Dave Siemens wrote:
>
>From a theological viewpoint, if I agreed with Nancey Murphy, Dad's soul
>during the last weeks and Terri's for I don't know how long, have been
>nonexistent or totally nonfunctional. This means that there is no reason
>to continue food and drink. If, on the other hand, a soul exists beyond
>the function of brain, I see two possibilities. First, the soul may have
>already departed, in which case there is no reason to keep the body
>nourished. Second, the soul may have to remain with or near the body so
>long as it breathes. In this case, the body should be allowed to expire
>so that the soul can go to a more suitable place or state. Specifically
>in this last case, it is not compassionate to prolong coma/vegetative
>state.
I rather liked Polkinghorne's idea here. "Though this pattern
is dissolved at death, it seems perfectly rational to believe
that it will be remembered by God and reconstituted in a divine
act of resurrection." (Belief in god in an Age of Science).
Extrapolating on this point a little more, if we have a
relationship with God, through our prays and fellowship,
these are things God may remember of us. So even if our
our brain is wasted away at death due to Alzheimer's disease,
Pick's disease, Parkinson's etc., we can look to our time
in prayer as something God will remember. It puts most of
us on an equal footing when one think about it a little.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Sat Mar 19 09:16:25 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 09:16:26 EST