The Burr in the Burgh

Someone named Tim J. over at another blog, has given me this wise and gentle rebuke:

After re-reading the story, and considering the source (a London tabloid) I think it's possible the story is simply false.

But, to answer Scott- Directly killing people in order to alleviate suffering is wrong. Extreme circumstances don't change that. If we begin to kill people to save them from suffering, then where do we draw the line? Do we include emotional or mental suffering? How bad should the suffering be? What constitutes "terminal" illness? I know it's a slippery slope argument, but it happens to be true.

Sometimes, in order to follow God's will, we have to be willing to shoulder our cross, even if it involves great suffering. As hard as it is, sometimes we have to watch other people carry a terrible cross, and may be powerless to help.

We should always do all we can to comfort the suffering, but God is sovereign. We can't say, "Well, it would be better for them to die.". That is despair, and despair is the opposite of faith.

He is right. This is well said. Thanks for reminding me of what I already know. I let the emotion of the moment cloud my thinking.

Sphere: Related Content