Are you afraid of death?

[kyc0705]

Why should I be afraid of something that I can't control? Unless mind uploading suddenly becomes feasible within my lifespan, which is extremely doubtful, there will be a time in which I die, and it will be permanent. I'm okay with that because I can't do anything about it.

If anything, I can understand a fear of dying—that is, the specific circumstances of one's death. I'm 17 right now, and I could feasibly expect another sixty or seventy years, but it's also possible something could happen to me within seconds of posting this. One never knows when they will go.

Roger Ebert wrote really eloquently on death and its inevitability, with the kind of perspective that could only come to someone like him, who had had several extremely close calls in the last decade of his life. I've always been fascinated by this passage:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Green Line]

Yes, and I hate thinking about it.  I only really ponder it while laying in bed late at night.  There arent really any other thoughts that pop into my head that bother me as much as the thought of death.  I desperately want to believe in an afterlife, anything at all, but I find myself constantly doubting, depite trying my best to be a good Christian.

The thought of there be nothing after death is the worst, even though I know "nothingness" wouldnt bother me because I wouldnt exist to be bothered anyway. 

[afleitch]

Yes, and I hate thinking about it.  I only really ponder it while laying in bed late at night.  There arent really any other thoughts that pop into my head that bother me as much as the thought of death.  I desperately want to believe in an afterlife, anything at all, but I find myself constantly doubting, depite trying my best to be a good Christian.

The thought of there be nothing after death is the worst, even though I know "nothingness" wouldnt bother me because I wouldnt exist to be bothered anyway. 

You didn't exist before you were born. Does that trouble you?

[Leinad]

I am insanely terrified of death. The inevitability, the uncertainty, and the finality around the concept have led me to lose sleep on far too many occaisions.

You didn't exist before you were born. Does that trouble you?

Not the one you asked, but it troubles me in the sense that it's impossible to comprehend.

Although the Christian afterlife setup is horrible. Not only do most people end up suffering for somewhat arbitrary reasons (not believing in a book in just the right way), but those lucky few that make the right guess do something that also sounds bad--so you want me to worship a deity I never believed in and don't really like...eternally? Frankly I'd prefer this crappy life to Heaven, at least it's sometimes interesting and I can...er..."relax" in a certain way moral puritans would not approve of.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm with Afleitch here, I genuinely don't get fear of death. If there is no afterlife and you just stop existing, what's wrong about that? By definition, it can't hurt you in any way. I think Socrates put it something like this. And if what awaits you is the Christian afterlife, then what you will get is what you deserved, which to me, even if what I deserve is some degree of suffering for my sins, would still feel comforting (of course I categorically refuse to believe in eternal damnation, I can see why that would cause anguish). My knowledge of other religions is limited, but it seems to me that all of them offer some kind of hope in that regard. So if the possibilities range from a neutral outcome to desirable ones, what's there to fear? Not trying to be glib here, I'd really like to understand.

[Leinad]

I suppose, in a sense, my fear of death might be more a fear of life. Leaving without having done so many things I wanted to do, for one thing, but also an afterlife that's just a combination of boring or miserable things in this life. Maybe my fear of nothingness is due to a longing to have some existential meaning, instead of just being a chemical-driven machine that will eventually stop working with no consequence other than (hopefully, I guess?) "sad" chemicals in people who "cared" for me

Blah, whenever I talk about religion too much it turns into an incoherent therapy session.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fear of not having a purpose, or of failing to accomplish the purpose you had, is definitely something I can understand. I agree that this sounds more like a fear of life than a fear of death. Obviously there's never going to be a definitive answer to those questions, but I think we can all find answers that work for us and help us through our lives.

[Greatest I am]

No, I'm a Christian and know that I will be with my Savior. My only hope is to share as much love and bring as many people to Christ as I can while on Earth and to help make it a better place while I'm here.

So you think that bringing people to a Jesus who promotes immoral tenets, like his no divorce and substitutionary atonement policies will make earth a better place.

Satan would agree as he is all in for stopping people from finding loving life partners and Satan also thinks it good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No, I'm a Christian and know that I will be with my Savior. My only hope is to share as much love and bring as many people to Christ as I can while on Earth and to help make it a better place while I'm here.

So you think that bringing people to a Jesus who promotes immoral tenets, like his no divorce and substitutionary atonement policies will make earth a better place.

Satan would agree as he is all in for stopping people from finding loving life partners and Satan also thinks it good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Regards
DL

Do you think taking the fall for people one loves in other contexts is also immoral because it 'punishes the innocent instead of the guilty'?

[Greatest I am]

Do you think taking the fall for people one loves in other contexts is also immoral because it 'punishes the innocent instead of the guilty'?

That is too open ended for me. Please give the scenario you had in mind.

But speaking of the Jesus sacrifice.

Taking someone else's fall does not take the guilt or responsibility for the act out of the perpetrator.

In the case of Jesus' so called substitutionary atonement, taking that guilt out of the perpetrator is the intention and that is a poor intention.

Guilt is what stops us from doing that same evil again.

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

Substitutionary atonement is only one of many interpretations of what Jesus did. There are much better ones, in my opinion.

[Greatest I am]

Substitutionary atonement is only one of many interpretations of what Jesus did. There are much better ones, in my opinion.

Yet that is what most Christians accept.

What did you have in mind if not that Jesus died to save mankind from god's wrath?

If Jesus is not our savior, why would Christians venerate him so much when some of his policies and teachings are clearly immoral and anti-love?

Like his no divorce policy.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

St Bernard tells us that God the Father did not demand the Son's sacrifice but accepted it when it was offered. The other argument that you seem to be making--that the Atonement was immoral because it prevented sinners from getting what we deserve good and hard--is so repulsive as to not be worth considering.

Generally the rap on the prohibition on divorce is that it's naive, romantic, and unrealistic about what relationships are really like, not that it's (in intent) 'anti-love'.

[afleitch]

St Bernard tells us that God the Father did not demand the Son's sacrifice but accepted it when it was offered. The other argument that you seem to be making--that the Atonement was immoral because it prevented sinners from getting what we deserve good and hard--is so repulsive as to not be worth considering.

Generally the rap on the prohibition on divorce is that it's naive, romantic, and unrealistic about what relationships are really like, not that it's (in intent) 'anti-love'.

I think the issue stems from the fact that we, in the first instance, are guilty of an original sin that is not of our own doing. Putting that aside, the remission of sin, which was the shedding of blood through sacrifice (which was cross cultural) is in itself barbaric. And what is essentially being accepted that that is just as true today as it was 'then'; that Jesus' sacrifice matters because sacrifice matters

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

If we are guilty of an arbitrary 'sin' by the creator, then we should stand guilty of it. For we are doing nothing other than what is in accordance with ourselves.

[Greatest I am]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that he was not familiar with scriptures.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Seems he decided to accept it before it even happened. Strange since god had yet to write the history or even allow sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said nothing of good and hard but it seems that you do not mind the innocent getting it good and hard when it is the guilty that deserve whatever is deserved.

Your view is what is so repulsive as to not be worth considering. IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is naïve about a person wanting to get out of a loveless relationship?

People have a right to seek loving partners to go through life with.

Right?

If they make a mistake or love turns to hate and or abuse, to force those abused people to remain married is definitely anti-love and quite immoral.

If you do not agree, it shows how your religion has compromised your morals as well as your view of the value of love.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

St Bernard tells us that God the Father did not demand the Son's sacrifice but accepted it when it was offered. The other argument that you seem to be making--that the Atonement was immoral because it prevented sinners from getting what we deserve good and hard--is so repulsive as to not be worth considering.

Generally the rap on the prohibition on divorce is that it's naive, romantic, and unrealistic about what relationships are really like, not that it's (in intent) 'anti-love'.

I think the issue stems from the fact that we, in the first instance, are guilty of an original sin that is not of our own doing. Putting that aside, the remission of sin, which was the shedding of blood through sacrifice (which was cross cultural) is in itself barbaric. And what is essentially being accepted that that is just as true today as it was 'then'; that Jesus' sacrifice matters because sacrifice matters

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

If we are guilty of an arbitrary 'sin' by the creator, then we should stand guilty of it. For we are doing nothing other than what is in accordance with ourselves.

Well put.

The tone of our friend Signora Ophelia Maraschina and her hard heart reminds me of this.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

It seems that she hold the innocent in contempt for not wanting to be punished in place of the guilty.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Your responses are almost unreadably poorly formatted and you're assuming even worse things of me than I am of you, which I don't appreciate, but I'd also like to say that it's rich that a self-proclaimed Gnostic is lecturing orthodox Christians (many denominations of whom, incidentally, interpret 'immorality' broadly enough as to be more or less okay with divorce as long as it's not jumped into as frivolously as a lot of secular (and even religious) high-status types do; hell, even the notoriously hidebound Catholic Church recognizes that a marriage sometimes has to end, it just doesn't allow consummated remarriage or remarriage in the Church afterwards under normal circumstances) on being 'anti-love' and accusing me of holding other people in contempt, when it was Gnosticism, during the centuries in which it was relevant, that was noted for its blistering contempt for the body, sex, children, human relationships, and anybody who wasn't mentally or spiritually 'advanced' enough for the teacher's liking (check out the Gospel of Thomas's version of the Parable of the Lost Sheep! It makes the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins look soft-focus and iyashikei). A lot of the problems in the orthodox understanding of those things--and yes, I happily admit there are problems--can be traced back to appropriation of the sort of Neoplatonism that a lot of the Gnostics also loved. However, there's a lot about your posting style and arguments that leads me to believe that you don't mean by 'Gnostic' what any reputable theologian or scholar of Christian origins means by it.

Your understanding of which people are 'the innocent' and which are 'the guilty' in the orthodox economy of salvation also seems to leave a lot to be desired, as does your (quote-mined, proof-texted) understanding of the timeline (or lack of timeline) of events from the Divine perspective.

afleitch's formulation of your other accusation is, as is so often the case from him, much better-put and more challenging than yours. To him I'd simply say that I don't mind having a faintly or more-than-faintly 'barbaric' understanding of the world in this respect. Chalk it up to a combination of hard knocks in childhood and Freudo-Marxism later on.

[Greatest I am]

Your responses are almost unreadably poorly formatted and you're assuming even worse things of me than I am of you, which I don't appreciate, but I'd also like to say that it's rich that a self-proclaimed Gnostic is lecturing orthodox Christians (many denominations of whom, incidentally, interpret 'immorality' broadly enough as to be more or less okay with divorce as long as it's not jumped into as frivolously as a lot of secular (and even religious) high-status types do) on being 'anti-love' and accusing me of holding other people in contempt, when it was Gnosticism, during the centuries in which it was relevant, that was noted for its blistering contempt for the body, sex, children, human relationships, and anybody who wasn't mentally or spiritually 'advanced' enough for the teacher's liking.

afleitch's formulation of your other accusation is, as is so often the case from him, much better-put and more challenging than yours. To him I'd simply say that I don't mind having a faintly or more-than-faintly 'barbaric' understanding of the world in this respect. Chalk it up to a combination of hard knocks in childhood and Freudo-Marxism later on.

You do not have a clue as to what Gnostic Christian beliefs are.

Neither did you ancestors and founders when they used the sword against all free thinkers of that day. They could not convert by good deeds the way a religion should be able to do so it was convert or die.

"when it was Gnosticism, during the centuries in which it was relevant, that was noted for its blistering contempt for the body, sex, children, human relationships, and anybody who wasn't mentally or spiritually 'advanced' enough for the teacher's liking."

Here is the relevant Gnostic Christian writing that you seem not to know about.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies and we have the required respect for them.

We also have the same reverence, not contempt, for all the others you name.

I would stay away from the word "contempt" if I were you since it was Christians showing contempt for all those they murdered to grow the immoral religion you follow.

As to my presentation. Read sllllower and you will have the time to absorb what I put.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies

I don't see that from that passage, no, since 'you', in many/most schools of Hellenistic thought, does not generally mean 'your body'. I'm going to trust my Church history and Christian origins professors--at my liberal Protestant divinity school, for what that's worth--over some rando on uselectionatlas dot org slash FORUM.

ETA: Or Dan Brown.

[Greatest I am]

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies

I don't see that from that passage,

I am not surprised at your lack of comprehension.

You trust your church yet will never hear them quote these.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

As you can see, we believe that god resides within our bodies

I don't see that from that passage,

I am not surprised at your lack of comprehension.

You trust your church yet will never hear them quote these.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

Matthew 6:22: Can't find this in the Revised Common Lectionary. Apparently not in the current Catholic lectionary either, but that's harder to search for some reason.
John 14:23: Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year C in both the Revised Common Lectionary and the current Catholic lectionary. Pre-Vatican II, was read on Pentecost, one of the three most important holidays of the liturgical year.
Luke 17:21: Can't find this either lectionary.
Romans 8:29: Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, Year A in the Revised Common Lectionary. Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost, Year A in the current Catholic lectionary. Not used pre-Vatican II.

So two of these verses are in fact in both the Catholic and mainline Protestant lectionaries. As for the other two, not being in the lectionary does not mean that somebody is trying to 'hide' a passage. In the Catholic lectionary, readers of Luke 15 are allowed to stop after the Parable of the Lost Coin, omitting the Parable of the Prodigal Son (the Prodigal Son, ffs!) entirely; one of the Masses I went to yesterday in fact did so. Does this mean that churches that do this are trying to downplay the Prodigal Son or consider it unimportant? Hardly.

Any more bullsh**t you want to put over on me?

[afleitch]

...

Put a sock in it. I have no idea what's biting you in the ass but while I can accept the lack of comprehension in your posts and writing style, there's no need to go off on one against someone you don't actually know, nor have ever asked to know about them.

[DC Al Fine]

My knowledge of other religions is limited, but it seems to me that all of them offer some kind of hope in that regard. So if the possibilities range from a neutral outcome to desirable ones, what's there to fear? Not trying to be glib here, I'd really like to understand.

Suppose you belong to a religion that espouses reincarnation. Let's further suppose by your own calculation you merit spending the next several thousand years as lifeforms with much crappier lives than your current one. That seems like a good enough reason to fear death. Or is that not what you are getting at?

[DC Al Fine]

You trust your church yet will never hear them quote these.

The fedora is strong with this one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My knowledge of other religions is limited, but it seems to me that all of them offer some kind of hope in that regard. So if the possibilities range from a neutral outcome to desirable ones, what's there to fear? Not trying to be glib here, I'd really like to understand.

Suppose you belong to a religion that espouses reincarnation. Let's further suppose by your own calculation you merit spending the next several thousand years as lifeforms with much crappier lives than your current one. That seems like a good enough reason to fear death. Or is that not what you are getting at?

I was assuming that, from the standpoint of religions for which the nature of the afterlife is a reflection of faith/works in the present life, all of us are still early enough in our lives that we can hope to become righteous enough to at least avoid the worst outcomes. Otherwise, if I truly had done something so heinous as to deserve such a fate, I genuinely think I would be relieved to know that I will have a chance to atone.