Lessons

[War Lord]

I was pointing out that your definiton doesn't include acts of justice or instances of self-defense.

Sure it does, but as I said, I don't have time to deal with specifics at the moment and will deal with it tomorrow. You're welcome to create scenarios to try and refute my point and I can deal with it tomorrow.

 

[Man-Thing]

no, your own defintion contradicts your own allowence.

 

[Abaddon]

I'm still waiting on you,Jonty.

we know they are astranged. that is enough to know that parenting failed at somepoint. is this the mothers fault or her mothers fault or other peoples fault difficult to say. the society is faulty because it doesn't teach how to live effectively enough. if people see the benefits in the good choices through education they will follow it.

I think those terms are too broad.

 

[War Lord]

It actually sounds similar to Danalys' definition,but we'll see how it works out.I'll warm up by throwing a few scenarios at you:

Scenario 1
A family of three goes on a hiking trip. An accident occurs and the three are left dangling helplessly. The mother is closest to reaching safety and begins trying to regain her footing. Her husband a bit further down, is trying to save their child's life putting himself in a worse position. The mother has an oppurtunity to save her husbands life but at the expense of her child.She trust her husband to do what he can to save the child,but her mind is racing and she cannot make a clear decision.The father urges her to try and save their child.She tells him she needs to first gain a better footing or they'll all be killed,but her husband tells her he doesn't have the strength to continue holding his child.The mother chooses to first save herself,and both father and child plummet to their deaths.

Scenario 2
A woman is dying of throat cancer.Her estranged,divorced daughter is being put on the street and she doesnt have the money to support herself or her children.The daughter performs euthanasia so she can collect her mothers inheritance and provide a home and a means of living for herself and her offspring.

Also,does this rule strictly apply to actions or can it apply to people?

Now I have time, so here goes.

1. The first thing that First Aid teaches is that you have to be in a position of safety before you can save others, otherwise you end up with an extra victim the authorities have to save. So the answer to this is that, through my definition, the mother was right to save herself first because that put her in a position to try and save both the father and child, which lends to the possibility of saving everybody. Had she gotten reckless in her desire to save them and tried to do so, without having first been secure herself, it probably would have been the death of all. Swimming lessons are always a plus.

2. If the mother was dying already, than euthanasia was unnecessary and therefore the daughter did an evil thing to speed up her death. There are other options, including sleeping in homeless shelters or asking people, like church members directly for such help or perhaps even giving up the children temporarily until she can get her act together, if living at the dying mother's was not an option.

 

[War Lord]

So is God commiting evil when he casts people into the Lake of Fire?

In principle, it's no different between God and man. However, in practicality, God's viewpoint is not only societal, but also past, present and future, as well as when doing something here, what possible consequences might be on other worlds who might be watching us and their past present and future.

His awareness is a bit larger than ours, so though I think the principle that defines good and evil is just the same, He would apply it differently because He has such a larger picture than ours.

 

[Abaddon]

Now I have time, so here goes.

1. The first thing that First Aid teaches is that you have to be in a position of safety before you can save others, otherwise you end up with an extra victim the authorities have to save. So the answer to this is that, through my definition, the mother was right to save herself first because that put her in a position to try and save both the father and child, which lends to the possibility of saving everybody. Had she gotten reckless in her desire to save them and tried to do so, without having first been secure herself, it probably would have been the death of all. Swimming lessons are always a plus.


2. If the mother was dying already, than euthanasia was unnecessary and therefore the daughter did an evil thing to speed up her death. There are other options, including sleeping in homeless shelters or asking people, like church members directly for such help or perhaps even giving up the children temporarily until she can get her act together, if living at the dying mother's was not an option.

Both scenarios both promoted life,and took away from it so how and why does one determine which one is more significant?

Lets say,for arguments sake, the woman in the second scenario didn't have those options.

 

[War Lord]

1. Both scenarios both promoted life,and took away from it so how and why does one determine which one is more significant?

Lets say,for arguments sake, the woman in the second scenario didn't have those options.

1. The woman living for sure, promoted her life where there wasn't a guarentee of the second option, which is why her living for sure was the better one. It also gave her the option of then trying to save her husband and child whereas, in the second option because of the precarious position she was originally in, she didn't have an option. That's why her saving herself first promoted life the most.

2. There is always an option, whether it be living in a cardboard box or something that doesn't necessitate taking grandma's life for the inheritance. At the very least, you can always dig a hole in the ground and cover it up against the sun or rain.

 

[Abaddon]

The woman had a child.

 

[War Lord]

The woman had a child.

1) or 2)

 

[Abaddon]

Number 2.


Edit: Actually more than one seeing as I said "children".

 

[War Lord]

Number 2.


Edit: Actually more than one seeing as I said "children".

Let's assume that she had absolutely no other options, other than to die or kill grandma, because anything else and there is always a third option.

Then the only possible choice would be to kill grandma and use the inheritence to provide for her children, since they have a lifetime to live and she does not.

 

[Abaddon]

So its justifiable only when its a last resort?

 

[War Lord]

So its justifiable only when its a last resort?

Only when it's an absolute resort and it really is the life of your child(ren) versus grandma and not just perceived to be.

 

[Abaddon]

and from the grandma's perspective?

 

[War Lord]

and from the grandma's perspective?

She's already dying. Anybody who loves their children or grandchildren are ready to sacrifice themselves if need be to ensure their survival.

Since you defined it as a situation where there were no other options of any kind, the grandmother would likely look at it as a way to save the grandkids as well.

 

[Abaddon]

She has cancer,but that doesn't guarantee death.

 

[War Lord]

She has cancer,but that doesn't guarantee death.

You've already defined her situation as dying, so yes she's dying.

 

[Abaddon]

You've already defined her situation as dying, so yes she's dying.

Haha,that doesn't change the fact that she can recover.

 

[War Lord]

Haha,that doesn't change the fact that she can recover.

Not if she's dying. You're only terminal, which is a state of incurability, when you're dying and you've defined her as dying.

 

[Abaddon]

Not if she's dying. You're only terminal, which is a state of incurability, when you're dying and you've defined her as dying.

After being diagnosed the end result is death.I'm not an expert,but I don't think I know of any case where a person was diagnosed with cancer,and then expected to live a full life.She's dying because the cancer is killing her,and the cancer thats killing her may be dealt with,to at least delay the inevitable(not that I'm suggesting all people who have cancer die because of it).