Sign in or signup
Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsSITE
Events | Local | Blogs
New Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -51 sec
Top Sermons
Daily Log
Photos
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Sermon DashboardNEW
Members Only

Breaking News Home | All | Religion | Society | Tech | Choice | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  8/22/2019
TUESDAY, FEB 3, 2009  |  29 comments
Pope weighs in on euthanasia debate
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that euthanasia is a "false solution" to suffering, adding his voice to a bitter debate in Italy over the fate of a comatose woman whose father wants to remove her feeding tube.

During his Sunday blessing, Benedict said that love can help confront pain and that "no tear, from those who suffer and those who are with them, is lost before God."


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.usatoday.com

Is Roman Catholic Christian?
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  1988 Catholicism Radio Debate • Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley | 10/1/1988
•  Witnessing to a Roman Catholic • Dr. John Barnett | 9/19/1999
•  Is Roman Catholic Christian?Dr. Alan Cairns | 8/3/2009

   08/22/19  |  China releases Early Rain Covenant Church elder • 1 comments
   08/21/19  |  Mexican pastor shot and killed while at the pulpit during Sunday... • 4 comments
   08/21/19  |  Many evangelical Christians now celebrate Jewish holidays • 17 comments
   08/20/19  |  Pastor: Believers in India ‘Have Nothing More To Do Except To Go... • 5 comments
   08/20/19  |  Tullian Tchividjian insists sex with former congregants was not... • 4 comments
MORE RELATED ( RELIGION ) NEWS | MORE..
   06/23/19  |  SermonAudio Tip: My Favorite Things and the Notification Manager • 1 comments
   05/29/19  |  SermonAudio Tip: Revamped SOLO Sites Make Church Websites Easy • 3 comments
   05/12/19  |  SermonAudio Tip: Unlimited Video Streaming & Embedding • 14 comments
   03/26/19  |  SermonAudio Tip: New SA Partnership With Blue Letter Bible • 9 comments
   03/20/19  |  What is The Foundations Conference? • 11 comments
MORE SPECIAL | MORE..
   08/22/19  |  Kentucky denies Planned Parenthood abortion license, says it... • 1 comments
   08/22/19  |  China Pays Twitter To Promote Propaganda Attacks On Hong Kong... • 5 comments
   08/22/19  |  Pro-abortion & pro-LGBTQ – your tax dollars hard at work • 3 comments
   08/22/19  |  China releases Early Rain Covenant Church elder • 1 comments
   08/21/19  |  Gamers risk health in bid to be eSports millionaires • 5 comments
OTHER RECENT NEWS | MORE..
COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 29 user comment(s)
News Item2/17/09 5:08 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Mayo,
1) If your quote is supposed to be Matt. 13:14, it's hard to see its relevance to this debate, for my opponent is neither inspired nor speaking in parables;
2) That's too sweeping to be helpful; I have no idea what you think I misunderstand or misrepresent;
3) Please let the other party speak for himself.
29

News Item2/17/09 3:11 PM
Mayo | Colloidial Suspension  Find all comments by Mayo
"By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive"

Niel, you have to read and understand what is being said before you begin the same argument over again.

28

News Item2/7/09 8:01 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Why *ought* society exist? Just because it *is*? And maybe it's "natural" for *some* men to be thieves, or *some* to be murderers (perhaps to kill off the weak).

From your answer I assume you believe homosexuality is wrong because it cannot reproduce. But even some heterosexual couples aren't physically capable of offspring either, so are their unions immoral for the same reason?

By destruction I meant death.

27

News Item2/7/09 2:02 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
Can homosexuals have children, Neil? If all men were theives, could human society exist? Is heavy drug use healthy? What kind of destruction are you talking about? Someone bursting into flames? What about any of this is question begging?

Neil wrote:
"There is a lot that we can learn about what is best for a human, say, merely by observing humans themselves."
Which humans? Homosexuals, thieves, murderers? Not all come to destruction. How does one choose which are representative w/o begging the question?
26

News Item2/7/09 12:18 PM
DJC49 | Florida  Contact via emailFind all comments by DJC49
Neil wrote:
"There is a lot that we can learn about what is best for a human, say, merely by observing humans themselves."

Which humans? Homosexuals, thieves, murderers? Not all come to destruction. How does one choose which are representative w/o begging the question?

"Which humans?"

We don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, Neil, in order to quickly "short-circuit" Natural Law as it pertains to man and what's supposedly ... best for him.

Take, for example, the goodly lives lived by many Christian martyrs. Now, did these so conduct their lives against Natural Law thereby finding themselves at last bound to fiery wooden stakes or in the jaws of ravenous beasts?

And the PRIME example of how one could still wind up tragically by following Natural Law to a "T" would be: Jesus Christ. Look where it got Him! Maybe He's a bad example, afterall, didn't He break Natural Law on quite a few occasions? Well, at least not behaviorally, He didn't.

So, should Ayn Rand be the model?

The problem with Natural Law is that it falls within the grand matrix of a Fallen Creation. The Hebel of Life.

25

News Item2/7/09 11:42 AM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
"There is a lot that we can learn about what is best for a human, say, merely by observing humans themselves."

Which humans? Homosexuals, thieves, murderers? Not all come to destruction. How does one choose which are representative w/o begging the question?

24

News Item2/7/09 3:38 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
Natural Law theory appeals precisely to such things as human nature in the broadest sense, if by nature we mean "that which is proper for the kind of thing in question". In other words, "nature" here appeals to "natural kinds". Primates are not rational animals, and therefore are a different sort of thing than humans. There is a lot that we can learn about what is best for a human, say, merely by observing humans themselves. Last I checked, humans are part of the created order. It seems plausible that Paul is making an appeal to nature in this respect, especially with regards to things in the natural order like procreation. What primates do is irrelevant, precisely because humans have minds and can intellectually understand the correct ordering of biological relations, at least in a general sense, and can act accordingly. Even the Greek pagans understood this much. Paul seems to appeal to this in the passages I cited in Romans. As a Christian you may deny that this is the whole story since there may be things that need to be revealed to us. This, however, is not incompatible with Natural Law.
23

News Item2/5/09 1:14 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
"Unregenerate man seems to be able to know something from creation--nature, if you will."

*What* in the creation, precisely? You apparently object to primate studies as having any ethical relevance for man. OK, but where should one look then?

Now in 1 Cor. 11:14, he writes, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" This is probably the most plausible evidence of appeal to natural law, but I must ask as above: what part of "nature" teaches his readers anything here? Zoology, geology, biology, physics? Surely he means the local culture if not innate moral knowledge, & N.B., it is not Paul's primary argument. Hence "nature" only makes sense here (as in Romans) if it is *human* nature, & nothing else.

"Your view of 'nature' doesn't allow for Paul's usage of 'nature'"
How so? Where does Paul say or imply that moral knowledge is gained by observation of things outside of man? Where does his definition of "nature" mean the rest of the cosmos, which is what you seem to be saying?

22

News Item2/4/09 9:15 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
You don't need to deduce the doctrine in its complexity from this handful of verses. The point was to look at the way Paul uses "natural". It's not a mountain out of a mole hill, especially in regards to Romans 1:20. "Unregenerate" man seems to be able to know something from creation--nature, if you will. And this view of "nature" seems to be at odds with your view about what nature can tell us. Your view of "nature" doesn't allow for Paul's usage of "nature". Besides, we're talking about how to make sense of Natural Law theory itself, not whether the Catholic Church correctly applies it to distribution of goods.

Neil wrote:
Re Rom. 1, one can hardly deduce the complex, thoroughgoing Thomistic doctrine of Natural Law from a relative handful of Pauline statements about unregenerate man's knowledge.
21

News Item2/4/09 2:37 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Or, you might look at even earlier verse:
Romans 1
24Wherefore God gave them up also in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies between themselves:
JFB Commentary wrote:
24. Wherefore God also—in righteous retribution.
gave them up—This divine abandonment of men is here strikingly traced in three successive stages, at each of which the same word is used (Ro 1:24,26; and Ro 1:28, where the word is rendered "gave over"). "As they deserted God, God in turn deserted them; not giving them divine (that is, supernatural) laws, and suffering them to corrupt those which were human; not sending them prophets, and allowing the philosophers to run into absurdities. He let them do what they pleased, even what was in the last degree vile, that those who had not honored God, might dishonor themselves" [GROTIUS].
or something a little later, "....Here is the explanation for man's horrible depravity, his vile sexual depravity and immorality as a result of the judgment of God upon him for his rejection of God...." Gil Rugh, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1804112751]]]Idolatry: The Root of All Sin[/URL]
20

News Item2/4/09 1:09 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Re Rom. 1, one can hardly deduce the complex, thoroughgoing Thomistic doctrine of Natural Law from a relative handful of Pauline statements about unregenerate man's knowledge. It is a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Example: it is one thing to say natural man knows theft is wrong; quite another, to claim, as Rome does, that "what is of principal concern to the common good is the just distribution of [produced] goods among individuals, families, [etc.]"

"So, Neil, do you think Paul derives an 'ought' from an 'is'?"

No, since Paul is an inspired author who did not need observation to learn about natural man's innate ethical knowledge.

19

News Item2/4/09 12:04 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
Perhaps we should look a little more closely at the word "Natural".
What do you make of the references in Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)?

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Paul uses "Natural" here in an ethical context. Also, take a look at Romans 1:20.
So, Neil, do you think Paul derives an "ought" from an "is"? I suspect this is your problem with Natural Law theory.

18

News Item2/4/09 11:03 AM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Lance, then what you call "Natural Law" isn't natural at all; it is supernaturally revealed. Therefore (so far as I can tell), we are not discussing the same thing here. OTOH, when I see Rome appeal to natural law (as in the Catechism), I see them make no connection with Scripture at all, as if "Natural Law" simply meant "what the Church says is according to reason," that is unconvincing without logical elaboration.

BYNSE, indeed my example may be classified that way. Now if this exposes my misunderstanding of what Catholic Natural Law really is, then please enlighten me. It must be what you're on about, or else you would've had no reason to object to my 1st post.

17

News Item2/4/09 6:56 AM
Boanerges | USA  Find all comments by Boanerges
It is interesting to see the Pope make occasional appearances and give his views on any topic. It is like looking at the veneer on a coffe table. What is important is not what the Pope looks like or sounds like in these public moments but what the Pope is, in actuality, behind the closed doors of the Vatican. He is like any other politician in the world, acting and saying as he thinks best to 'woo' the crowd. All the while he remains the head of the largest apostate body of souls in the world and the ex 'Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith', the organization which, until as late as 1965, had been called the Holy Office of the INQUISITION.
16

News Item2/4/09 2:01 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
Could you explain how this is a counterexample for a Natural Law theorist? It looks like you are equating Natural Law theory with evolutionary psychology.

Neil wrote:
"Only sex between males and females is in accordance with Natural Law."
But Bonobo apes are a disturbing counterexample - they have been observed in gratuitous homosexual copulation in the wild (presumably not imitating Man): [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo]]]Bonobo[/URL]
So by this standard, bisexuality is also IAW Natural Law. Marquis de Sade would be pleased.
Unsurprisingly, Bonobos fascinate biologists, because chimps, OTOH, are heterosexual, patriarchal, violent, & even cannibalistic (per popular stereotypes about Christians). So how do we decide which is normative? Both kinds are supposedly "equidistant" from man (genetically speaking). And the Bonobos obviously haven't become extinct by their perversion; I think they're no more "endangered" than chimps.
15

News Item2/4/09 12:12 AM
Lance Eccles | Goulburn, Australia  Contact via emailFind all comments by Lance Eccles
By Your Standards, Not Elect wrote:
Are ethical norms "facts"? Or are they something else?
If ethical norms are not facts, then they are just human inventions and not worth worrying about.

Not quite on topic, but... Universities have "ethics committees", whose task is to evaluate the "ethics" of various projects involving humans or animals. But the real task of such committees is to determine whether the particular project could result in the university getting sued.

14

News Item2/3/09 10:12 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
I must admit, discussions of science and knowledge do interest me more than many of the topics people discuss here.

What kind of "necessity" are we talking about? Logical necessity? Are ethical norms "facts"? Or are they something else?

13

News Item2/3/09 9:15 PM
Lance Eccles | Goulburn, Australia  Contact via emailFind all comments by Lance Eccles
I would say that all Natural Law is probably included in God's revealed will, though God has revealed much more that just what is in Natural Law.

We don't "learn" Natural Law, we know what is right and wrong without learning it. However, the knowledge of what is right and wrong can be obscured by our environment, and in that case only God can determine to what extent the individual is innocent or guilty of his actions.

12

News Item2/3/09 8:34 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
What is the difference in content, then, between Natural Law & God's revealed will?

And I forgot something, along related lines. When you said, "Natural Law" [is] the way God intended things to operate when he created them, how do we learn His intentions?

11

News Item2/3/09 6:40 PM
Lance Eccles | Goulburn, Australia  Contact via emailFind all comments by Lance Eccles
Neil, the Natural Law is written by God on the heart of man. Regardless of his religious beliefs (or lack of them), man, through having an immortal soul and being made in the image and likeness of God, knows what is in accordance with Natural Law.

Instinct, not Natural Law, is written on the hearts of bonobos.

We also may simply follow our instincts, but when we do, the results are not conducive to social order.

10
There are a total of 29 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 | last
Last PostTotal
Churches arm, train congregants in wake of mass shootings
john uk: " dr. tim where i work, there are rattlesnakes and other pit vipers,..."
-2 min 193 
Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He...
jim lincoln from nebraska: " elias clure key points: • pell could be sent to a..."
-53 min 
Aussies protest bill to decriminalize abortion in New South...
adriel: "i wonder why the politicians and the bureaucrats are so blind to moral..."
-1 hrs 


Steve Lyon
The Peace of God

Colossians 3:15, John 14:27
Sunday Service
Bible Baptist Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Don Green
Are You Born Again?

Truth Community Church
Sunday Service
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Bob Vincent
Comfort in the Face of Suicide

Come into the Sanctuary
Sermons by Bob and Others
Staff Pick!Play! | MP4

Sponsor:
Free Book Giveaway

The Sov­er­eignty of God & the Resp­ons­ib­il­ity of Man
desiringrevival.org

Sermon:
Electing Grace
Ken Wimer

SPONSOR | 11,700+

SPONSOR




                   
One today is worth two tomorrows. ... William Secker


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Watch
Android
Church App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts
2-MINUTE TIPS

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES
Sermon Dashboard | Info
Audio | Video | Podcast
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Live Webcasting
Listen Line
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards
Business Cards
SOLO Sites New!
Favorites New! | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Goodies
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
Picasa
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS! New!
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Privacy Policy | Support Us | Stories New!