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.
Who Owns our Bodies?
- Thread starter TylerRay
- Start date
- Status
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.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm glad you're open-minded, Sarah. For support for 1b, see 1 Cor 7:23.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
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.
Here is the point of the commentators you have quoted, to which I have added emphasis by underlining:
Here is your question, to which I have added emphasis by underlining:
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
I apologise for missing the preliminary nature of your point.
- Status
