Best or favorite model for understanding value of death?

[hu324b]

Dying is as natural as being born - but in society - especially in certain countries death is hidden from society , not spoken about and if it is people are immediately upset and don’t want to talk about it especially in North America - not including Mexico which does have a national holiday celebrating death. It reminds us of our own mortality so we avoid it. We want to be eternal and believe we are but tomorrow comes and things change.In Christ we are eternal but some people can find no comfort in that and I understand that.

As for speaking about it with our children - I will take another angle - today we shield our children from the real world , telling them that they are great and special and its all rainbows and candy-canes when the truth is life is a struggle. So when they grow up and enter the real world they see that everything they were told was a lie - that they are not special and great ( only to their family) but just another human being trying to find their way in the world - no wonder their is so much depression in teenagers - their whole world is turned upside down and they have to face reality. Better to be honest with children then shield them from the real world. I understand why we as parents want to do this but if a child asks they deserve the truth.

Death is perceived culturally in the world depending on where you come from - North American has lost it cultural identity where death is concerned and it has become a taboo in our society unlike other places in the world.

 

[o_mlly]

Curious to hear what you have found as the best (or your favorite) explanation for how to reconcile the loving parent model of God and a world where it looks and feels like we and our loved ones die.

I’m certainly hard-pressed to imagine a scenario where good comes from a human parent making their child think people die when they go to sleep at night.

Thanks!

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” Bl. Mother Teresa.

 

[Techno2000]

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” Bl. Mother Teresa.

 

[GEddie]

Dying is as natural as being born - but in society - especially in certain countries death is hidden from society , not spoken about and if it is people are immediately upset and don’t want to talk about it especially in North America - not including Mexico which does have a national holiday celebrating death. It reminds us of our own mortality so we avoid it. We want to be eternal and believe we are but tomorrow comes and things change.In Christ we are eternal but some people can find no comfort in that and I understand that.

As for speaking about it with our children - I will take another angle - today we shield our children from the real world , telling them that they are great and special and its all rainbows and candy-canes when the truth is life is a struggle. So when they grow up and enter the real world they see that everything they were told was a lie - that they are not special and great ( only to their family) but just another human being trying to find their way in the world - no wonder their is so much depression in teenagers - their whole world is turned upside down and they have to face reality. Better to be honest with children then shield them from the real world. I understand why we as parents want to do this but if a child asks they deserve the truth.

Death is perceived culturally in the world depending on where you come from - North American has lost it cultural identity where death is concerned and it has become a taboo in our society unlike other places in the world.

The fact that something is natural doesn’t make it good.

“Natural” is to scrape a bare subsistence from the earth, get infections from minor skin nicks and get eaten by predators. What makes us human (as opposed to a globe-headed, arch-footed ape) is our drive to transcend nature.

ICXC NIKA

 

[hu324b]

I’m fine with you not liking the word but I would not change it if I was writing it again

 

[Techno2000]

The Church doesn’t try to sugar coat Death, we just went through Ash Wednesday.

 

[hu324b]

Didn’t say the church I said North American society.

 

[GEddie]

I’m fine with you not liking the word but I would not change it if I was writing it again

I never implied that you should.

Of course death is natural. That does not make it less hideous and cruel. Yes, cruel.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[dshix]

Curious to hear what you have found as the best (or your favorite) explanation for how to reconcile the loving parent model of God and a world where it looks and feels like we and our loved ones die.

I’m certainly hard-pressed to imagine a scenario where good comes from a human parent making their child think people die when they go to sleep at night.

Thanks!

Death is a punishment for Adam’s sin. I’m not exactly sure why you feel yourself compelled to “reconcile” this with God’s “loving parent model”. Remember God’s justice. He created us without death, without sin, but Adam and Eve sinned, relinquishing that purity, and so death is one of many consequences that come on due to God’s justice.

Without our suffering this punishment, there would be no way for us to be reconciled to God again, so in a way, this is not only just, but merciful. Instead of just damning us all to Hell, God gave us a second chance.

 

[Neoplatonist]

So a purpose of death, along with the other evils that threaten us throughout this life, is to actually help produce this faith as we come to fully recognize our dependency on “Something” outside of ourselves.

That would suggest that a child cannot feel dependence on his parents even though they do not make him think he will cease to exist when he goes to sleep.

Does a child in the swimming pool learn to trust their parents MORE because the mother or father pretends to drown the child first?

But since death is a great equalizer, considering that all, from the least to the greatest, must succumb to it in the end, it can be a teacher, granting the wisdom that says that no man is the end-all and be-all of his universe. Faith, and ultimately, love, triumph over all.

Again, though, I’m just trying to get my head around. Doesn’t the final judgement or the fact that we did not create ourselves or the loss of all our worldly accomplishments teach us the equalizing?

Consider this. I am NOT saying this is a better way, I am saying I could understand this way, and I think comparing/contrasting this with the way death “seems” to work now would help me isolate the specific obstacle: upon the death of the body, suppose we were all allowed to see the spirit standing beside their body and then disappear in the company of an angel. There’s still eternal judgment, still dependence. We’re still not the cause of our own existence nor of the universe nor of one single wildflower in the fields. We still lose all worldly possessions. We are still hoping for God’s mercy in the judgment. Still need faith. The only thing taken away is the sheer terror that we and our loved ones seem to stop existing altogether.

Always enjoy your different point of view, fhansen.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Death is a punishment for Adam’s sin. I’m not exactly sure why you feel yourself compelled to “reconcile” this with God’s “loving parent model”. Remember God’s justice. He created us without death, without sin, but Adam and Eve sinned, relinquishing that purity, and so death is one of many consequences that come on due to God’s justice.

Without our suffering this punishment, there would be no way for us to be reconciled to God again, so in a way, this is not only just, but merciful. Instead of just damning us all to Hell, God gave us a second chance.

a.)Then why was there a tree of eternal life in the garden if there was no death? (minor, but it had not occurred to me to wonder at that before)

b.)Because trying to understand as far as we are able is one of the things we do. ?] We’re not fideists, for goodness’ sake.

c.)On that reading, it sounds like Christ’s death did not reconcile us to God?]

d.)The example makes it worse, not better. What kind of loving person would continue beating their grandchildren for something their children did? Again, I get that it says that, but I’m working for an understanding that doesn’t just render the ideas like parent and bridegroom as seeming contradictions to our way of understanding. That doesn’t mean they aren’t. I get that God could be a paradox to us, but at some point it becomes moot to attempt theology at all, then.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t believe our creator, whoever he or she is, wants us to characterize life on Earth as miserable. For millions of people, life on Earth is a wonderful experience, me included.

AJ

“. . . poor banished children of Eve mourning and weeping in this vale of tears.” ?

 

[Bahman]

Death is a punishment for Adam’s sin. I’m not exactly sure why you feel yourself compelled to “reconcile” this with God’s “loving parent model”. Remember God’s justice. He created us without death, without sin, but Adam and Eve sinned, relinquishing that purity, and so death is one of many consequences that come on due to God’s justice.

Without our suffering this punishment, there would be no way for us to be reconciled to God again, so in a way, this is not only just, but merciful. Instead of just damning us all to Hell, God gave us a second chance.

And why we should be punished? We are born innocent.

 

[oldcelt]

The simple fact that ALL life dies is an indication to me that we do not hold any special place in the eyes of the creator.I have come to expect that my physical death is, very likely, the end of my existence. The same applies for all those who have gone before and those who will come, be they human, animal or plant.
That is my belief. If another “system” gives people comfort, I have no conflict with that. I’m reminded of an old lyric by The Moody Blue: "You wonder why the world is turning around. In the end it won’t matter, at all.

John

 

[ericc]

I think death of the physical body is best for this world. I’d hate to live in a world where nothing dies, nothing rots, and every generation of your ancestors are there to remind you of things in the good old days. Everyone’s related.

I’d hate to be living with the likes of the Hitlers, Stalins, where evil men stays around for ever. In no time, powerful evil men will rule this world. I think nice guys don’t end up winners in the long run, in this world at least.

And in no time, we will be running out of space, animals have to make space for man, green fields and parks are luxuries. Do we have enough green lungs and air for everyone, including animals?. And the only way to reduce the human population is war or natural disasters/famine. I am presuming if one can live forever the body can regenerate itself with adequate provisions. More or less sickness proof.

You get the picture. We can’t AFFORD to live forever. Nursing homes will run out of room and those who can’t afford it will be on the streets.

Garden of Eden is so because it need only feed 2. With 108 billion people to date, it will be a garden no more. I think even if people can live to 250 years not to say forever, it will be a major major mess economically, geographically and politically. If democracies are in operation, the majority will be senior citizens. Resources need to be reallocated.etc

 

[Techno2000]

I think death of the physical body is best for this world. I’d hate to live in a world where nothing dies, nothing rots, and every generation of your ancestors are there to remind you of things in the good old days. Everyone’s related.

I’d hate to be living with the likes of the Hitlers, Stalins, where evil men stays around for ever. In no time, powerful evil men will rule this world. I think nice guys don’t end up winners in the long run, in this world at least.

And in no time, we will be running out of space, animals have to make space for man, green fields and parks are luxuries. Do we have enough green lungs and air for everyone, including animals?. And the only way to reduce the human population is war or natural disasters/famine. I am presuming if one can live forever the body can regenerate itself with adequate provisions. More or less sickness proof.

You get the picture. We can’t AFFORD to live forever. Nursing homes will run out of room and those who can’t afford it will be on the streets.

Garden of Eden is so because it need only feed 2. With 108 billion people to date, it will be a garden no more. I think even if people can live to 250 years not to say forever, it will be a major major mess economically, geographically and politically. If democracies are in operation, the majority will be senior citizens. Resources need to be reallocated.etc

I never thought about it this way… good point.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I think death of the physical body is best for this world. I’d hate to live in a world where nothing dies, nothing rots, and every generation of your ancestors are there to remind you of things in the good old days.

You get the picture. We can’t AFFORD to live forever. Nursing homes will run out of room and those who can’t afford it will be on the streets.

Garden of Eden is so because it need only feed 2. With 108 billion people to date, it will be a garden no more. I think even if people can live to 250 years not to say forever, it will be a major major mess economically, geographically and politically. If democracies are in operation, the majority will be senior citizens. Resources need to be reallocated.etc

a.) Any number of these things could have been adjusted if God had wanted a system where we remain in one body (lower reproduction rate, bigger planet, etc.)

b.) No reason knowing about our immortality requires that we keep this body. Going to another realm (Heaven, Life-World Level 2, any number of options) and switching to a different kind of body all still fit with my concern.

In fact, we can use that idea of a school. People go from 1st grade to 2nd grade, from elementary to high school to college . . . How could it possibly add something to that system if kids in 1st grade never saw their friends or siblings again once they graduated from 1st grade. Never talked to or saw a college kid, never met a 6th-grader. At the end of first grade he sees people walk into a special building and never come out again.

How can we imagine that adding something to the experience or joy or motivation or, well, be anything except terrifying as all get-out?

 

[fhansen]

That would suggest that a child cannot feel dependence on his parents even though they do not make him think he will cease to exist when he goes to sleep.

Does a child in the swimming pool learn to trust their parents MORE because the mother or father pretends to drown the child first?

Again, though, I’m just trying to get my head around. Doesn’t the final judgement or the fact that we did not create ourselves or the loss of all our worldly accomplishments teach us the equalizing?

Consider this. I am NOT saying this is a better way, I am saying I could understand this way, and I think comparing/contrasting this with the way death “seems” to work now would help me isolate the specific obstacle: upon the death of the body, suppose we were all allowed to see the spirit standing beside their body and then disappear in the company of an angel. There’s still eternal judgment, still dependence. We’re still not the cause of our own existence nor of the universe nor of one single wildflower in the fields. We still lose all worldly possessions. We are still hoping for God’s mercy in the judgment. Still need faith. The only thing taken away is the sheer terror that we and our loved ones seem to stop existing altogether.

Always enjoy your different point of view, fhansen.

In the case of our existence here, the parent isn’t even present for all practical purposes; the Master’s gone away. This life, from my understanding, is the “opportunity”, initiated for humankind by Adam, to see how we like that situation, that complete autonomy from our Creator. In order for this autonomy, this trial, to be authentic, we can’t even *know *of the Master; His existence must be uncertain, questionable, if even thought about. He’s not here to either guide, discipline, or praise us, not in any overt, external, empirical manner at least, not in any way that overwhelms and forces us into compliance with His will, whether out of love or fear.

We’re “god” here; man’s will reigns, for better or worse. We play the hands of God or the devil; we’re so free from subjugation to Him that we’re truly tested in how we will comport ourselves morally; we *own *our choices, our culpability modified only by what nature or other humans may dish out to us rather than by a conscious knowledge of and relationship with God. This is why even “believers” often do atrocious acts; our freedom, operating from within our private, internal worlds, is always open to and beckoning us to think and do this or that, whatever we will, whatever we think right at the time.

We live in a state of separation from or non-subjugation to God’s will. This state is consider by our faith to be a disorder, an injustice. Man was made for communion with God-and this life has the purpose of turning us back fully to Him, and away from Adam’s rebellion, away from his choice of disobedience, from his preference for himself over God. It’s a matter of the will, as we come to recognize that something is missing, something that’s been here all along whether we’d really wanted it to exist or not beforehand.

That’s my take on it: hard, good, and valuable lessons, ultimately aimed at uniting man with a universal, foundational, Love-love being something we don’t always value and embrace or even know as we should, as it deserves, seeing as it often interferes with our selfish agendas, with our pride. This love, in essence, is what Adam rejected or scorned and dismissed. This is also what was spit on and rejected and put to death at Calvary, only that time man was slightly more ready for the light of God’s love, just barely, as that love rose and shone it’s brilliance again, even brighter yet, and that revelation is even now, after 2 millenia, only scratching the surface in terms of convincing humankind of it’s incomparable superiority to anything else we may hold dear, of penetrating and overcoming the darkness that always seeks to keep our world enslaved.

 

[Neoplatonist]

In the case of our existence here, the parent isn’t even present for all practical purposes; the Master’s gone away. This life, from my understanding, is the “opportunity”, initiated for humankind by Adam, to see how we like that situation, that complete autonomy from our Creator. In order for this autonomy, this trial, to be authentic, we can’t even *know *of the Master; His existence must be uncertain, questionable, if even thought about. He’s not here to either guide, discipline, or praise us, not in any overt, external, empirical manner at least, not in any way that overwhelms and forces us into compliance with His will, whether out of love or fear.

We’re “god” here; man’s will reigns, for better or worse. We play the hands of God or the devil; we’re so free from subjugation to Him that we’re truly tested in how we will comport ourselves morally; we *own *our choices, our culpability modified only by what nature or other humans may dish out to us rather than by a conscious knowledge of and relationship with God.

It’s a matter of the will, as we come to recognize that something is missing, something that’s been here all along whether we’d really wanted it to exist or not beforehand.

Your solution has a lot going for it. The idea that the feeling of emptiness and incompleteness of life without God that finally turns us toward him helps make sense of some interesting issues in our faith.

And yet, would we not come to feel that without the terror of death hanging over us?

Running to God because we’re terrified of dying is hardly the same as turning to Him because we feel more complete by doing so; those are almost opposite ends of what we could call the “parenting” spectrum. Loving my mother or father because I feel more fully alive and more joyful is awesome, and I can totally wrap my head around how that fits with our understanding of a wondrous parent. We miss our parents and something clicks in place when we go home for the holidays. Perfect.

But “loving” them because I’m scared to death that their hand is the only thing that keeps me from blinking out of existence or, worse, falling into eternal fire - that’s look like some pretty horrendous parenting from where we stand. It’s even a little worse. It looks like they let the children (my siblings) blink out of existence anyway - the ones who love them and the ones who don’t (one exception, their favorite kid, but he was a special case from day one). So, in fact, all we have is this tiny hope that they won’t let us fall.

It seems like your model works better without death than with it. What’s missing?

 

[GEddie]

I think death of the physical body is best for this world. I’d hate to live in a world where nothing dies, nothing rots, and every generation of your ancestors are there to remind you of things in the good old days. Everyone’s related.

I’d hate to be living with the likes of the Hitlers, Stalins, where evil men stays around for ever. In no time, powerful evil men will rule this world. I think nice guys don’t end up winners in the long run, in this world at least.

And in no time, we will be running out of space, animals have to make space for man, green fields and parks are luxuries. Do we have enough green lungs and air for everyone, including animals?. And the only way to reduce the human population is war or natural disasters/famine. I am presuming if one can live forever the body can regenerate itself with adequate provisions. More or less sickness proof.

You get the picture. We can’t AFFORD to live forever. Nursing homes will run out of room and those who can’t afford it will be on the streets.

Garden of Eden is so because it need only feed 2. With 108 billion people to date, it will be a garden no more. I think even if people can live to 250 years not to say forever, it will be a major major mess economically, geographically and politically. If democracies are in operation, the majority will be senior citizens. Resources need to be reallocated.etc

Nuts to that.

I’d rather live in a global NYC than lose my body. I don’t think poetic environmentalism changes the sheer cruelty that is human death.

And the pressure of population is the one thing that will make the technology of off-world travel a reality. We don’t have it now precisely because the earth is not yet crowded enough to need it.

ICXC NIKA