Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

I am glad to see that you admit that miracles have happened. The definition of a miracle is "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. " Technically you just admitted that there are divine forces out there. But I realize you probably define a miracle a bit differently. As for how often miracles happen I made no suggestion that they happen all of the time. I merely stated that since they have happened it would be a mistake to end a life when they still have the possibility of survival. I have not seen Osmosis Jones but the idea of Deus Ex Machina is like a miracle. You stated that "those morals that belong to atheists do have meaning, you act as if your morals have value because of your God. " Okay. .. so prove it. Don't just restate something, tell me why you feel the morals have meaning. Using your definition of morality people could just make up any definition of morality. Atheists could literally just make up anything they wanted but their opinions would be useless since they have no affect on other people. Remember what I said about Hitler? Here it is again: We couldn't even say the Hitler was wrong because he merely had a different moral standard than you have. And you could say that your standard was better because you leave morality up to a persons' opinions. You could literally argue anything to be moral and never be wrong if this is the definition you use. Don't you see the problem with your definition? It was said "so far, you have backed up every single one of your counter arguments with a reason relating to god, the bible, or Christianity, might I ask if you can back up 'God? " This is not really true. I have stated that morality is meaningless without God. That statement does not require me to back up the existence of God. You have also not been able to prove that statement wrong. I have also used the founding fathers to prove my points and I have used logic to show that a few more weeks in pain might be worth it considering that an eternity of peace follows death. You responded by asserting subjective morality has meaning and by using emotional arguments such as this one: "In addition to that let's suppose your most loved family member was lying down on that clinic bed, having a disease that would kill them. " I have only mentioned God to state something about morality, and to answer your questions about King Henry, and to answer your off topic questions about the Bible. "People do in fact, decide what rights humans have, look at our long list of laws, and yes, humans do take away and add rights, but the process is not as simple as it seems. " So you should have no problem with Hitler since he only took away rights. And since rights come from humans according to you, we can't say Hitler was wrong for what he did since everything is subjective in your worldview. That is my biggest problem with the atheist worldview by the way. "The truth is simple, the founding fathers created those rights, and then American soldiers had to fight and even die for them. " Notice how none of those rights included the right to kill yourself? Or the right to have someone kill you if you are unable? But aside from that the founders argued that those were rights that couldn't be taken away because they were given by a God. If they were given by humans like you believe, rights are meaningless just like morality since they could be taken and added at any time. And no one could take issue with what rights they have since their opinion on what rights they have has no bearing on anyone else. The example about the ninth amendment is okay but fails considering the majority of the states in the US do not see mercy killing as a right guaranteed by the Constitution. What you are doing is simply sharing your opinion about the rights that the amendment gives us. Apparently, since rights are created by humans, you should feel okay with the majority of people disagreeing with you since there is no set standard of rights and everything is subjective in your worldview. "Then what is a true Christian? There are many interpretations, including yours, but how do you know which is true? " There are not many different interpretations of what a Christian is. There are Christians with different beliefs but they are all united in the sense that they have all accepted Jesus as their Savior. Christians change in their behavior and therefore would not abuse the churches power and then kill their wives. It goes against the teaching of Christ. In other words, when someone doesn't quack like a duck or look like a duck. .. he isn't a duck. Then Ephesians 5:5 was quoted and this was said "It sounds to me like you have to be moral or else you won't have entry to heaven. To many, it would sound enforced. " Wouldn't it be ridiculous for a person to read the first instruction on the Betty Crocker cake mix box and then skip the rest of the instructions and then try to make the cake. Then they get angry when the cake doesn't turn out right. Wouldn't that be ludicrous? It is kind of like what you are doing now. You read one verse without reading the whole book and then claim something that the verse doesn't say. The verse claims that no immoral person will make it to heaven. That is true, but notice how it says nothing about God enforcing morality. Actually, you wouldn't even have had to read the whole book. How about just a few verses later: " For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord (Ephesians 5:8-10). Since Christians are in the light (they are saved), they are by status moral and are excepted to do good in the sight of God. "This was a good debate, and I look forward to the review. " Isn't there another round? If not. .. it has been a pleasure debating with you.