Immortality

[Birdjaguar]

How is Heaven described in the Bible? .... but I never actually read any parts of the bible than described heaven.

Heaven is talked about, but rarely described. Revelation has a few verses.

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.

12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.

13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west.

14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia [or 1,400 miles!] in length, and as wide and high as it is long [1,400 miles wide and tall!].

17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits [that is 200 feet!] thick.

18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass.

19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst [these last two stones are unknown or only exist in heaven today].

21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.

22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.

26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.

27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

 

[Kyriakos]

Heaven is talked about, but rarely described. Revelation has a few verses.

I am not sure how you can take the above description seriously. I suppose if a god exists, it really loves gold

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not sure how you can take the above description seriously. I suppose if a god exists, it really loves gold

I certainly don't take such things seriously, but many Christians do.

 

[innonimatu]

I am not sure how you can take the above description seriously. I suppose if a god exists, it really loves gold

And Donald Trump with be the gatekeeper?

 

[innonimatu]

Bring out your demented! Well get you rid of them pronto. But you'll have to help us kill them if they put up some struggle.

Medics providing cover for murder. And judges blessing the whole thing. How enlightened.

 

[abradley]

Second try.

There are some things that defy describing.

 

[Lexicus]

Bring out your demented! Well get you rid of them pronto. But you'll have to help us kill them if they put up some struggle.

Medics providing cover for murder. And judges blessing the whole thing. How enlightened.

That is actually quite disturbing.

 

[Samson]

Bring out your demented! Well get you rid of them pronto. But you'll have to help us kill them if they put up some struggle.

Medics providing cover for murder. And judges blessing the whole thing. How enlightened.

The patient made her wishes to die clear in a document before she developed serious dementia. By the time they came to administer it she was unable to understand the words used. The doctor carried out her wish. What do you think is wrong with this?

 

[abradley]

The patient made her wishes to die clear in a document before she developed serious dementia. By the time they came to administer it she was unable to understand the words used. The doctor carried out her wish. What do you think is wrong with this?

Everything, if she said she didn't want to die why did they kill her?

 

[Samson]

Everything, if she said she didn't want to die why did they kill her?

When she possessed her mental functions she wanted to die when she had lost them. By the time she died she was not able to express her desires one way or another, but was able to respond to pain. What exactly are you referring to?

 

[El_Machinae]

The patient made her wishes to die clear in a document before she developed serious dementia. By the time they came to administer it she was unable to understand the words used. The doctor carried out her wish. What do you think is wrong with this?

It's a case where clearer regulations are required, or obviously, a viable intervention for dementia. 4 years is a long time to hold somebody to their wishes.

It's an incredibly hard situation, regardless. There's almost no way to write assisted suicide legislation for dementia that doesn't fail to capture at least some factor that we know is important. I'll point to my first sentence, a viable intervention for dementia is required.

 

[innonimatu]

The patient made her wishes to die clear in a document before she developed serious dementia. By the time they came to administer it she was unable to understand the words used. The doctor carried out her wish. What do you think is wrong with this?

Consider: the "patient" (already you are dehumanizing...) made her wishes to be killed clear in a document, to be applied when she developed serious dementia. Then she changed, and ceased wishing to die. But she can be killed all the same because it was authorized it in a written piece of paper. As a society we hold that killing others is banned. But what was an inalienable right to life ceases to be one because this less-than-human is witless, is that it? So what applies is not its will to live at the present time, but a written order from the past?

If that is so, why not just murder all the demented? Just write the order, what does it matter who writes it? You have already accepted that the demented are less than human, outside the protection against murder. Another country in the neighborhood did just that once. What was wrong with it?

 

[Samson]

Consider: the "patient" (already you are dehumanizing...) made her wishes to be killed clear in a document, to be applied when she developed serious dementia. Then she changed, and ceased wishing to die. But she can be killed all the same because it was authorized it in a written piece of paper. As a society we hold that killing others is banned. But what was an inalienable right to life ceases to be one because this less-than-human is witless, is that it? So what applies is not its will to live at the present time, but a written order from the past?

If that is so, why not just murder all the demented? Just write the order, what does it matter who writes it? You have already accepted that the demented are less than human, outside the protection against murder. Another country in the neighborhood did just that once. What was wrong with it?

What makes you think she "ceased wishing to die"? My understanding was that the dementia was so severe that she could not make that clear (even slightly).

 

[Gorbles]

Consider: the "patient" (already you are dehumanizing...) made her wishes to be killed clear in a document, to be applied when she developed serious dementia. Then she changed, and ceased wishing to die. But she can be killed all the same because it was authorized it in a written piece of paper. As a society we hold that killing others is banned. But what was an inalienable right to life ceases to be one because this less-than-human is witless, is that it? So what applies is not its will to live at the present time, but a written order from the past?

If that is so, why not just murder all the demented? Just write the order, what does it matter who writes it? You have already accepted that the demented are less than human, outside the protection against murder. Another country in the neighborhood did just that once. What was wrong with it?

Just popping in to point out the irony in accusing people of "dehumanising" others when you're using a well-known perjorative in "demented". Especially using it as "the demented" to refer to a group of people.

It seems to me your issue is with euthanasia itself, and you're putting it through a proxy of both outrage and exaggeration ("let's murder them all!"), nevermind the difference between euthanasia and, well, murder.

 

[El_Machinae]

It reminds me of arrows paradox. I think it might be impossible to write good regulation regarding assisted suicide it comes to a chronic degradation of cognitive function.

I will again. And always, comment that the solution is to defeat dementia. There are literally trained grad students standing by waiting to work on this research, and they just need funding.

It's not a short-term solution to the problem. Once a viable intervention is created for someone, the dilemma no longer applies to them.

 

[innonimatu]

Just popping in to point out the irony in accusing people of "dehumanising" others when you're using a well-known perjorative in "demented". Especially using it as "the demented" to refer to a group of people.

It's called sarcasm.

 

[Gorbles]

It's called sarcasm.

I can be sarcastic without resorting to the same kind of language you're calling out others for. Like, this isn't a high bar to clear, right?

This is a very emotive subject, and I'm not going to begin to pretend that people haven't been through experiences that colour them on the topic (I have too, tangentially). But you can't claim outrage and then weaponise the same language, that's just not on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just popping in to point out the irony in accusing people of "dehumanising" others when you're using a well-known perjorative in "demented". Especially using it as "the demented" to refer to a group of people.

? When I look up "demented" it is a simple descriptor for a person suffering from dementia. Assuming it's being used to describe someone with actual dementia, and not as a random online insult for someone supposedly being obtuse, how is this a perjorative term?

I reject the notion that using "demented" to describe a "group of people who have actually been diagnosed with dementia" is perjorative. That's like claiming that calling people "homosexual" is perjorative even if that is accurate, self-identified description for them.

It seems to me your issue is with euthanasia itself, and you're putting it through a proxy of both outrage and exaggeration ("let's murder them all!"), nevermind the difference between euthanasia and, well, murder.

The assertion in this case is that there's an uncomfortable grey area between the two in this context. There's at least some implication in this action that people who are no longer capable of communicating lose their rights/remaining self-autonomy. Do we *really* with certainty that someone in that state can't possibly have changed their mind?

This certainly isn't an open and shut case, logically speaking. It requires at least some kind of coherent answer to "when does a person actually become a person, and when does a person stop being a person". In principle, this doesn't have to be when they start/stop having living cells, but it does seem like it's something we really should have a consistent, coherent answer for.

 

[Gorbles]

"demented" is a clinical term, and in colloquial (in particular: non-clinical) English mostly has negative connotations. Nobody here is discussing with regards to a clinical diagnosis, and especially not people who throw around terms such as "murder"

As for your suppositions on what people believe in that state, the point is they don't. Which is why the papers signed typically cover such a provision, in that when signed (in full control of their faculties), they state that this covers them in the possible eventuality that their unsound mind attempts to renege on their previous assertion. It's not a "changing of the mind", it's a safeguarding of the mind against disease, nomatter how lucid they can temporarily be from time to time while subject to that disease.

It's also ratified per-country, which also makes sense (regardless of any disagreement with a particular country's laws). That's where your consistent, coherent answer comes from, legally-speaking.