Comments on: Til ‘Lack of Consciousness’ Do Us Part

By: Craig Payne

Craig Payne — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:03:04 +0000

“The personhood debate has only done harm to the way we view and value these image bearers. As a philosophical term, ‘personhood’ has been imported into our theological conversation to account for human capacities, not as a way to address ontology.”

The original theological use, I think from Boethius, is that a person is an individual substance of rational nature. Note that “person” originally did refer to ontological status–what someone is by his or her nature–and did not refer to capacities.

When this is pointed out, I think the personhood arguments can have a good use. What is the zygote by nature? What is the elderly spouse by nature? By nature, that zygote is a human person, and that spouse is the human person I married–even if the capacities have not yet arrived, in the one case, or have departed, in the other.

By: With God all things r possible

With God all things r possible — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:37:07 +0000

Oops–1994.

By: With God all things r possible

With God all things r possible — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:35:33 +0000

Thank you!

Pat Robertson reminds me of Harold Camping. God has used both of them to further his kingdom, but I struggle to find a biblical approach to what to do with either one of them now. Pray for them, certainly. The following verse then comes to mind:

“A poor yet wise lad is better than an old and foolish king who no longer knows how to receive instruction.” – Ecclesiastes 4:13 (NASB)

Harold Camping’s book 1984 inoculated me against him. Pat Robertson hung in there longer, but his sale of The Family Channel to Fox (where it has become part cartoon, part cesspool after a second sale to Disney/ABC) for megabucks for himself and his family in 1997 were a definite turnoff for me. In retrospect, I guess, I could say I saw it coming long ago.

Then there is this verse:

“When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise. ” –Prov 10:19 (NASB)

Camping is off the air; is it Robertson’s turn now?

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:26:14 +0000

Very well said, Sarah. Your critique is scathing, but merited indeed. I speak as one of the Evangelicals who defends sacrificial living. In case anyone's interesting, I would recommend Dehumanizing the Vulnerable by William Brennan for a review of how dehumanizing language (i.e. "vegetable" as if it were a medical term) influence our thoughts.

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:21:14 +0000

While I don’t think anyone should regard the simple “lack of consciousness” as death, I do wonder how evangelicals go about defining “death” in the phrase “til death do us part”. Are there adequate biblical grounds for making clear and principled judgments in the hard cases? What, exactly, are these grounds? If there aren’t adequate biblical grounds, then how should we deliberate about the hard cases?

By: Nikolai Volk

Nikolai Volk — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:57:07 +0000

With all due respect to the man, I deplore a majority of what he has to say. His views are unbelievably parochial, wrong, and at times blatantly offensive. I pray that people like Robertson that, while I don’t doubt love God, learn to treat their fellow human beings better with their words.

By: Sarah J. Flashing

Sarah J. Flashing — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:20:32 +0000

David, thanks….and I agree. I think I shall change it. :)

By: David Strunk

David Strunk — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:12:57 +0000

Sarah,
I’m with you. Quick addition/edit suggestion, though. “Til death do us part” isn’t really an age-old expression so much as an age-old vow. And God takes vows very very seriously. I’m thinking of a passage in Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, and how Jesus teaches on yes and no in the Sermon on the Mt. This vow is one of the most serious a person can take.

Anyhow, that’s a bit nit-picky, but I thought it would bring your point out further. A vow should not be treated with the same casual nature as an expression.