"Love" Revisited

Sheesh, some people. They haven’t darkened a church door since Mom stopped yanking them by the ear, nor have they opened a Bible in decades, if ever. But if they know you’re a Christian and find themselves losing an argument, suddenly they become Bible scholars, reaching down from the depths of memory of Sunday school classes from when they were eight years old.

I called what is happening to Terry Schiavo evil (among other things). In the comments to that post Richard Bennett and some other commenters began to have a difference of opinion as to whether those who would see to the starvation of Terri Schiavo should be called ‘devils’ or not. Mr. Bennett, losing proportion, characterized the naming of Michael Schaivo as a ‘devil’ as ‘mere disagreement.’

It's not necessary to make the people who disagree with you out to be devils.

When I came down on the side of the other commenters, I got this from Mr. Bennett:

It's not very Christian, Baldilocks.

When I requested the chapter and verse, I got this:

"...Faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love"
[ed. Note: I never did get a chapter or verse from Mr. Bennett, so here it is; 1 Corinthians 13:13]
Don't be a hater, Baldilocks.

Spare me the bogus theology, sir. Since when does "love" include never speaking out against those who do evil things? Even Jesus Christ made a whip and drove the *evil* men out of the temple; those who had turned His Father's house into a 'den of thieves' (Matthew 21:13).

(Wow, did Big J engage in a little name-calling there? Hmmm?)

Sounds like love to me; love of God over blasphemy.

BTW, early in my blog career, I had a similar conversation with another person that seemed to have the warped notion that love means never pointing out the error and/or evil that humans do. I point you to it.

Having love for another or a group does not imply an implicit or explicit approval of everything which that person or group does. Example: a relative of mine has two illegitimate children by different fathers. Did my vocal disapproval of this state of affairs imply that I don’t love her?

Oh, and, by the way, all the cutesy little modern words and their new-fangled meanings are nice (“hater”), but they have absolutely no bearing on Christians and Christianity. (By the way, a “hater” in the modern sense is someone who is jealous or envious of another. There is no one involved in the Schiavo mess for which I feel either of those irrational feelings.) Calling people what they are does not indicate love or hatred, but observation and opinion.

4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong.
6 You destroy those who tell lies;
bloodthirsty and deceitful men
the LORD abhors.

--Psalms 5:4-6

Now that’s hatred!

Additionally, twisting the definition of love when one is losing an argument demonstrates a characteristic that is often blasted in the Bible: deceit.

That also has a modern-day phrasing: moving the goalposts.

Comments

[CGHill]

She shoots, she scores.

[Some Guy]

If Terry Schiavo had written a 'living will' saying she didn't want to be kept alive by tubes would you still say unhooking her is evil?

If so then I guess she's a devil too.

[baldilocks]

Don't' twist what I'm saying, some guy. If you have a question, ask it and *wait* for the answer. If you want to ask yourself questions, then answer them, do it at your own blog.

[Some Guy]

Baldilocks,

How am I twisting anything you're saying?

[Mustang 23]

I think I am going to take a few steps back and get out of the line of fire here.

[Francis W. Porretto]

This is why you're my heroine, you brilliant gorgeous thing, you.

[Battle Master]

The acts against Terri are indeed EVIL.

Ask this: When is it OK to intentionally starve someone to death?

Baldilocks is absolutely RIGHT.

Gee, is it evil to kill those who are inconvenient to you? If so, who gets to CHOOSE? I hope it ies me! ;-)

If this issue was so important to Terri she probably would have done a living will where she could of specified. Since she didn't, we need to assume it is that she would choose to live... why? See my first question above.

Battle Master

[Silicon Valley Jim]

My favorite thing when somebody who hasn't been inside a church or looked at a Bible for years wants to inform me about what the Bible says, etc., is to quote Sean O'Casey's great play Red Roses for Me, in which the minister tells two of his congregation who are trying to "instruct" him that "you are too old by a thousand years to know the mind of God." I am, too, of course, so I try (but don't always succeed) to remember that I'm not always right.

[Silicon Valley Jim]

Oops. That should be "too YOUNG by a thousand years". (See, I said I'm not always right!)

[insomni]

Very well put, baldilocks! I'm saddened at the number of bloggers I usually enjoy reading that are on the side of letting Terri Schiavo die. I'm glad to see you're still sane!

That poor family... within reach of their daughter, yet restricted by the courts from saving her life. It can't get much worse than that.

[Curt]

Keep the faith. I've found the Bible to be a continuous read, and it brings to me more depth of understanding over time, as the consitency of the entire message hangs together across 66 books. I also abhor the "one verse Christianity," for often it misses the point, and/or is out of the context of the surrounding scripture.

Don't shut up, don't give up, don't back up!

[asher - Dreams Into Lightning]

Baldilocks -

You go girl. You know, a month ago, even a week ago, I didn't have an opinion on the Terri Schiavo thing. I sure as h*ll do now. The woman is being murdered. And the more I read - ESPECIALLY from the lame-brains who try to defend this monstrosity with their moral relativism and their verbal games - the more convinced I am. This is obscene.

Thanks for speaking out.

[bleeding brain]

You are right Juliette. Love is obligated to speak up when evil is being practiced otherwise it is not love but rather some cowardly and sniveling waste of time.

Love is not politeness or fuzzy feelings.

Love always fights for what is right and does not hesitate to call a halt to wrongdoing.

A man cannot sit idle while his child is being harmed and yet say that he loves his child. If he does, he is a liar and a pile of shimmering scum.

Baldilocks is right about the "Insta-theologians". They glean their theological ideas from pop-culture and then fling their threadbare notions when they have no other arguments left to support their dead-end philosophies of life.

Michael Schiavo and his lawyers are certified maggot-eating bottom dwellers. There is really no other description for people who will hear the agonized cries of a mother for her child and yet proceed with the starvation of the child.

Some will say that I must not characterize Michael Schiavo and his lawyers in such a way.

In fact I don’t.

They characterize themselves that way.

I merely attach a description to them that seems most fitting.

[talon karrde]

Some Guy, you've got things way off base.

The evil that is being done is one person intentionally acting in such a way as to cause harm to another. Those who act to end her life now are acting with certain knowledge that their deeds will cause death. Thus the diagnosis of evil in their actions and thoughts.

The matter of a "living will" is in an entirely different category. Mrs. Schiavo has not signed a living will, probably because she did not have a perfect understanding of the future. Her past inability to sign a living will was not done because she had any evil nature, but because she had no information about any future need of a living will.

Come to think of it, have you signed a living will?

[talon karrde]

Can we try a thought experiment for a moment?

I putter around on the World Wide Web, occasionally spouting proclamations that certain behavior is evil.

Some other person runs into me, and begins to share his shock at my un-loving, un-Christian nature. He tells me that it is wrong for me to visit condemnation on others.

And I want to tell him that it is wrong for him to condemn me, because he has just told me that it is wrong to condemn others. But I can't, because he just told me that it is wrong to condemn others. When I try to tell him that it is thus wrong for him to condemn me, he tells me I shouldn't condemn him, because it is wrong to condemn others.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[Rae]

J- the tactics of Mr. Bennett remind me of when Satan twisted scripture to tempt Christ.

Mr. Bennett also forgets another famous scripture in 1 Peter: "Judgment begins with the house of God." Those in His house have a prerogative to make biblical assessments of the world around them.

Remember, the dark doesn't like the light because it shows the cobwebs, dirt, and general uncleanliness that hide in the shadows.

Great response, J.

[Bostonian]

Many people have conveniently lumped together all of Terri's supporters as having the same reasons, those religious reasons that so many people find to be yucky.

So allow me to offer this lowest-common-denominator religion-free argument:

The main point in contention is Terri's true wishes. Did she say to Michael what he claims she said, and IF SO, has he correctly interpreted that for this situation?

(If not, can we agree not to kill her? I hope so.)

And what level of evidence should we require for such claims? It is a plain fact Florida used a lower standard of evidence ("clear and convincing"--no jury) for Terri than it would for an accused criminal ("beyond reasonable doubt"--and a jury).

SO, what will it take for us to raise the standards of evidence in cases like these?

[Some Guy]

talon karrde,

Either the people sited by Michael Schiavo's lawyer (see Baldilocks' post below) are all involved in deception or it was Terri Schiavo's wish that she not be kept alive by life support. Therefore Michael Schiavo's taking steps end Terri's life are in accordance with her stated wishes, and the situation isn't radically different from a living will situation.

Maybe the standard should require a living will, and not allow informal verbal testimony, I don't know. That seems to be more a point of law than one of ethics.

If it’s evil to end a life (except possibly in self defense) than I think someone who writes a living will (stating they wish the plug to be pulled) is as evil as someone who carries it out.

It seems awfully convenient to vilify Michael Schiavo and ignore the factor of Terri's statements.

[Dave Munger]

Feeding tubes were not defined as artificial life support in Florida at the time that she is supposed to have said that she didn't want artificial life support.

[baldilocks]

Some guy: your subsequent posts seem more reasonable than your first one on this comment thread, in which you set up a straw man and answered your own question. That's what I objected to.

[baldilocks]

More for Some Guy: A better way to ask it would be, "Is your opinion based on the reports that there is no written living will?" Had you asked the question in a similar manner, I would have simply said "yes" and explained my reasoning. It's a simple piece of reasoning: written and witnessed documentation removes the hearsay factor. If such a doc existed, we wouldn't be having this national conversation.

[jb]

I have commented extensively on the Sciavo case at Gut Rumbles, highlighting the history, and the gross inconsistencies, of those who advocate Terri Schiavo's death.

I repeat here, there is not one shred of proof that Terri Schiavo desired the present situation. Not one shred of evidence whatsoever! You can read my comments at Gut's posts about Terri.

Only court judgments (a branch of government, mind you), have said differently. As to Mikey Boy . . . go search out the whole history of that prince.

And his attorney.

They are a real piece of work.

[Steve Lassey]

I hate commenting this late on a thread, because it's getting close to the time the original author quits paying attention. I hope you're hanging in here, Baldilocks. I came here from Acidman's post and I find I'm closer to your position than his.

When I hear a young person (and there are a frightening amount of them) say "I wouldn't want to live like that" I characterize that sentiment as "Eeewwww! Diapers!" and I would like to add that I don't see too many elderly patients (and I see a lot of nursing home residents) who still feel the same way, even those who are in diapers. That's why I distrust living wills. As you get more mature and more experienced you reconsider and get used to ideas that you might think are repulsive when you are young. I'm only 58, but I am close enough to wonder if the reason some politicians don't think there's a problem with Social Security is that they are counting on activist judges, lawyers, and doctors to dispose of their problem retirees.

[Some Guy]

baldilocks,

Sorry, I was misreading your reasoning.

I can understand why someone would want a higher standard in a case like this.

[Strider]

Just to put the "religious nuts" concept down a notch...

I'm a full-blown atheist. God, "spirits", souls, whatever, do not exist.

What they did to Terri was evil.

Oh, and if they want to legalize euthanasia in Florida (a bad, bad, bad idea), then get it over with and then stick a damned needle in her arm. "Allowed to die" my ass. Maybe they could have put a pillow over her face and "allowed her to die" from lack of oxygen?

[baldilocks]

Strider: Yep.