here). It is about life and hope and faith and the conquest of death and Hades that God achieved in Christ through His own suffering. It is about the image of God in us that He created in us. It is because we have this hope that we seek to persevere, as so many people in the Bible persevered through trials and suffering, and we seek to affirm and cultivate that image of the loving, suffering God in us, instead of destroying it to remove some temporal physical pain we experience.

This hope is not some scholastic, intellectual, theoretical hope. It is an ontological hope that naturally exists within us, that struggles for life even as we seek to suppress and destroy that hope. In suffering, rather than giving in, we affirm that our life has meaning, that it has purpose, that it is valuable. We struggle for it because it is worth something. And that is where the contradiction in euthanasia lies. Suicide is the obliteration of the meaning of one’s life – the floccinaucinihilipilification of it. And yet euthanasia is sold as “death with dignity”! Well what a nonsense. Dignity implies some meaning to one’s life and death. Either your life has meaning, and you seek life, through whatever miserable crawling struggle that entails, or it has none, and you kill yourself. There is no Mr Inbetween. To seek dignity of any sort is to be on the side of life, not death. It implicitly recognises the Source of dignity – God’s image in us.

To struggle for no end is truly pitiable. But we do have an end – a great hope! our union with Christ, which we strive towards when we undergo suffering, and we run from when we subject ourselves to indignities of any kind, whether licentiousness in food, drugs, sex, money, power, or in its purest form, actively killing ourselves. This is Christianity: To struggle with Christ, to suffer with Him, to restore His image in us, to seek His dignity, and to die with dignity, despite the indignities forced on us, and especially the indignities forced on Christ. That’s where we find meaning and dignity in life. Not in destroying our body to eliminate physical pain.

I hope and pray that Ms Maynard, and all like her who suffer in pain, find their value and dignity not in death but in life, and in the Giver of Life.

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!