When do we read in our? Feed? The dead word or the news of someone who is dead, it is natural for us to ask each other the following questions: “What is the purpose of death from a Christian perspective?”Or there are legitimate deaths when we are faced with a death. Caused by someone else? The reformed perspective explains that there is no error, according to the Nova Cidade Catechism [1], there is a clear difference between self-defense and murder.
Well, beyond the purpose of self-defense, the Christian vision of the world leaves no room for another interpretation, life is a natural right enshrined in chapter 20, verse 13 of the second book of the Pentateeuque (Exodus). is the key command of this question, because, in addition to the fact that the militia weapons are not carnal, according to 2 Corinthians 10: 4, it is not our competence to kill for any other reason that is not called self-care- Unlike civil law and ecclesiastical law, subject to change, the moral law of God [2], present in the 10 commandments , is good for all men, still in force in the Church, and fulfills its function of influence and direction of great civilizations, yourself of the true natural laws of humanity. Solano Portela must be in charge:
- “Moral law: it aims to make men understand their duties.
- Revealing their needs and helping them discern between good and evil.
- As such.
- It is applicable at all times and on all occasions and was therefore presented by Jesus.
- Who never abolished [?] Note that the Ten Commandments.
- Or God’s moral law.
- Are in full force and effect.
- That is.
- Both historical?it is intertwined in the history of God’s revelation and the redemption of his people; How didactic?It teaches us to respect our Creator and our neighbour; [?] Normative?makes very clear the procedure that God demands for each of the peoples who inhabit his creation.
- At every moment.
Biblically speaking, this is what we hope: is it our tendency to extend this biblical imposition to cases related to the death desired by a believer who does not want medical treatment for doctrinal reasons? We can consider it absurd that this believer neglects medical intervention, we understand. as a suicide, and we form this fact in a similar way to the Roman Catholic doctrine that understands it as a mortal sin. On the value that human life should have for us, Wayne Grudem speaks in depth:
“This fact guarantees the relevance of our lives. Realizing that God does not need to create us and needs us for nothing, we can conclude that our lives do not matter. But the scriptures tell us that we were created to glorify God, indicating that we are important to God Himself. This is the final definition of the true importance or relevance of our lives: if we are truly important to God for all eternity, then what greater measure of importance or relevance could we desire?? [4]
Regardless of the merits of theological differences, it is necessary to understand the legal perspective around the subject, not to confuse with the Christian will to preserve life, we live in an environment of religious freedom, perhaps the best and most advanced in the world. , under the aegis of a collaborative lay state that guarantees the full exercise of faith, that is why this will be our perspective in this article.
Yes, life is a natural right, but there are other considerations about the death of the capable (the one who has all his mental abilities, either because he is of legal age ?, Age ?, or because he has mental health) that you must know, specifically about a conflict between the content of our faith and constitutional principles, we have abandoned the field of our obligation as believers in the Savior and in the exercise of love and mercy towards others (such as evangelicals) who have set up a camp in Rio Grande do Norte, avoiding at least 16 suicides [5]) to guarantee religious freedom. Just as we want to exercise faith in Christ, consolidated in reformed understanding, we must let others, on the basis of their convictions, even if they are different from our own, do it: is religious freedom, which we cherish so much for ourselves, but sometimes not for others?
Because of human relationships and the thousands of confluences between their actions, it is not uncommon for the basic principles of any state to clash. So much so that freedom of religion, the dignity of the human person and life itself invariably collide on this platform, unless you see: In case a certain believer defends the effectiveness of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion to the detriment of one’s own. life (e. g. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusion) [6], when we are fully and fully capable, we face self-determination derived from the principle of the dignity of the preserved human person, unless he sees:
In the particular case of medical prescription for treatment contrary to the patient’s religious conviction, although he can preserve his life, he takes away from the faithful the dignity derived from his religious belief, crippling the rest of his existence, even an affront to God. . of your faith!
In this sense, the State, in any of its facets, cannot restrict the right to elect the faithful, a fundamental right for the preservation of their dignity, being a clear affront to the constitutional principle of the dignity of the human person.
As already mentioned, both the right to freedom of thought and belief, the right to privacy and privacy of citizens, and the right to life, are constitutional guarantees expressed in the Great Text. principle of law enforcement in our Nation, as one of the pillars of the democratic state and the Brazilian Republic (Art. 1, III, CRFB / 88). Therefore, all constitutional principles must be confronted with and then adjusted to the dignity of the human person.
Indeed, whenever the religious constitutional guarantee of a believer puts, in practice, the lives of others, even if they are also faithful, at risk, but without the full and indisputable exercise of the autonomy of the will of each one, there is a In this particular, it is an affront to the constitutional right to the dignity of the human person. Then there are other questions: what happens when parents deny a child’s right to life because of beliefs? Or a senile old man? Or a person who does not have full mental capacity? These questions will be answered in the second part of this article, next week, here in Back to the Gospel. Don’t miss a thing!
?
[1] KELLER, SHAMMAS. Catechism of the new city. Available at: Accessed on 05/31/2019. [2] PORTELA, Solano. The three aspects of God’s law. Available at: Accessed on 05/31/2019. [3] PORTELA, Solano. The three aspects of God’s law. Available at: Accessed on 05/31/2019. [4] PALO, Wayne. Systematic theology: current and comprehensive. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1999. p. 362 [5] Evangelicals set up camp and prevented suicide in RN. Available at: Consulted on 06/01/2019 [6]? Say ah? decades, Jehovah’s Witnesses? clearly stated his position. For example, they provided an article for The Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1981; reprinted in “How Can Blood Save Your Life”, pages 27-9). * Does this article quote Ge? nesis, Leviticus and Acts. He said: “Although these verses are not expressed in medical terms, the Witnesses consider that they prohibit the administration of transfusions of whole blood, hemaciatic porridge and plasma, as well as leukocytes and blood concentrates. Platelets The 2001 Emergency Care Contest , under the “Composition of Blood”, said: “Blood is? composed of several elements: plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets? Therefore, according to the facts of medicine, the Witnesses refuse to transfuse whole blood or any of its four main components. Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses? and recovered from the site. Available in :. Accessed: April 9, 2015.