# Who Owns our Bodies?



## TylerRay (Sep 30, 2016)

As a spin-off to a recent thread about procreative ethics, I want to answer some questions and elaborate on a position that I put forth in that thread. There, I stated that we do not have the prerogative to take parts of one person's body and fuse them to another person's body. I hope to prove that as one of the necessary implications of a biblical view of God's ownership of our bodies.

The Bible teaches in no uncertain terms that God owns our bodies, both by nature, as our creator, and (for the Christian) by virtue of our being his by covenant. Paul makes this fact abundantly clear in I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

In Leviticus 19:28, the Lord deals with the subject of body ownership and prerogatives. He states, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Charles Ellicott comments on the passage:


> The slave had impressed upon his body the initials of his master, the soldier those of his general, and the worshipper the image of his tutelar deity. To obviate this disfiguration of the body which bore the impress of God’s image, and yet to exhibit the emblem of his creed, the Mosaic Law enacted that the Hebrew should have phylacteries which he is to bind as “a sign” upon his hand, and as “a memorial” between his eyes “that the Lord’s law may be in his mouth”



Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.

So, we are prohibited from giving ourselves (body or soul) to others. We belong to God; our bodies aren't ours to give. This ought to be enough to settle the issue, but there is more that may be brought into consideration.

First, our bodies really are part of us. This cannot be stressed too strongly in a Christian culture that struggles with dualism. I have heard a dear Christian brother say, "I am not a body; I am a soul--I _have_ a body." This is not the Biblical view, and it is not the Reformed view. The Bible teaches, and Reformed Christians have always confessed, that man has two parts--a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul). God created man with both parts, both parts are affected by the fall, Christ redeemed both parts, and both parts will eventually be perfected. Our souls belong with our bodies, and our bodies belong with our souls. The horror of death is that it tears apart the two constituent parts of a man--it is highly unnatural.

So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.

Second, as I have already alluded to, our bodies are being redeemed. Westminster Shorter Catechism 37 says that our bodies are still united to Christ after we die, and Westminster Confession XXXII: ii says that "all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other." So, my body, organs and all, will be united to Christ after I die; and my body, organs and all, will be raised on the last day. We will not be furnished with new organs in the resurrection any more than we will be furnished with new heads, hands, or feet. My kidneys are united to Christ, and I will continue to have them in the resurrection.

So, with all of this being said, if my body (including my organs) is not mine to give, and if my body (including my organs) is an integral part of me from conception to eternity, how can I possibly have the authority to donate my organs to anyone?


----------



## Logan (Sep 30, 2016)

As a simple response, I will say that I have opted to be an organ donor on my driver's license. I reason that God makes whole those who have lost a limb, an eye, etc. So if I donate an organ after I am dead, I'm confident I too will be made whole (not trying to be presumptuous by the way), and it is better off serving another living person than rotting in the grave (an effect of the Fall). That living person may then be given the opportunity to be put faith in the One who gave His entire body for them. 

I treat my body with respect but I'm not superstitious about God needing every atom to resurrect me, many (most?) of which have passed on through the soil to other bodies.

Edit: Also, if it is noble and loving to give our life (body) for another, why not a part of it even after we are dead?


----------



## MW (Oct 1, 2016)

John 10:18, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. *This commandment have I received of my Father*."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.



I have shared this comment on Facebook.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 1, 2016)

Rev. Winzer, could you expand on your point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond Jesus' authority over his own body.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 1, 2016)

_Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends._

If we can lay down our lives for another, then surely we can lay down our hair for a cancer victim or our kidneys for a needy person...especially after we are dead.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Logan and Perg,

The Bible is abundantly clear about the commendability of martyrdom in a just cause. However, it nowhere indicates that we are to seek martyrdom. That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another. Instead, we ought to lend our person to every just cause, regardless of the cost. Again, it is a question of authority. We do not have authority over our lives like Jesus did, to lay it down and take it up.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.
> ...



I'm glad you found it useful. If anyone objects that he tattoos his body for God in order to show God's ownership of his person, you may note that the owner of our bodies has a right to choose his own mark of ownership; this he has done in baptism.


----------



## Jake (Oct 1, 2016)

By the way, I think your friend was basing his quote on a quote commonly attributed to C. S. Lewis: "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." It's a popular quote (John Piper tweeted it once), but uncertain where it came from.


----------



## Logan (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another.


Tyler, I was not speaking of martyrdom.

Exo 32:32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (which may be him inclusive or in the stead of).
Romans 5:7 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die." (Not as an unlawful thing, but as an unlikely one).
Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (was this a sinful desire?)
Romans 16:4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."
Philippians 2:17 "Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all."
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Is this a principle or speaking only of Christ?)
1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and *we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.*" (cf. Eph 5:2, 25).

The last one to which Poole says "We should never hesitate or make a difficulty, to lay down our lives for the Christian community, or even for the common good and welfare of men, being duly called thereto."
And Trapp says "If Pylades can offer to die for Orestes merely for a name, or out of carnal affection at the best; should not Christians lay down their own necks one for another, as Aquila and Priscilla did for Paul? Rom. 16:4"
And Henry says "[Christian love] must be, in the highest degree, so fervent as to make us willing to suffer even to death for the good of the church, for the safety and salvation of the dear brethren...How mortified should the Christian be to this life! How prepared to part with it!"

So at the very least, would you agree that Christians ought to lay down their bodies for other Christians?


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 1, 2016)

What do those who have scruples about giving, e.g., a kidney to save a brother in the flesh and a brother in Christ, think about donating blood?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Logan said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another.
> ...



Logan,

What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?" 1 John 3:16 uses the situation of risking our lives for one another as an extreme example of brotherly love. In this, we see that we should lay down all of our rights and prerogatives for the good of others. The question is, do we have the prerogative to have parts of our bodies cut off and fused to someone else?

You haven't interacted with the crux of my argument, which is not about how we use our prerogatives, but what are prerogatives are.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> What do those who have scruples about giving, e.g., a kidney to save a brother in the flesh and a brother in Christ, think about donating blood?



I'm personally undecided about it, since blood is not a permanent body part.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > What do those who have scruples about giving, e.g., a kidney to save a brother in the flesh and a brother in Christ, think about donating blood?
> ...



But, life is in the blood!

Maybe you should be consistent. Sorry if that is harsh.


----------



## Logan (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?"



You specifically said "we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another". But I believe that is directly contrary to the Christian's view in Scripture. Did you read Poole's comment? I thought it made it pretty clear what I meant.

You seem to be assuming that this "extreme" example of brotherly love is just being willing to risk our lives, and by your principles would seem to be only as long as it doesn't risk the destruction of our bodies. But it is certain that those like Priscilla and Aquilla "laid down their necks", for which they are praised! Is not the very laying down of one's life, a laying down of one's body? You seem to be thinking of them as two separate things.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 1, 2016)

*Life is in the Blood*



TylerRay said:


> since blood is not a permanent body part



Are you sure? Don't you think that our blood will be included in our resurrection?

Maybe I don't understand you meaning, but couldn’t someone argue that the blood is a more integral part of the body than a kidney?

Leviticus 17:11,14
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:

Doesn’t 1 John argue the same thing?

1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Is it not the blood of Christ brings us near to God?

Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Logan said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?"
> ...



Brother, you're either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me. What I meant is that we are not to seek death. If we die as a consequence of fulfilling our moral duty to one another in love, then that's more than commendable, but we are not to seek death.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Maybe you should be consistent. Sorry if that is harsh.



I try to be consistent. Blood is a bodily fluid, and not a body part. So, I'm undecided. Your rudeness is unbecoming, brother.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > since blood is not a permanent body part
> ...



Ed, note the comment I just made to Trent. I'm undecided about blood because it's a bodily fluid and not a body part _per se. If I become persuaded one way or another about the blood being an "integral part of the body" as you so aptly put it, I'll make up my mind. For now, I abstain from giving blood._


----------



## Logan (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Brother, you're either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me. What I meant is that we are not to seek death. If we die as a consequence of fulfilling our moral duty to one another in love, then that's more than commendable, but we are not to seek death.


 
I don't think I'm misunderstanding you but I am trying to make you think about the implications and the consequences. No one is talking about seeking death.


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2016)

Tyler,

Honestly, I've never heard your position before from a Reformed person.

Let's say that your wife needed a kidney and your genetics matched hers so that you were able to give her one of yours. Would you seriously say to her, "I am to be as Christ to you and lay down my life for you, but I am not willing to give you a kidney"?

Laying down our lives for another is not an "extreme" example. It is regarding another as more important than our own selves. Otherwise, a husband laying down his life for his wife (which _could_ include physical death) would mostly be a command ignored by Christian men in the marriage relationship, since most of us don't physically die in her stead.

Christ gave His life for the church as He _lived and died for her_. If we reduce His sacrifice to His death itself, we don't truly understand what He suffered.

Your idea of a "permanent body part" which excludes blood is problematic. Is your definition of permanent something that can replentish itself (hair, finger nails, etc.)? I certainly hope that you would not join the JWs in prohibiting blood transfusions...

Yes, we will have our bodies resurrected one day, but a glorious body is beyond our comprehension. I would encourage you to put less stock in the physical parts of the body. The danger in your position is that you've essentially provided yourself a way out of laying down your life for another.

Rather, because *your body is not your own*, you should be ready to use it in the service of the God who made you a steward of your body and commanded you to expend yourself for others. 

God will work out the details in the resurrection.


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2016)

Recently, at a church attended by some close friends, a prayer request was brought up that a member's sister had failing kidneys. The lady with failing kidneys is not a member of the church. After prayer was offered, one of the young ladies scheduled tests so that she could determine if she was a viable doner to this woman she never met.

Was this young woman obeying or disobeying Christ and Christ's example? Was this young woman an example of someone who thought her body was her own or someone who thought that her body belonged to the Lord?


----------



## Justified (Oct 1, 2016)

Brother, I want to gain some clarity on your argument, so bare with me. What's the premise that gets us from "God owns our bodies" and "our bodies (including their constituent parts, like kidneys) are united to Christ and redeemed by Him" to the conclusion "therefore, our kidneys are not ours to give?"

Surely, all things that we have belong to God and in that sense are not ours to give. Nevertheless, our God gives many good things over which we are to be wise stewards (e.g., our money). Though our financial resources belong to God, nothing precludes us from using or even giving it away for the good of our neighbor, correct?

Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with. Moreover, all of our bodies rot in the grave. Why cannot we give an organ to save our neighbor's life, which otherwise would rot in the ground? I think it is both loving God and our neighbor to do so. That being said, we do _not_ have permission to give away, say, our heart and other vital organs while living. Such would be suicide and illicit.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

timfost said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Honestly, I've never heard your position before from a Reformed person.
> 
> Let's say that your wife needed a kidney and your genetics matched hers so that you were able to give her one of yours. Would you seriously say to her, "I am to be as Christ to you and lay down my life for you, but I am not willing to give you a kidney"?



Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."



> Laying down our lives for another is not an "extreme" example. It is regarding another as more important than our own selves. Otherwise, a husband laying down his life for his wife (which _could_ include physical death) would mostly be a command ignored by Christian men in the marriage relationship, since most of us don't physically die in her stead.



When I said that laying down one's life for another is an extreme example of brotherly love, I meant that dying for another is the very extremity of brotherly love. No man has greater love than this. The apostle uses it as a figure of speech, representing all brotherly love. Gill writes, "this is an argument for brotherly love, in the highest instance of it, taken from the example of our Lord Jesus Christ."



> Christ gave His life for the church as He _lived and died for her_. If we reduce His sacrifice to His death itself, we don't truly understand what He suffered.



I wouldn't dream of it, brother.



> Your idea of a "permanent body part" which excludes blood is problematic. Is your definition of permanent something that can replentish itself (hair, finger nails, etc.)? I certainly hope that you would not join the JWs in prohibiting blood transfusions...



The reason I say that blood is not permanent is because it is constantly being destroyed and replenished. 

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me to agree with the JWs about blood transfusions any more than to agree with them on the authority of the Bible.



> Yes, we will have our bodies resurrected one day, but a glorious body is beyond our comprehension. I would encourage you to put less stock in the physical parts of the body. The danger in your position is that you've essentially provided yourself a way out of laying down your life for another.



What would you have me focus on in terms of how to treat our bodies if not on the physical parts of the body? The body doesn't have any other kind of part. If the WCF is correct, and I think it is, then we will be raised with the same bodies we have now. If that doesn't mean that we will have the body parts that we have now, I don't know what it can mean.



> Rather, because *your body is not your own*, you should be ready to use it in the service of the God who made you a steward of your body and commanded you to expend yourself for others.



Amen. 



> God will work out the details in the resurrection.



Amen.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

On the difference between blood and organs, here are the thoughts of Ronald Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Churches:


> [T]here is a very essential difference between blood donation and organ transplants- that is that blood is a renewable substance. If I give a pint of blood as a blood donor I do not spend the rest of my life going about with one pint less blood than others! It renews within my body. An analogy might be a nursing mother's milk; by feeding her baby and 'donating' milk she gives what her body will renew, so long as she continues lactating. Possibly hair and finger and toe nails also are analogous to blood in that sense. But organs are essentially different, in that they are not renewable by the body! No kidney donor grows a replacement kidney, no new liver or heart develops in a body from which they are taken. So, extremely unlike blood, organs are an essential part of an individual body, an essential and unalienable part of a whole created by God, and to be ultimately resurrected or changed by Him. Therein lies the essential difference and dividing line, and the reason why Christians can oppose organ transplants without any hint of the Jehovah's Witness nonsense about blood transfusions and the 'soul in the blood' etc."


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

Logan said:


> I am trying to make you think about the implications and the consequences.



Have you considered that one of the conclusions of your opinion is that every Christian ought to be giving up as many organs as possible, since there are always people in need of transplants?


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."



Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2016)

Was the desire of the Galatians sinful?



> For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Gal. 4:15


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

timfost said:


> Was the desire of the Galatians sinful?
> 
> 
> 
> > For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Gal. 4:15



That's plainly hyperbole.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 1, 2016)

timfost said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."
> ...



To be honest, your question about putting my hand into a machine is challenging--I'll have to think it over. My first thought was, _Of course I would!_, but I see your point. I'll think it over.

To make things clear, if the tables were turned, and I were the one with the failing kidney, I would turn it down.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 1, 2016)

Huh? 1 Cor 7 says the husband has authority over the wife's body, and likewise she has authority over her husbands. If you are married, your body does not belong to you alone.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Was the desire of the Galatians sinful?
> ...



Are you sure about that? What Paul is saying if it were possible the Galatians would have literally given up their physical sight for Paul. We today are able to literately pluck out a kidney for our neighbor, and many out of love do exactly that.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> On the difference between blood and organs, here are the thoughts of Ronald Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Churches:
> 
> 
> > [T]here is a very essential difference between blood donation and organ transplants- that is that blood is a renewable substance. If I give a pint of blood as a blood donor I do not spend the rest of my life going about with one pint less blood than others! It renews within my body. An analogy might be a nursing mother's milk; by feeding her baby and 'donating' milk she gives what her body will renew, so long as she continues lactating. Possibly hair and finger and toe nails also are analogous to blood in that sense. But organs are essentially different, in that they are not renewable by the body! No kidney donor grows a replacement kidney, no new liver or heart develops in a body from which they are taken. So, extremely unlike blood, organs are an essential part of an individual body, an essential and unalienable part of a whole created by God, and to be ultimately resurrected or changed by Him. Therein lies the essential difference and dividing line, and the reason why Christians can oppose organ transplants without any hint of the Jehovah's Witness nonsense about blood transfusions and the 'soul in the blood' etc."



The liver can grow back.


----------



## MW (Oct 2, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> Rev. Winzer, could you expand on your point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond Jesus' authority over his own body.



Sorry for the brevity. Basically, the action and virtue of laying down His life for the sheep was mediatorial and redemptive, and so unique and unrepeatable. The idea that we are to imitate it is misplaced. The idea of "saving life" in the materialist world has assumed a Messianic character, so it is probably not surprising to see an overt theological explanation which creates Messiahs of mere men.

I find it odd to see Christians assume a materialist understanding of death. As far as I am aware the Bible teaches that the bodies of believers are united to Christ and rest in their graves till the resurrection. He who lives and believes in the Resurrection and the Life shall never die. He lives in Christ. Hence those who die so far as this temporal life is concerned are only said to "sleep." They are not "dead" in the way a materialist would think of them.

We are to pray, Deliver us from evil. That includes being delivered from death with all the power of it. Fatalistically yielding to the power of death is not consistent with the profession of faith that Christ is the resurrection and the life.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



The difference in the hand in the machine and the transplanted organ is this--the transplanted organ is understood as a possession that my be transferred from one owner to another. The loss of a hand in saving another's life is collateral damage.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 2, 2016)

Justified said:


> Brother, I want to gain some clarity on your argument, so bare with me. What's the premise that gets us from "God owns our bodies" and "our bodies (including their constituent parts, like kidneys) are united to Christ and redeemed by Him" to the conclusion "therefore, our kidneys are not ours to give?"
> 
> Surely, all things that we have belong to God and in that sense are not ours to give. Nevertheless, our God gives many good things over which we are to be wise stewards (e.g., our money). Though our financial resources belong to God, nothing precludes us from using or even giving it away for the good of our neighbor, correct?



Unlike money and other such things, our bodies are not commodities. Our bodies are us. As I noted above, Leviticus teaches that we are not to give ownership of ourselves to others.



> Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with. Moreover, all of our bodies rot in the grave. Why cannot we give an organ to save our neighbor's life, which otherwise would rot in the ground? I think it is both loving God and our neighbor to do so. That being said, we do _not_ have permission to give away, say, our heart and other vital organs while living. Such would be suicide and illicit.



So how do you understand the Confession's (and the Bible's) teaching that the bodies that will be raised on the last day are the same ones we have now?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 2, 2016)

lynnie said:


> Huh? 1 Cor 7 says the husband has authority over the wife's body, and likewise she has authority over her husbands. If you are married, your body does not belong to you alone.



As I noted above, our bodies belong to God alone. However, we have certain prerogatives in regard to our bodies, and so do our spouses. That's Paul's point.


----------



## Justified (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> So how do you understand the Confession's (and the Bible's) teaching that the bodies that will be raised on the last day are the same ones we have now?


 Good question. I don't think that the identity of our bodies consist in having the exact same cells that our bodies have now. Otherwise our bodies at death are not even identical to the bodies we had ten years prior. The identity of our bodies, however, I do not think depends strictly having the same exact cells, molecules, etc.

Also, your counter-objection is salient, i.e., that our bodies are not commodities. I still do not see what premise moves you to the "therefore..." Though I confess, I see what you're getting at.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 2, 2016)

I don't think that organ donation is necessarily immoral. For those that do, is it necessarily sinful to amputate/remove diseased limbs, organs or any tissue if it means prolonging a person's life? If it isn't that seems inconsistent. You can give up bad tissue for oneself to live but not good tissue for another to live?


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > timfost said:
> ...



I am not sure that organ transplantation is being understood here.
You can live with one kidney and half a liver that grows back in 3 weeks. You cannot live without a heart.
Heart and lung transplants (as well as others) are performed on recently dead bodies who are organ donors.

Your idea of the resurrection is reminiscent of the Native American idea that if one is not complete at death they are doomed to walk on their hands for eternity to turn that frown upside down, so to speak.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 2, 2016)

The resurrection is of course a miracle. The question of being resurrected shouldn't enter into the question of e.g. providing a kidney for one's ill daughter or wife. God is not stumped by such things or by martyrs with missing heads.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Oct 2, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> The resurrection is of course a miracle. The question of being resurrected shouldn't enter into the question of e.g. providing a kidney for one's ill daughter or wife. God is not stumped by such things or by martyrs with missing heads.



Says Martha: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

But why will he be resurrected at the last day? Our Lord takes Martha one step farther: he who believes in Me, the Resurrection and the Life, shall rise in the resurrection because he lives in Me. Because he lives in Me he shall never die!

Believest thou this, Martha?

There are ethical implications for the respectful treatment of the body.


----------



## timfost (Oct 2, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.



Let's suppose you lost an arm in a machine. Did you lose a portion of your soul?

Tyler, I believe your premise is faulty and you are making extraordinary conclusions from a bad premise. Yes, the body and soul are joined together, but to conclude from this premise that one cannot donate an organ is to materialize the soul. 

The soul is united to the body as long as it is alive. The parts of the body receive their vitality from the life source. The soul is not united to parts of the body that are a) dead or b) receive their vitality from another life source.

A) An amputated leg does not have a soul. The soul remains united to the living body of the individual. When the individual dies, the soul is separated from that body.

B) The sperm is part of the male body and carries his DNA. The egg is part of the female body and carries her DNA. When these two come together, they are no longer part of their original source but part of a new body. Likewise, an organ that receives its vitality from a new/different life source is no longer part of the body of its first source.

The resurrected body is changed-- glorious. Yes, physical, but not identical. We should not make an argument which restrains God's creative work in the resurrection and we shouldn't speculate how it is that God accomplishes this miraculous work.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 2, 2016)

OPC apparently has not dealt with this formally http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=404
PCA presumes its lawfulness reporting on heroic measures in 1988. http://pcahistory.org/pca/2-378.html
Wayne, has the PCA dealt with the ethics of transplants beyond this report?
FRCNA has been struggling with the issue for a number of years and finding it difficult to complete a report on end of life issues including organ donation; but not the act of transplanting rather the timing. http://frcna.org/resources/acts-of-synod
PB has discussed this before on threads. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/80452-WLC-136-and-Organ-Donation-Transplantation
I don't know any church that has ruled this is sinful (anyone?) and for churches that don't have some guidance yet it seems prudent rather than leaving that all on each minister as the case arises.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 3, 2016)

I wonder even if Galatians 4:15 is hyperbole do we think Paul would have used this as an example if it was in of itself sinful?

15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

ZackF said:


> I don't think that organ donation is necessarily immoral. For those that do, is it necessarily sinful to amputate/remove diseased limbs, organs or any tissue if it means prolonging a person's life? If it isn't that seems inconsistent. You can give up bad tissue for oneself to live but not good tissue for another to live?



I don't think the position I've laid out precludes amputations. The issue is giving/dedicating our body to another, not removing parts of it when necessary to do so. I'm okay with leaving that question open, as it doesn't get at the heart of the issue (no pun intended).

Good question, though!


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

Justified said:


> Good question. I don't think that the identity of our bodies consist in having the exact same cells that our bodies have now. Otherwise our bodies at death are not even identical to the bodies we had ten years prior. The identity of our bodies, however, I do not think depends strictly having the same exact cells, molecules, etc.



I agree. So, if our bodies are still the same bodies even with cells constantly dying and being replaced, then our body parts are still the same body parts even with cells dying and being replaced. I'm referring, of course, to your earlier statement: "Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with."


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



Trent, I don't think you're understanding my argument. We may not give our organs to others because we are prohibited in Scripture to dedicate our bodies to others. It has nothing to do with the permanency of the organs, nor whether a person can live without them.



> Your idea of the resurrection is reminiscent of the Native American idea that if one is not complete at death they are doomed to walk on their hands for eternity to turn that frown upside down, so to speak.



My point about the resurrection has nothing to do with God's ability to resurrect a mutilated body. God will do so. My point about the resurrection is that our bodies will be raised, and those bodies will be the same ones that we have now. Since our body parts are parts of our bodies, we should think twice about what we do with our members. As Rev. Winzer just noted, there are ethical implications of the doctrine of the resurrection. This is why Christians have historically rejected cremation, for instance (I'm not interested in debating cremation on this thread, however).


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

timfost said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.
> ...



Where did that come from? I think you have seriously misunderstood my position. The soul is indivisible. It doesn't have "portions."



> Tyler, I believe your premise is faulty and you are making extraordinary conclusions from a bad premise. Yes, the body and soul are joined together, but to conclude from this premise that one cannot donate an organ is to materialize the soul.
> 
> The soul is united to the body as long as it is alive. The parts of the body receive their vitality from the life source. The soul is not united to parts of the body that are a) dead or b) receive their vitality from another life source.
> 
> ...



You may need to reread my argument, particularly the portion of my original post before the statement, "This ought to be enough to settle the issue." You will find nothing in my main argument about the union of the body and soul.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

timfost said:


> The resurrected body is changed-- glorious. Yes, physical, but not identical. We should not make an argument which restrains God's creative work in the resurrection and we shouldn't speculate how it is that God accomplishes this miraculous work.



The resurrection is not a creative work. It is a redemptive work. God will redeem our bodies, not create new ones.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 3, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> OPC apparently has not dealt with this formally http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=404
> PCA presumes its lawfulness reporting on heroic measures in 1988. http://pcahistory.org/pca/2-378.html
> Wayne, has the PCA dealt with the ethics of transplants beyond this report?
> FRCNA has been struggling with the issue for a number of years and finding it difficult to complete a report on end of life issues including organ donation; but not the act of transplanting rather the timing. http://frcna.org/resources/acts-of-synod
> ...



Thank you for the information, Chris.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 4, 2016)

I would like to start with the verse you gave (I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.") and ask an important question. Why did God want to own our body? Well, you already answered it with the Scripture you gave. So you could say he bought us with a price and owns us body and soul so that we would be obedient to him by spreading his Gospel and by glorifying him in all we do through the work of sanctification he works within us. That is why he owns our bodies. His ultimate goal for his people is of a heavenly purpose. 

Now, should we take good care of the bodies he's given to us? Of course we should. When we don't take good care of our bodies we fall into bad health but more importantly we are sinning. For example, eating too much can cause diabetes, heart problems etc. But the greater offense of overeating is that we are lusting after food which is an offense against God. This impedes us both physically and spiritually to do his work of spreading the Gospel and of glorifying him by demonstrating self-control if they have these diseases as a result of overeating. So we have an earthly reason for taking care of our bodies which aids in the higher and more important heavenly reason for obeying God.

This is why God owns our body. He doesn't own our bodies in order tell us what to do with it so that he return it to us at the last resurrection in the same shape and form we had at birth....that isn't his goal for our bodies. It is true will will have physical bodies when we are resurrected, but they will not be identical to the ones we have now. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body but it certainly was different from the one he was born with. Paul speaks to this in 1Cor 15 (Calvin's commentary on this is worth the read). 

God's goal for our bodies isn't to own them for our usage or for "What's best for mankind". Instead, our bodies and souls are owned by God for, "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." We begin that process here on earth by spreading His Gospel and by being sanctified so that we might glorify him here on earth in all that we do...... after death we will glorify him perfectly. That is why God owns our bodies. 

If you lose a body part, it's ok. If you give a body part away while you're still alive, it's ok as long as it doesn't cause your death. If you give all your useable body parts away after death, it's ok. You're getting a new body which will never decay with which you will be able to glorify him perfectly forever....our chief end.


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> If you give all your useable body parts away after death, it's ok.



The body is not disposable income. You came naked into the world and you will leave the world naked; and that "you" is body and soul. And "you," body and soul, believe in Christ as your resurrection and life. You do not simply believe that you will be raised from the dead. You believe, as Christ taught, that you live in Him and you can never die in Him. You, body and soul, are trusting in Christ for salvation from death, and this should inform your ethical decisions. Choose life, not death. God is the God of the living, not of the dead.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 4, 2016)

MW said:


> Choose life, not death. God is the God of the living, not of the dead.


I understand that is why people donate body organs - so others can live.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 4, 2016)

Another way to come at this is:

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not be a glutton for gluttony is likened unto worshipping other gods...the god of your belly which breaks the first Commandment, thus you are not glorifying God. 

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not donate your organs to another person because....now you have to plug in a Commandment here which would be broken if you did donate an organ, thus causing you to not glorify God. You can't plug in the Scripture we are using as the Commandment bc that would be a circular argument and basically you could make any man made law God's command then.

I would be allowed to say,

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus no one is allowed to wear earrings because the body ... [is] for the Lord.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 4, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> I would like to start with the verse you gave (I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.") and ask an important question. Why did God want to own our body? Well, you already answered it with the Scripture you gave. So you could say he bought us with a price and owns us body and soul so that we would be obedient to him by spreading his Gospel and by glorifying him in all we do through the work of sanctification he works within us. That is why he owns our bodies. His ultimate goal for his people is of a heavenly purpose.
> 
> Now, should we take good care of the bodies he's given to us? Of course we should. When we don't take good care of our bodies we fall into bad health but more importantly we are sinning. For example, eating too much can cause diabetes, heart problems etc. But the greater offense of overeating is that we are lusting after food which is an offense against God. This impedes us both physically and spiritually to do his work of spreading the Gospel and of glorifying him by demonstrating self-control if they have these diseases as a result of overeating. So we have an earthly reason for taking care of our bodies which aids in the higher and more important heavenly reason for obeying God.
> 
> ...



Sarah,

God owns our bodies (which is to say that he owns us) because he is our creator. As our creator, he has the primary prerogative over us. In this capacity, he has forbidden us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be possessed by them. That's why we may not give away our body parts.

You spoke of a "new body," and said that Christ's resurrected body "was different from the one he was born with." I hope you don't literally mean that it was a different body. The Bible, and the Reformed faith, teach that the bodies we have now will be redeemed.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 4, 2016)

Tyler, you are using the circular argument that i just gave as an example. Basically what you are saying is:

the body ... [is] for the Lord.
Thus, you may not donate organs bc the body ... [is] for the Lord. 

If we used this type of reasoning we could make up all types of commandments that are not from God and say they are from God bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.

You have to show that donating organs breaks one of his Commandments which we are not allowed to break bc he declared we have to obey that Commandment bc the body ... [is] for the Lord for his glory otherwise you pay the penalty of hell.

Now, if you can find which law we would be breaking by donating organs, I'll be the first to admit my error and be on your side in this matter. Otherwise, this idea is just another man mad law I personally will not feel obligated to follow.

As for our new bodies read 1 Cor 15 and Calvin's commentary. Our new bodies will be free from ever dying again. Jesus is not sitting in heaven eating every day to stay alive. That's certainly new from his body before his death.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 4, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> Tyler, you are using the circular argument that i just gave as an example. Basically what you are saying is:
> 
> the body ... [is] for the Lord.
> Thus, you may not donate organs bc the body ... [is] for the Lord.
> ...



Sarah,

My argument is linear, not circular:

Major premise: God owns our bodies (1 Cor 6).

Minor Premise: God explicitly forbids us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be owned by them (Leviticus 19:28).

Conclusion: We may not give our body parts to others.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 4, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> As for our new bodies read 1 Cor 15 and Calvin's commentary. Our new bodies will be free from ever dying again. Jesus is not sitting in heaven eating every day to stay alive. That's certainly new from his body before his death.



Yes, it is new in the sense of being renewed. It is not new in the sense of being a brand new body. It is different than it was before, but it is not a completely different body.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 4, 2016)

Tyler, 

I could only find one person who interprets Lev 19:28 the way you have done and that is Charles Ellicott who belonged to the Church of England. I don't put much stalk in the Church of England. I've never heard the interpretation you have given. Calvin is silent (at least I couldn't find it) on this verse as well as others. R.C. Sproul states, "Mutilation of the body created by God was incompatible with holiness, for the holy God is perfect life."

This is what pretty much what everyone else is saying,

28. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead—"The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arms and legs, in time of bereavement, was universal among the heathen, and it was deemed a becoming mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the deities who presided over death and the grave. The Jews learned this custom in Egypt, and though weaned from it, relapsed in a later and degenerate age into this old superstition (Isa 15:2; Jer 16:6; 41:5).
nor print any marks upon you—by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return. (See allusions to the practice, Isa 44:5; Re 13:17; 14:1)."

I don't see how this verse states, "God explicitly forbids us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be owned by them". Further up in this same chapter in verse 20 it talks about slaves and their right not to be put to death if a man lies with the female slave. As you know, Jews did own Jewish slaves. It obviously permitted by God for someone to own another person and have them as a slave. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. God wouldn't allow the Jews to own slaves, especially Jewish slaves, and then a few verses down give an unclear verse about not owning a person. I think we should take this verse for what it says, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves.". 

Unless you can find a trustworthy, reformed commentator who interprets this verse the way you have, I say again, your argument is circular. 

As far as the "new body", I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2016)

If you believe that Christ is the resurrection and life you believe He has changed the nature of death. Although you die temporally you do not die eternally. You are not dead in the materialist sense; you are only asleep. After you die temporally your body remains united to your living Head, Jesus Christ, and by virtue of Him it lives; and it is on the basis of this living union that you shall be raised again, body and soul, at the last day. Such is the life of Christ in you that you account yourself dead even now because you are crucified with Christ, and the life that you live in the flesh you live by faith in the Son of God who loved you and gave Himself for you.


----------



## timfost (Oct 4, 2016)

Tyler,

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your argument.

Nevertheless, I still can't for the life of me understand how you've come to the conclusion you have and I hope it does not have a negative effect on your family one day.

I have more to say, but not the time to say it.

I hope you change your mind.

Blessings,


----------



## ZackF (Oct 4, 2016)

Does taking a rib from Adam in giving Eve life have anything to add to this discussion?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 5, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> Tyler,
> 
> I could only find one person who interprets Lev 19:28 the way you have done and that is Charles Ellicott who belonged to the Church of England. I don't put much stalk in the Church of England. I've never heard the interpretation you have given. Calvin is silent (at least I couldn't find it) on this verse as well as others. R.C. Sproul states, "Mutilation of the body created by God was incompatible with holiness, for the holy God is perfect life."
> 
> ...



Most of the older Reformed commentators simply say that it was a pagan practice, and the Israelites were to avoid it. However, Gill notes, "this was the custom of the Gentiles in ancient times, to imprint upon themselves the mark of an idol, to show that they were his servants." Thus, the practice was a way of dedicating oneself to an idol.



> I don't see how this verse states, "God explicitly forbids us to dedicate our bodies to others, to be owned by them".



I shouldn't have said that it is explicit in the passage--it is implicit. The fact that we may not dedicate ourselves to an idol, and that we may not mutilate ourselves in the name of the dead, shows that we may not give our bodies to false gods or to men.



> Further up in this same chapter in verse 20 it talks about slaves and their right not to be put to death if a man lies with the female slave. As you know, Jews did own Jewish slaves. It obviously permitted by God for someone to own another person and have them as a slave. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. God wouldn't allow the Jews to own slaves, especially Jewish slaves, and then a few verses down give an unclear verse about not owning a person. I think we should take this verse for what it says, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves."



Jewish slavery did not involve ownership in the person, but only in the person's labor. Jews were made slaves of other Jews as a way to work off debt, and it was not permanent. In the extraordinary case that a Jewish slave chose to remain with his master because he was better off there, special provision was given in the law.

Paul, on the other hand, forbids Christians from becoming slaves on the basis of God's ownership of their persons: "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men" (1 Cor 7:23).


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 5, 2016)

ZackF said:


> Does taking a rib from Adam in giving Eve life have anything to add to this discussion?



Not when the issue at stake is God's ownership of our bodies. God, in his capacity as creator, took a rib from Adam in order to create Eve.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2016)

You're right, Tyler, the Israelites and also Christians were/are not to mark oneself to show they belong to an idol. That would be idolatry. However, you would have to bend and stretch that Scripture so perversely in order for it to support your belief system on organ donation. I tend to be cautious on doing such things. The fact that I cannot find any reformed teacher who supports your interpretation leads me to the conclusion that it's not a good interpretation. I'm not trying to divisive. If you were laying all this info out in order to tell us we couldn't listen to music, I would be like, "Meh, ok, no harm done." But organ donation is a life saving process. Something this important has to have STRONG Scriptural support in order to tell other Christians they are not allowed to donate or even receive an organ which would save their lives.


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

Believers SLEEP in Jesus. They do not suffer DEATH in the way that materialists imagine.

1 Cor. 15:51, "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

1 Thess. 4:14, "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."

1 Thess. 5:10, "Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2016)

Rev. Matthew you keep putting up Scriptures which talk about being asleep in Jesus. Do you really believe no believer really ever dies but is just asleep? Do you believe that Jesus didn't really die but was asleep in the grave? This really does fly in the face of Christian faith. If he were only asleep then he didn't conquer death and if we only sleep then there is no resurrection just ppl waking up from a long sleep. In any case, I don't know what this has to do with the OP, but since you keep posting this I wanted to find out what you really believe.


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> Do you believe that Jesus didn't really die but was asleep in the grave?



Yes, Christ really died; but we believe Christ died and rose again, and His death and resurrection makes a difference to us. We die and rise in Christ. We live in death with His risen life. When Christ who is our life shall appear then shall we appear with Him in glory. That is why there can be an intermediate state in the unnatural condition of soul being separated from body. That is why we will rise again on the last day with body and soul reunited. That is why some will not die but will be alive at the coming of Christ. Giving oneself up to the fatalistic necessity of death is in accord with materialist religion, but it has no place in Christian faith and life.

Romans 6:8-11, "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 5, 2016)

It may be helpful for me to give a stripped down version of my argument. If anyone is truly interested in studying this issue out, let's do. However, if this matter has a foregone conclusion for you, and you refuse to be open minded because you have a hard time accepting the ramifications of such a view, then I think you are doing your theology backwards, and you need to reconsider your methods.

Here is my argument:
1. God owns our persons (that is, ourselves), and he forbids us to give our persons to others.
2. Our bodies are part of our persons, so we are forbidden to give our bodies to others.
3. Our organs are parts of our bodies, so we are forbidden to give our organs to others.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2016)

Rev Matthew I am quite sure you are far smarter than I am. Some of what you are saying is strange (We live in death with His risen life.) and I'm sure it's just how you are wording it. I trust from your first sentence "Please think about what you are asking" you don't believe we actually are asleep in the grave. In any case, I'm still trying to find the connection between what you keep saying and organ donation.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> It may be helpful for me to give a stripped down version of my argument. If anyone is truly interested in studying this issue out, let's do. However, if this matter has a foregone conclusion for you, and you refuse to be open minded because you have a hard time accepting the ramifications of such a view, then I think you are doing your theology backwards, and you need to reconsider your methods.
> 
> Here is my argument:
> 1. God owns our persons (that is, ourselves), and he forbids us to give our persons to others.
> ...



Tyler, I like to think I'm open minded. PB ppl taught me to be so when I was challenging their concept of the Sabbath and was finally converted to it years ago! However, they always urged me to search the Scriptures and gave Scriptures which supported their view. You have failed to give Scriptural support for the second part of your first argument. But I'll keep watching this post for any Scriptural additions you give.


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> In any case, I'm still trying to find the connection between what you keep saying and organ donation.



Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You believe you will live with Christ after you die. God's ordination of things is that the soul goes to heaven and the body remains united to Christ and lives in Him. Your faith is in the life of Christ and that you live in Him.

We do not die in that sense in which a materialist thinks of death. Death is a judgment of God, not a natural necessity. Christ has taken that judgment away. We only die as a part of God's ordination as a means to a happy end, and that dying does not introduce our body to a state of death but to a state of sleep in Jesus to be awoken on the day of the resurrection. To use another biblical analogy, that body is the seed that is sown mortal to be raised immortal.

Now everyone would agree that it is unethical to cut up a sleeping man and harvest his organs to put in another person. But that is precisely what is being done from the perspective of a believer who has died in Jesus. He walks by faith, not by sight. He lives in the hope of Christ's resurrection and life. He believes his body remains united to Christ, and he will wait patiently for that which he hopes for.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2016)

I actually believe that my soul will go to heaven and that my body will decay in the ground until he resurrects it. I don't believe that when I die my body will be united to Christ and live in him while i'm dead in the ground....do you have a Scripture to support this? How can your physical body be united to Christ when it's an old, decaying body which is mortal laying in the ground and not in laying in heaven? Christ is in heaven not on earth so our bodies cannot be untied with him only our souls. That really doesn't make any sense. Our bodies once resurrected will be joined with our souls and we will then be joined to Christ completely but not until then. Our physical bodies actually do die. Our souls do not die bc of what Christ has done. Our physical bodies will one day be resurrected from death to immortal life. But for now.....Christians' bodies who die are actually dead. We will not be immortal until Christ resurrects us.


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> do you have a Scripture to support this?



Our union with Christ is an unbreakable bond.

1 Thess. 4:14, "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."

1 Thess. 5:10, "Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

As the Larger Catechism (answer 86) teaches, "their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls."


----------



## timfost (Oct 5, 2016)

MW said:


> Now everyone would agree that it is unethical to cut up a sleeping man and harvest his organs to put in another person. But that is precisely what is being done from the perspective of a believer who has died in Jesus.



Is it ethical to bury a sleeping person?

Very strange arguments on this thread...


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

timfost said:


> Is it ethical to bury a sleeping person?



Something must be done with his mortal remains, and therefore it is ethical to respectfully lay the body to rest in hope of the resurrection. It is not respectful to chop him up into pieces.


----------



## timfost (Oct 5, 2016)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Is it ethical to bury a sleeping person?
> ...



By what standard do we judge organ donation as disrespectful? "Chopping up in pieces" suggests a grotesque act not fitting for what actually occurs in organ donation.

The second table of the law would seem to promote organ donation, not prohibit it. The Galatians demonstrated organ donation _willingness_, which would not be a demonstration of love if the desire was evil.


----------



## MW (Oct 5, 2016)

timfost said:


> By what standard do we judge organ donation as disrespectful?



By the faith of the Scriptures, which tells us that we live united to Christ.



timfost said:


> "Chopping up in pieces" suggests a grotesque act not fitting for what actually occurs in organ donation.



Cut out the heart and deliver it to the receiver, cut out the liver and deliver it to the receiver, cut out the kidneys and deliver them to the receivers, and you have a person chopped up in pieces.



timfost said:


> The second table of the law would seem to promote organ donation, not prohibit it. The Galatians demonstrated organ donation _willingness_, which would not be a demonstration of love if the desire was evil.



Then why are you waiting until you die? Because you know the action in and of itself is a killing action. And if that is the case, you know very well that the law should not be interpreted to condone an action which the law outrightly and overtly condemns.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 5, 2016)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Is it ethical to bury a sleeping person?
> ...



It may (or may not) be disrespectful, but is it a sin? I think that’s the real question. 

Do medical students commit a sin when they use cadavers in their surgery training? 

“Nearly all medical students in America begin their education by disassembling a human body. … Active learning in the lab is the foundation of every treatment and diagnosis the future physicians will render. A dead body can become a life-saving tool down the road.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/body-donation-cadavers-anatomy-medical-education/


----------



## MW (Oct 6, 2016)

Is it a sin to take a sleeping man and chop him up into pieces for medical research? Does that need an answer?

Is Jesus to be believed in what He told Martha? Understandably, we all believe, as Martha did, that Lazarus shall rise in the resurrection. But it does not appear that everyone believes what Jesus then told Martha concerning Himself as the resurrection and the life, and the consequences which flow from this extraordinary truth.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 6, 2016)

I looked up the idea of us sleeping when we die. I couldn't find one person who thought our bodies are asleep in the grave. I did find something called soul sleeping which is a new age concept and not a Christian belief.


----------



## MW (Oct 6, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> I looked up the idea of us sleeping when we die. I couldn't find one person who thought our bodies are asleep in the grave. I did find something called soul sleeping which is a new age concept and not a Christian belief.



Calvin on 1 Thess. 4:13: "He speaks of the dead as asleep, agreeably to the common practice of Scripture — a term by which the bitterness of death is mitigated, for there is a great difference between sleep and destruction. It refers, however, not to the soul, but to the body, for the dead body lies in the tomb, as in a couch, until God raise up the man. Those, therefore, act a foolish part, who infer from this that souls sleep."

On v. 14: "To sleep in Christ, is to retain in death the connection that we have with Christ, for those that are by faith ingrafted into Christ, have death in common with him, that they may be partakers with him of life."


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 6, 2016)

MW said:


> Is it a sin to take a sleeping man and chop him up into pieces for medical research? Does that need an answer?
> 
> Is Jesus to be believed in what He told Martha? Understandably, we all believe, as Martha did, that Lazarus shall rise in the resurrection. But it does not appear that everyone believes what Jesus then told Martha concerning Himself as the resurrection and the life, and the consequences which flow from this extraordinary truth.
> 
> Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



Question on practical morality: Given your view that medical students sin when they dissect a cadaver, and assuming (for the sake of our discussion) that every medical school on earth requires its students to dissect cadavers, should medical schools be avoided?


----------



## MW (Oct 6, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> Question on practical morality: Given your view that medical students sin when they dissect a cadaver, and assuming (for the sake of our discussion) that every medical school on earth requires its students to dissect cadavers, should medical schools be avoided?



That assumption would probably be against the trend from what I understand, and might be unnecessary with the advent of 3D printing parts; but yes, avoidance would be required if one were not willing to challenge the establishment. Part of living in a democratically pluralistic society is the ability to press one's religious freedoms, and our post-modern institutions tend to be more open to accommodating individuals than they once were, although the medical field is probably one field where post-modernism seems counter-intuitive.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2016)

To be absent from the body is to be with The Lord. I believe the body is said to be asleep which is a metaphor for death, though the soul or spirit is alive and "with" The Lord. In other words, the body is dead and not alive, but the essence or soul of the person is with The Lord, and we shall yearn for the vessel that is in the grave which will be changed like the body of Jesus.

Even when a person gets a kidney they acknowledge they have have another person kidney within themselves. I have no doubt when giver and receiver are raised on the last day they will have the original kidney they had while alive.

So far as our body being united with Jesus while in the grave I know the connection is a spiritual connection and not physical in that the body of Jesus is not laying with us in the grave, though through The Spirit our body is connected.


----------



## timfost (Oct 6, 2016)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Is it ethical to bury a sleeping person?
> ...



Isn't the definition of _mortal_ "subject to death"? Such an argument seems oxymoronic.

Christ made no such distinction:



> These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus *sleeps*, but I go that I may wake him up.”
> 
> Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” However, Jesus spoke of his *death*, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
> 
> Then Jesus said to them plainly, “*Lazarus is dead*..."



Yes, in a sense, they are sleeping and waiting to be awoken. But this does not detract from the fact that the dead are in fact dead-- separated body and soul. If we apply the same moral code to the dead, don't we by necessity then we bury them alive?

We should be careful not to mix metaphors as it seems to create a new law that we by necessity beak when we bury the dead.

Matt.15:3: "He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?'"


----------



## timfost (Oct 6, 2016)

Heidelberg 41:



> *Why was He “buried”?*
> 
> To show thereby that He was really dead.


----------



## timfost (Oct 6, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Was the desire of the Galatians sinful?
> ...



If the specific metaphor he used would have been sinful for them to actually do, could he just as easily have said "For I bear you witness that you would have murdered others in my place"? If a) he used hyperbole, and b) the example given would have been sinful, would the statement above communicate the same point?


----------



## MW (Oct 6, 2016)

timfost said:


> If we apply the same moral code to the dead, don't we by necessity then we bury them alive?



No; they are temporally and outwardly dead, though not eternally and inwardly dead. They are passed from death to life. We look at the things which are unseen and eternal, not the things which are seen and temporal. We walk by faith, not by sight.


----------



## MW (Oct 6, 2016)

earl40 said:


> and we shall yearn for the vessel that is in the grave which will be changed like the body of Jesus.



Having the body chopped up into pieces does not look like expectant waiting and yearning for the redemption of the body. It looks like fatalistic resignation to the destructive power of death.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 6, 2016)

MW said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > Question on practical morality: Given your view that medical students sin when they dissect a cadaver, and assuming (for the sake of our discussion) that every medical school on earth requires its students to dissect cadavers, should medical schools be avoided?
> ...



Is it your view that autopsies are sinful even if performed under a court order to provide evidence in a murder case?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2016)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > and we shall yearn for the vessel that is in the grave which will be changed like the body of Jesus.
> ...



I would agree if I had an expectation that does not look forward to the resurrection and the suffering we encounter in this temporal existence. For this I am confident of in that if one gives ones life, or a body part, in love a reward would be waiting. I wonder do you think Paul would suggest the love of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes for him "if possible" would be a sin?


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> Is it your view that autopsies are sinful even if performed under a court order to provide evidence in a murder case?



What happens to our bodies after we are dead is out of our control, and law and jurisdiction creates another ethical dynamic to consider. The voluntary donation of our organs after we are dead is with our own consent and in our control.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I wonder do you think Paul would suggest the love of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes for him "if possible" would be a sin?



Living transplants is a different issue. It doesn't require death. It is like blood transfusion in that regard. That is the farthest extent to which your eye example could apply.

Having said that, I do not think you are exegeting this passage very well. The context speaks of Paul being received as an angel of God, as one who was regarded as blessed and of great worth because he preached the gospel to them. The eye itself is only used as something "precious" to the person, as when we speak of the apple of the eye. Once it is properly understood as proverbial speech, like plucking out the right eye to avoid offence, it is obvious that it has no relevance to the donation of body parts.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 7, 2016)

MW said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > Is it your view that autopsies are sinful even if performed under a court order to provide evidence in a murder case?
> ...



This is precisely the ethical dilemma I’m seeking your opinion on. It’s understood that we bear no responsibility for how a judge takes it upon himself to dispose of our body after our death. The question is this: Is it sinful for a judge to order an autopsy when the judge believes an autopsy may provide critical evidence in a criminal trial?


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> This is precisely the ethical dilemma I’m seeking your opinion on.



The social ethics of law and government are going to introduce a degree of complexity to the issue, and if this mixes with the issue of this thread it will become quite confusing. I will just make a general acknowledgment that we yield certain freedoms to the society and the government by virtue of citizenship, and what is sinful for an individual is not necessarily unlawful for the State where the rights of government or the peace and safety of the society are concerned. That won't decide the issue, but I think it will show that social ethics is not simply a matter of applying individual ethics on a broader scale.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 7, 2016)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder do you think Paul would suggest the love of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes for him "if possible" would be a sin?
> ...



Yes I can see where I erred concerning the passage in Galatians, and that you appear to have said here in this post that one could give a kidney or blood to another person if need be while physically alive. Though it also appears you are saying the opposite in other posts.


----------



## timfost (Oct 7, 2016)

MW said:


> Living transplants is a different issue. It doesn't require death. It is like blood transfusion in that regard. That is the farthest extent to which your eye example could apply.



To be clear, a kidney would be lawful to donate (contra Tyler's position), in your opinion, because death is not prerequisite?


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

timfost said:


> To be clear, a kidney would be lawful to donate (contra Tyler's position), in your opinion, because death is not prerequisite?



Perhaps it is closer to say a kidney "might" be lawful to donate given that it does not require death. We are still to choose life, and the specialists will explain the risks involved, so it is a matter of individual persuasion and choice.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 7, 2016)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear, a kidney would be lawful to donate (contra Tyler's position), in your opinion, because death is not prerequisite?
> ...



I thought this was all about "ppl can't donate bc we're not allowed to let others own us." and "we can't bc we're just asleep in the grave when we die". No one gives away their body parts if it's going to kill them and even if they wanted to the medical community wouldn't allow it. If someone dies in a car accident and they wanted their organs donated, that person didn't die from giving away their organs.....they died in the car accident. I guess I'm super confused as to why you're against donating organs after the person dies but not while the person is alive.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> I guess I'm super confused as to why you're against donating organs after the person dies but not while the person is alive.



The person is not considered to be dead in the materialist sense. The person has passed from death to life. He is out of the realm of death and has been translated into the realm of life because He believes in Jesus Christ who is the resurrection and the life. After death the believer's body remains united to Christ, who is his life. And it is on that basis that he hopes for the redemption of his body and his own bodily resurrection.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 7, 2016)

So what you're saying is, "After death the believer's body remains united to Christ, who is his life and for that reason Christians are only allowed to donate organs if it doesn't kill them while they are alive, but they may not donate their organs after they pass away." You've given lots of Scripture supporting your view that Christians sleep in their graves untied with Christ (I happen to believe that "sleep" when used this way means our body will not stay in a state of decay. And that "united with Christ" means that we are united in what Christ did before us. He was the forerunner of us all when he died then rose again conquering death and one day we will do as he did thus united in what he did.), but you fail to give Scriptural support for not donating your organs BECAUSE "After death the believer's body remains united to Christ".

It would be like me saying, "After death the believer's body remains united to Christ, therefore, no Christian is allowed to permanently pierce their ears." That does sound ridiculous...that's why I chose that example, but in essence, I could throw any man-made law into the space you've put "you can't donate organs after your dead" because no one is using Scriptural support to show that one is breaking God's law when you donate organs or when you pierce your ears.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> if it doesn't kill them





OPC'n said:


> no Christian is allowed to permanently pierce their ears



Sorry to cut up your post but I would like you to see these two statements next to each other so as to be able to discern the difference. If piercing the ear does not kill the Christian your ad absurdum argument does not follow. Not that I am arguing for piercing or not piercing the ear; I'm just showing that this particular case is irrelevant.

The ethics of the Bible are the ethics of life. God sets before us life and death and calls us to choose life. Again, covenantal relation means that the person is "alive to God." He is not the God of the dead but of the living. It is not simply that the body will rise again. The body rises again because it is accounted as alive to God. It is accounted alive to God because it is united to Christ.

This is not stated once or twice in the Bible. It is a dominant theme. John 6 and 11; Romans 6 and 8; 1 Corinthians 6 and 15; 2 Corinthians 4-5; Galatians 2; Philippians 3; Colossians 3. Union with Christ means the Christian is alive, not dead. Death is a legal punishment. Christ has taken it away. Life is a gospel blessing. It is ours in Christ. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 7, 2016)

MW said:


> The social ethics of law and government are going to introduce a degree of complexity to the issue, and if this mixes with the issue of this thread it will become quite confusing. I will just make a general acknowledgment that we yield certain freedoms to the society and the government by virtue of citizenship, and what is sinful for an individual is not necessarily unlawful for the State where the rights of government or the peace and safety of the society are concerned. That won't decide the issue, but I think it will show that social ethics is not simply a matter of applying individual ethics on a broader scale.



The distinction between social and private ethics is a fair one, but it’s this very distinction that calls into question your (apparent) blanket ban on the private use of cadavers for medical research. 

You seem to be saying that absent an order from a legal authority, a medical researcher who uses cadavers to gain insight into a little-known but dangerous plague (for example) is committing a sin. But how can it be necessarily sinful for private citizens, acting on their own, to dissect cadavers in an effort to save countless lives but “not necessarily” sinful for these same medical researchers, acting under a judge's authority, to conduct autopsies for evidence in criminal trials? The “safety of society” imperative you cited in your last note can apply just as urgently to medical research as it can to the pursuit of justice -- even if the medical research is undertaken privately.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> The “safety of society” imperative you cited in your last note can apply just as urgently to medical research as it can to the pursuit of justice -- even if the medical research is undertaken privately.



I took you to be extending the discussion from the individual perspective of the issue at hand. It suffices to say that there are unique dynamics here which cannot decide the issue from the individual perspective that is under discussion in this thread. What someone does without my consent when I am dead is out of my control, as I have already observed.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 8, 2016)

MW said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > The “safety of society” imperative you cited in your last note can apply just as urgently to medical research as it can to the pursuit of justice -- even if the medical research is undertaken privately.
> ...



But I'm asking strictly about the responsibility of the living. You said earlier that it would be a sin for a medical researcher to dissect a cadaver. Does this apply even when the medical researcher is trying to prevent a potentially catastrophic plague? I understand that if it were your body being dissected, you wouldn't be responsible for what happened to it. I'm merely asking a follow-up question to your statement about medical researchers committing a sin by dissecting corpses and wondering if you allow exceptions. You've already said that dissections carried out under a court order to obtain evidence in a criminal case may or may not be sinful, the state having special prerogatives; the question I'm asking now, about the use of cadavers to study a virus that could wipe out millions, assumes no court order is in place and that the researchers are acting on their own -- meaning that they can't use state prerogative as a defense for their behavior. 

I think this question is highly germane to the discussion as a) most dissections of corpses are carried out for medical reasons, and b) dissection of corpses can be highly useful in protecting society against serious biological threats.


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> meaning that they can't use state prerogative as a defense for their behavior.



If they don't have personal consent of the individual and they don't have government authority they would be acting unlawfully. In fact, because the care of dead bodies is a social responsibility it is a matter of law, so without law it would be unlawful to cut up a dead body even with the consent of the individual.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 8, 2016)

MW said:


> ThomasT said:
> 
> 
> > meaning that they can't use state prerogative as a defense for their behavior.
> ...



We're assuming the researchers have the full consent of the dead and the full consent of the law -- it's merely that they aren't acting under a judge's _order_ (as they would be when conducting an autopsy for a criminal case). 

We'e trying to determine if the act of dissecting the dead _per se_ is sinful. Again, you mentioned in an earlier note that medical researchers _commit a sin_ when they dissect the dead. It was understood (I think) that the researchers were sinning not because they were using corpses illegally or without consent but because the act itself was sinful irrespective of consent or legality. Medical researchers, as a matter of routine, use only corpses they've been given consent to use. So we're not worried about consent here (consent has been given), and we're taking it for granted that the researchers are acting legally.

To repeat the question: Does a medical researcher sin when he dissects a corpse to fight the advance of a horrible plague? The corpse he dissects belonged to a man who'd given his free consent, and the researcher isn't breaking the law.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 8, 2016)

OPC'n said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > It may be helpful for me to give a stripped down version of my argument. If anyone is truly interested in studying this issue out, let's do. However, if this matter has a foregone conclusion for you, and you refuse to be open minded because you have a hard time accepting the ramifications of such a view, then I think you are doing your theology backwards, and you need to reconsider your methods.
> ...



I'm glad you're open-minded, Sarah. For support for 1b, see 1 Cor 7:23.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 8, 2016)

I've come to see that this is a fruitless discussion. I've given my argument three times on this thread, and so far, unless I'm mistaken, Sarah is the only one who has actually interacted with it (thank you, Sarah).

Thank you also to Rev. Winzer for your complimentary argument from the ethical implications of the resurrection. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts.

If anyone cares to interact with me any more on these things, you may send me a PM. So far as this thread goes, I'm bowing out.


----------



## Logan (Oct 8, 2016)

Tyler,

From my perspective, your arguments are difficult to interact with because you've set up a premise that defies disproof. I don't accept your chain of logic as I think it is counter to other statements in Scripture.

It would be like me saying "I will not believe in gravity unless I can see it" and then no matter what anyone else says about measuring the effects, or the implications of that statement, I insist that until I am shown visible gravity, I won't believe in it and that this is fruitless because everyone else is being close-minded.

The burden of proof is on you, as you are setting forth the premise. Any doctrine such as this will have to be reconciled not just with one verse about making cuttings on one's bodies, but with the rest of Scripture as well. I personally gave a list of verses I thought indicated a biblical view that was antithetical to the one you presented. Yet I didn't see you interact with them, or the commentators whose comments I provided. And to verses brought up by others, you've dismissed them, saying it was hyperbole without analyzing the underlying worldview behind those statements. 

So yes, it has been rather fruitless. I reject your implication that those who are not accepting your premise are close-minded. Actually it seems to me that the opposite is the case here: you won't look at anything but on the grounds of your premise. Ask yourself seriously what it would take to convince you your premise is incorrect, and you might find your premise comes from a foregone conclusion.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> Again, you mentioned in an earlier note that medical researchers _commit a sin_ when they dissect the dead.



As noted, I said this in answer to your question which was raised in the discussion on organ donation, and organ donation is a matter of personal consent. From the perspective of the Christian being alive in Christ, and therefore "sleeping" in the sense that his body is still united to Christ, it would obviously be a sin, since no person thinks it is right to chop up a sleeping person.

In your recent scenarios, where either public justice or public health are at stake, we have the authority of law, which changes the dynamics of the discussion. It is no longer concerned with personal consent and the person's religious perspective. In the case of a murder victim consent is not even required. In the case of a plague I suppose there would be another set of dynamics at work.

Medical science works with materialist assumptions the Christian does not accept. This means the Christian has to carefully look at each scenario and examine it in the light of his own convictions. There is no single conviction which applies to every scenario since different dynamics work in different situations.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2016)

Logan said:


> I personally gave a list of verses I thought indicated a biblical view that was antithetical to the one you presented. Yet I didn't see you interact with them, or the commentators whose comments I provided.



Here is the point of the commentators you have quoted, to which I have added emphasis by underlining:



> "to lay down our lives for the Christian community, or even for the common good and welfare of men, being duly called thereto."
> 
> "should not Christians lay down their own necks one for another"
> 
> "willing to suffer even to death for the good of the church"



Here is your question, to which I have added emphasis by underlining:



> So at the very least, would you agree that Christians ought to lay down their bodies for other Christians?



In the case of donating organs after death, it is obvious that the person has not given his life or his neck, nor suffered to death. So the point of these commentators is irrelevant to the issue of donating organs after death.

God's commandments are for the living. "The man that doeth them shall live in them." The commandment is ordained unto life. It provides an ethical imperative to choose life, not death. As far as the Bible is concerned the time of life is the time for doing good. After death comes judgment.


----------



## Logan (Oct 26, 2016)

MW said:


> In the case of donating organs after death, it is obvious that the person has not given his life or his neck, nor suffered to death. So the point of these commentators is irrelevant to the issue of donating organs after death.



Sorry to resurrect this thread, but this has been niggling at me since I don't think you were closely following the conversation and misunderstood the point. I agree the commentaries aren't about donating organs, but that's not what I was talking about anyway.

You'll note in my post, these quotations were in direct reply to Tyler's specific statement "we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another." And the commentators I reference do address that directly and in opposition. If Tyler wouldn't admit that, then there was no point going on into discussing organ donation, which I didn't even reference in that post. 

That's all. Let this drop into oblivion again.


----------



## MW (Oct 26, 2016)

Logan said:


> That's all. Let this drop into oblivion again.



I apologise for missing the preliminary nature of your point.


----------

