# Where does Christian opposition to Euthansia come from? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 25, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561 "2014-11-25T06:11:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/41 "2014-11-26T20:21:26Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Catholics are very firmly opposed to suicide and (I think) also euthanasia, probably more so than most other Christian denominations, and Catholic doctrine is most certainly not influenced by the King James Version, a Protestant translation. > > Anyway, the OP makes the now common, but quite false assumption that all Christian doctrine is ultimately derived from The Bible (or even that Christians, in general, _believe_ that all doctrine _ought_ to be derived from the Bible). This has never been the case, and is especially not the case for Catholics, who hold that the Pope has a special direct insight into theological truth, due to the papacy descending in a direct line from Peter. Even apart from that, however, much of Christian doctrine is based on traditions established during the several centuries of Christian development that happened before the current biblical canon was (more or less) established (in the 5th century AD). The Pope, today, is mainly seen as a spiritual leader. I find that wrong ideas of the Pope’s role are one of the most common ways non-Catholics find to misunderstand Catholicism. He’s not the CEO of an international corporation, he doesn’t own the Church’s assets, he is not infallible, does not create doctrine, and he does not have any special direct insight into theological truth. Sorry, this is a tangent. Just bugs me. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/42 "2014-11-26T20:33:21Z")
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994: _2280 “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”_ This is in the section on suicide and euthanasia. The Catechism makes special note that (unlike what was previously taught), we can’t know the ultimate fate of suicides and may not judge them. It also notes that palliative care, and withdrawal of ‘overzealous’ care of the terminally ill are or may be acts of charity and are not euthanasia. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/43 "2014-11-26T20:43:05Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > In Judaism, it’s wrong to interfere with a natural process, so DNRs are OK, but active euthanasia is not. Removing feeding tubes from people who are vegetative is more controversial, and usually a case-by-case basis thing, but Orthodox Jews tend to be more conservative about “heroic” measures in the first place, because the rule usually is that they are “interfering” if they are put in place when there is little hope of recovery, but once they are in place, it is “interfering” to remove them. > > It’s been my observation that Catholics tend to be “life at all costs”-minded, and describe people alive but in vegetative states as “miracles” if they survived serious car accidents, or something. Some Catholic woman paraded her brain dead daughter, [Audrey Santo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Santo), around as a healer, who was suffering for the sake of other, for like two decades, until the poor kid finally died. > > Abortion of very damaged fetus carried no weight with Catholic authorities, because of this “life at all costs.” So the suffering of someone who wishes to go out a little early when they have a terminal disease anyway, carries no weight. On top of that, Catholics (at least by doctrine; I cannot read the minds of individual Catholics) believe that suffering is good, because it is Jesus-like. > > I think there are elements of all those things: non-interference, life at all costs, suffering is good; and when you put them all together, there is no place for euthanasia. Catholic doctrine does NOT say suffering is good. Sorry. Not in the Catechism anywhere. I can’t speak to what individual Catholics believe to be miracles and typically the official Church does not make any comment on these either way. Abortion is really another topic, although obviously it is connected. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/44 "2014-11-26T20:57:03Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > Catholic doctrine does NOT say suffering is good. Sorry. Not in the Catechism anywhere. The document I posted above actually does contain some statement about the Church’s position on suffering; > [@](#): > > Physical suffering is certainly an unavoidable element of the human condition; on the biological level, it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost. According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will. I am not Catholic and was not raised as Catholic, so I can’t speak as to what is taught to young Catholics, but via Wiki I find that the catechism [says this](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM) on the subject of “[redemptive suffering](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive_suffering)”; > [@](#): > > The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow (him)”, for “Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. The intimation here, as far as I understand it, appears to be that while Jesus’ sacrifice was unique and tantamount, that it is possible through experiencing physical suffering that His followers can also, in a lesser but not insignificant way, participate in redeeming their own souls or the souls of others. Again, this isn’t stuff I personally subscribe to and I defer to our resident experts on Catholic doctrine (paging **Bricker** , would **Bricker** please pick up the white courtesy phone?), but from what I’m seeing here, Catholic doctrine on the virtue of suffering follows something along the lines of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:12 about people who choose to become eunuchs for the sake of salvation; “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/45 "2014-11-26T22:43:36Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Specifically is there any actual scripture in the bible forbidding euthanasia? “Thou shalt not kill”, comes to mind. Being sick is not a crime, so the death penalty exceptions do not apply. Being sick is not an act of war, so the soldier’s exceptions do not apply. > [@](#): > > Even the case for forbidding Suicide from the Bible is weak, there is nothing directly forbidding it and yet it is universally condemned. Again, thou shalt not kill; it applies to oneself, too. Being mentally ill is not a crime, therefore there is no justification for killing oneself. Biblically, this is pretty straight forward. > [@](#): > > The Catholic church is adamant in opposition to Euthanasia. Am I right in thinking this opposition is based on later Catechism that was adopted and not on original biblical sources? You have it backwards. The church came first, and early Christians wrote the scriptures to clarify what the church taught. The Scriptures, such as the letters of Saint Paul, only addressed theological issues that were controversial in the early church. No early Christian sect believed suicide or euthanasia were morally acceptable, therefore Saints Paul, Matthew, Luke, etc, had no need to specifically address these practices. Contemporary documents address related topics. The mid 1st century document known as the [_Didache_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) specifically condemns abortion for instance, even though the topic was not addressed documents that became scripture. While even the _Didache_ may not specifically address euthanasia, it gives no hint that the practice would be accepted, either. Basically, Scripture and other Christian documents served a specific teaching purpose. **The mere absence of a condemnation should not imply acceptance**. Humans are uniquely talented at creating vice; if scripture attempted to condemn every possible evil that humans might commit, it would be a thousand volumes long, and still incomplete. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/46 "2014-11-26T22:48:37Z")
Bearing one’s burdens in imitatio Christi is not the same as “suffering is good”. I didn’t find anything in doctrine to support seeking out suffering or enduring suffering that could be evaded without harm to oneself or others. Like many other religions, Christianity acknowledges that suffering is a condition of life, and offers spiritual guidance as to how to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/47 "2014-11-26T23:26:51Z")
While the discussion about the theological history of some of these beliefs is interesting, I’m not sure it’s particularly relevant as an explanation for the beliefs of many of our contemporaries. I think there’s a socially relevant question about why it is that those beliefs have been so strongly politicized by evangelicals and the like who couldn’t quote the relevant scripture or theological history if their lives depended on it. I suspect they couldn’t care less about the theological origins of what they simply “know” is right. I’m astounded to this day by how many of them came out in strong and active opposition to ending life support in the Terri Schiavo case, for example, a position that they could not have justified on either theological or factual grounds, a position that was medically flat-out wrong, and a position that they were prepared to support with figurative pitchforks and flaming torches. Take for instance these points from **Flyer** in post #30 – I don’t know whether s/he believes this or not, but the point is that many do: Point one–life is a gift from God. Point two–God has a plan for every life. For many, the explanation for their beliefs about euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, and other such issues need not be any more complicated than that. For them, it’s a matter of simple faith, immune to facts or logic, cobbled together from vague recollections of Biblical precepts and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/48 "2014-11-27T00:30:58Z")
> [@runningdude](#): > > “Thou shalt not kill”, comes to mind. Read the thread before you post. The original hebrew word was “murder” not “kill”. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/49 "2014-11-27T01:27:50Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The notion that “thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation and that the original Hebrew text used a word here meaning “murder” rather than “kill” is one of these factoids that gets trotted out in internet discussion on a regular basis. But I suspect it could stand to be subjected to a bit more scrutiny than it usually gets. > > It relies on the assumption that biblical Hebrew had a word whose meaning corresponds to the modern English word “murder”. And when you think about it, it’s not a slam-dunk that this will be so. Even in English, we argue about the borders of “murder”, and in different countries the area covered by it is different. Some people distinguish between murder and manslaughter, for instance. And we also have the term “homicide”, often used to embrace both murder and manslaughter. Are we expected to believe that the Hebrew text did not forbid manslaughter, or other homicides which we consider culpable, but not amounting to murder? Would it in fact be closer to the truth to suggest that the Hebrew word should be translated as “homicide”? Or perhaps as something else? If “murder” means “a killing forbidden by law”, then what law do the ten commandments appeal to to determine the scope of this particular commandment? > > English translations of the Bible aren’t unique in using “kill” here. French translations use _tuer_ rather than _meurtre_. The Luther translation into German makes a similar choice. And so forth. Perhaps they are influenced by the Vulgate, which uses _occidere_ (to cut down) rather than _caedere_ (to slaughter) or _necare_, to kill or _jugulare_, to slay. _Occidere_ steers something of a middle course. > > The Septuagint uses _ou phoneuseis_ which, I’m told, can refer either to killing or to murder, depending on context. It steers a middle course, like _occidere_. > > I wouldn’t be amazed to discover that the Hebrew word is less univocal that is implied in the claim that “it means ‘murder’, not ‘kill’”. I’d also be interested to know how closely the Israelite concept that we label “murder” corresponds to our own understanding of what is murder and what is mere killing. And I’d ask questions like, is this Hebrew word used anywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures? And does this cast any light on what it embraces, and how closely it corresponds to “murder”? It’s entirely possible that the “middle course” translations favoured in the Septuagint and the Vulgate in fact reflect a certain vagueness or ambiguity in the Hebrew text. UDS, thanks for your summary. The OT that the early Christians considered most authoritative was of course the Septuagint, so while the discussion on what the Hebrew text says is interesting, it’s probably less relevant here than the Greek text. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/50 "2014-11-27T01:33:02Z")
> [@runningdude](#): > > “Thou shalt not kill”, comes to mind. > > Being sick is not a crime, so the death penalty exceptions do not apply. Being sick is not an act of war, so the soldier’s exceptions do not apply. > Again, thou shalt not kill; it applies to oneself, too. > > Being mentally ill is not a crime, therefore there is no justification for killing oneself. Biblically, this is pretty straight forward. > You have it backwards. The church came first, and early Christians wrote the scriptures to clarify what the church taught. > > The Scriptures, such as the letters of Saint Paul, only addressed theological issues that were controversial in the early church. No early Christian sect believed suicide or euthanasia were morally acceptable, therefore Saints Paul, Matthew, Luke, etc, had no need to specifically address these practices. > > Contemporary documents address related topics. The mid 1st century document known as the [_Didache_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) specifically condemns abortion for instance, even though the topic was not addressed documents that became scripture. While even the _Didache_ may not specifically address euthanasia, it gives no hint that the practice would be accepted, either. > > Basically, Scripture and other Christian documents served a specific teaching purpose. **The mere absence of a condemnation should not imply acceptance**. Humans are uniquely talented at creating vice; if scripture attempted to condemn every possible evil that humans might commit, it would be a thousand volumes long, and still incomplete. This is an excellent summary. I’d just add that while there were apparently no early Christians making the case for suicide, those controversies did arise later (in the 5th century re: the virgin martyrs issue, and again with the Bogomils and Cathars in the Middle Ages) and it was at that time the Catholic Church put forth strong explicit statements of what had been implicit before. Augustine in the aforementioned ‘City of God’ passage makes the case that _thou shalt not kill_ applies to oneself. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/51 "2014-11-27T01:35:30Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Sigh. “The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.” > > From here: > [http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html](http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html) > > So no, “thou shalt not kill” does not apply to either suicide or euthanasia. If one believed that God only guided the original authors, rather then subsequent translators, interpreters, editors etc. then maybe that might be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/52 "2014-11-27T01:37:24Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > The word is תִרְצָח, which is a form of לרצח, and it definitely means murder. You don’t have to have an established penal code to have a concept of murder. It would be an inappropriate word to use for slaughtering an animal for food, killing someone in battle, or executing someone according to law, or even accidentally killing someone . . . Thank you for this, and for post #38. It still leaves me a bit puzzled, though. You say that “you don’t have to have an established penal code to have a concept of murder”, but I think the concept of “murder” does presume some societal moral standard according to which a killing can be judged to be murder, or not-murder. Most dictionary definitions of “murder” will feature the word “unlawful” at an early point, and it seems to me that if this commandment can be expressed as “do not kill unlawfully” or “do not kill criminally” or similar then if we are to understand what the commandment forbids and what it doesn’t forbid there’s an obvious gap that needs to be filled by an appeal to something outside the commandment itself. This presents a practical problem. On a strict reading, if euthanasia is socially/legally sanctioned, then euthanizing somebody is not a breach of the commandment. But, then, if killing people in a pogrom is socially/legally sanctioned, then that’s not a breach of the commandment either. If the community chooses not to criminalise, say, the exposure of unwanted infants or the painless killing of those with a learning disability or a hereditary disease, does this commandment offer any basis for objecting to that choice? There’s also a theological problem. If we assume that the commandments derive their authority from their author, G-d, if this commandment is appealing to some external authority, what external authority can possibly be higher than the will of G-d? Or is the appeal taken to be to some _other_ commandment or revelation of God which illuminates which killings are murder and which are not? And if so, does the interpretive tradition identify that commandment or revelation? ---
**Author:** ![MsKaren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a183cd/32.png) [@MsKaren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsKaren)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/53 "2014-11-27T02:13:13Z")
This is I think all tied the very Catholic idea that the state of the soul is more important than the state of the body or mind salvation-and-eternity-wise. Often suicide comes when the mind or body is in despair, a sad way to face eternity. If you can survive and ‘pass through’ despair then a peace and acceptance will accompany your death. This is an outcome greatly to be desired. Cutting the process short deprives you of closure, and is kind of presumptuous. The Catholic idea of the Sacrament of Healing (used to be Extreme Unction or Last Rites) is not ‘Give me a miracle cure’ but a prayer that you find peace and acceptance whatever happens including your healing, your death or your continued suffering. [URL=“The chief Biblical text concerning anointing of the sick is James 5:14–15: “Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the Church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And if they have committed sins, these will be forgiven.” Matthew 10:8, Luke 10:8–9 and Mark 6:13 are also quoted in this regard.”/URL] This is hard to explain clearly but Catholics pray ‘now and at the hour of our death’ every day. [URL=“in 1493, a third part is added to the Hail Mary, which is repeated in Pynson’s English translation a few years later in the form: “Holy Mary moder of God praye for us synners. Amen.”. The official recognition of the Ave Maria in its complete form, though foreshadowed in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as quoted at the beginning of this article, was finally given in the Roman Breviary of 1568.”/URL] ---
**Author:** ![MsKaren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a183cd/32.png) [@MsKaren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsKaren)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/54 "2014-11-27T02:23:54Z")
Well, apparently my ability to cite URL’s is deficient. I would try to edit but I do not expect to do better. ☹ Perhaps another day. Both were just Wikipedia. Now I’ll mess up again for double-posting. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/55 "2014-11-27T04:09:27Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If one believed that God only guided the original authors, rather then subsequent translators, interpreters, editors etc. then maybe that might be relevant. Well no, my original question is “where did the opposition to Euthanasia come from? It’s not explicit in the original scripture.” So how and when the meaning of the word changed is precisely relevant to my OP. Its apparent to me now that first Tertullian and then later Augustine are basically responsible for the broadening of “Thou Shalt not kill” to include Suicide and Euthanasia, thats precisely the information I wanted to get from this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/56 "2014-11-27T04:18:55Z")
And to play Devil’s Advocate (no pun intended). . . From my limited understanding on Judaism, the Talmud and Torah are murky at best on the concept of an afterlife, although there apparently are some rabbinical tradtions that say there’s an afterlife. So, even if suicide, or any other proscription, is a sin, then. . . so what? What’s the penalty? There’s no Revelation, Rapture, or anything similar in the Old Testament, right? The writings tell you how you should live your life, not what you need to do make sure you end up in Heaven when you die. Help a clueless goy out. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/57 "2014-11-27T06:47:03Z")
I don’t believe Judaism believes in eternal damnation anyway. Its similar to Buddhism in believing that eventually everyone get saved, you just might have to go through a very very long purgatory period to get there. At least thats my understanding as a non-jew but I believe its very much a grey area in Judaism where multiple theories are accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/58 "2014-11-27T07:42:22Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Well no, my original question is “where did the opposition to Euthanasia come from? It’s not explicit in the original scripture.” So how and when the meaning of the word changed is precisely relevant to my OP. Its apparent to me now that first Tertullian and then later Augustine are basically responsible for the broadening of “Thou Shalt not kill” to include Suicide and Euthanasia, thats precisely the information I wanted to get from this thread. I think it’s earlier than Tertullian. As far as we can tell, Christians condemned suicide (in general) from the beginning of Christianity . Whether that was rooted in their reading of the Septuagint, in the teachings of Jesus or something else , is a separate question. In any case, it’s irrelevant to say 'the Hebrew text says murder, not kill ’ because most Christians then and now aren’t going off the Hebrew text. the earliest Christians used the Septuagint, which apparently has a term that’s intermediate between ‘kill’ and ‘murder’. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/59 "2014-11-27T08:42:47Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I think it’s earlier than Tertullian. As far as we can tell, Christians condemned suicide (in general) from the beginning of Christianity . > > Whether that was rooted in their reading of the Septuagint, in the teachings of Jesus or something else , is a separate question. > > In any case, it’s irrelevant to say 'the Hebrew text says murder, not kill ’ because most Christians then and now aren’t going off the Hebrew text. the earliest Christians used the Septuagint, which apparently has a term that’s intermediate between ‘kill’ and ‘murder’. Opposition to suicide, abortion, infant exposure, etc are all things that characterised Christianity pretty much from the beginning, as far as we can tell. And SFAIK these were all part of their inheritance from Judaism. Whether these positions in Judaism were grounded in a reading of the fifth/sixth commandment, I can’t say. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that either Christian or Jewish moral thinking runs along the lines of “this passage of scripture forbids X; therefore X is wrong”. I suspect both traditions more usually run the other way - “X is wrong, which explains why this passage of scripture forbids it”. Consequently looking for a specific text which deals explicitly with suicide or euthanasia is an absurdly reductive way of trying to understand a Jewish or Christian perspective on those issues. A more holistic reading of scripture and other sources may yield values and standards which, when brought to bear on a question relating to suicide or euthenasia, may point to a certain answer. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561/60 "2014-11-27T19:42:45Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Opposition to suicide, abortion, infant exposure, etc are all things that characterised Christianity pretty much from the beginning, as far as we can tell. > > And SFAIK these were all part of their inheritance from Judaism. Whether these positions in Judaism were grounded in a reading of the fifth/sixth commandment, I can’t say. > > But I think it’s a mistake to assume that either Christian or Jewish moral thinking runs along the lines of “this passage of scripture forbids X; therefore X is wrong”. I suspect both traditions more usually run the other way - “X is wrong, which explains why this passage of scripture forbids it”. Consequently looking for a specific text which deals explicitly with suicide or euthanasia is an absurdly reductive way of trying to understand a Jewish or Christian perspective on those issues. A more holistic reading of scripture and other sources may yield values and standards which, when brought to bear on a question relating to suicide or euthenasia, may point to a certain answer. Right, exactly, [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-christian-opposition-to-euthansia-come-from/705561.md?page=4)