Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Instinct takes over at a certain point. Assuming there are no other options at all, why would preserving life be wrong?

---

I'm curious about your mindset: what value does your life (or anyone else's) have, in the grand scheme of things? What's one life or two billion (assuming it's some future cancer curer instead) in the scheme of randomness and chaos?

---

Why do you have to have God for life to have meaning? We are alive, we are sentient, we are capable of feeling and learning and experiencing life. That's enough to give it value to me and to recognize that value in others.

---

Understanding the moral argument:

When you say, "Why do you have to have God for life to have meaning? We are alive, we are sentient, we are capable of feeling and learning and experiencing life. That's enough to give it value to me and to recognize that value in others."

This is fine. You have just described subjective value and have described your conditions of value.

Likewise, if a person says, "We are alive, we are sentient, we are capable of feeling and learning and experiencing life, AND your life has value to me as my servant, slave, object of torture and abuse" then this position is equally as valid as yours. One is not right, one is not wrong. One is not better than the other, one is not worse.

This last statement should not sit well with anyone's (God given) conscious. If it doesn't sit well the best explanation is that there's an objective value of human life that transcends our subjective value system, and thus points to an objective value setter. I'm convinced His name is Jesus.

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

1. They aren't sleeping. They're dead. Their body has ceased to function. Their organs are going to rot away rapidly if left alone. Even if you believe they will be resurrected, it won't be in their current body. I shudder to think what a burn victim would go through if their resurrected body was just a continuation of their mortal body, complete with functional nervous system.

---

This view of a burn victim being eternally traumatized in Heaven is not biblically supported.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

Our primary example of the resurrection is Jesus. Post resurrection, was there any indication the He was physically reliving the crucifixion moment by moment in His interaction with others?

---

Correct. We will have totally new bodies. Perfect. With no pain, no cancer, no disease, no old age, etc. I make all things new.

I think totally restored would be the better verbiage in this case...not to be nitpicky

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think totally restored would be the better verbiage in this case...not to be nitpicky

---

Agree. And it's almost baseball season.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Instinct takes over at a certain point. Assuming there are no other options at all, why would preserving life be wrong?

---

It wouldn't be wrong. Flesh is flesh. No matter what we may say now I think most of us would do it if put in that awful position.

If it comes down to eating an already dead person or starving, I'm gonna bite the sh*t out of it. The Bible does not explicitly forbid this.

This might be a rabbit hole, but requiring an intact or recognizable body after death does not seem biblical to me to be required for resurrection. And by extension I don't see how voluntarily donating parts of your body to those in need would either interrupt one's ability to be fully restored.

There are just too many what ifs that don't resolve. Those vaporized in Nagasaki had their souls vaporized as well?

Following the logic I see, if you donated your heart upon death, then you can't be resurrected? Or you are resurrected, but just with what looks like a scar on your chest and a hole inside you that doesn't hurt or affect you in any way?

Also, equating the process of organ donation with an auto junk yard or auto parts store is just terrible. It completely dismisses the selfless intentions of the donor.

The Christian ideals I believe are about treating the dead with respect and reverence in a display to God that we trust in Him and in the resurrection promised. What could be more reverent than putting your viable organs in others than need them to live?

Is it ok to donate one of my kidneys while I'm alive to save the life of another?
If not, then you must also be against blood and liver donations as well?
If so, why not both of them after I die?

Sorry for the wall of text.

nobody said its required for resurrection. in fact, it has been made quite clear that it is not.

Rocag said:

---

To look at it in another perspective: If I knew I was going to die and that someone else's survival depended on them eating my dead body I'd tell them to go for it. At that point I'm dead, why should I care?

---

The body is just a shell. Once it is no longer inhabited, it is just meat.

On the other hand, I could not Richard Parker someone to stay alive.