Christianity and Death?

[eastshore4]

Lately I've been reading some stuff about NDEs that Krkey has posted. NDEs are sort of ambiguous in nature so I looked into the Christian outlook on NDEs. This in turn led me to all sorts of literature on religious afterlives which I'm finding hard to understand. What exactly is the Christian outlook on an afterlife? I was first surprised to find that there isn't really a Jewish afterlife, except perhaps sheol. From there, I came across an article by Carol Zaleski which detailed an issue about certain Christians who argue that the Bible says there is no afterlife(I think Spong and Kung hold this as well?). I'm pretty much lost on this... for one thing this seems to dismantle a lot of the wish fulfillment complaints atheist make, but I gotta admit it also really taps into my inner nihilist to hear that these religions don't necessarily include an afterlife, that I'm more or less doomed no matter how I roll the dice. I know Christianity promises a resurrection but how does Heaven and the other various biblical descriptions of death factor into that? Could anyone clarify these varying viewpoints?

[Deleted]

These links should help you:

www.tektonics.org/af/doctoolate.html

www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html

www.tektonics.org/lp/norez.html

Also, this belongs under the Christianity section. I hope James will move it.

[eastshore4]

Thanks Matko. Sorry about putting it in the wrong place, I didn't know if it belonged in "questions" or "christianity"

[unkleE]

Mar 24, 2010 18:38:49 GMT @eastshore4 said:

What exactly is the Christian outlook on an afterlife? ..... I know Christianity promises a resurrection but how does Heaven and the other various biblical descriptions of death factor into that? Could anyone clarify these varying viewpoints?

I don't suppose I (or anyone else) can give you the definitive christian outlook on the afterlife, but here are my ideas.

1. I agree with the first of Matko's Tektonics links that the afterlife is not that much mentioned in the OT, and that isn't unexpected. I think the Bible, and God's actions generally, are progressive revelation, and stuff on the afterlife wasn't helpful back then. But they did (by the time of the prophets) believe in an "age to come", when the Messiah would put things right. They saw that as being in the world, which I think may be closer to the NT concept than most christian belief today (see below).

2. The NT seems to me to be pretty clear that we are living in the age to come now, in some respects at least (it is definitely the age of the Messiah), and the future will involve the resurrection and renewal of the entire universe (Romans 8:18-23), and God's people with it. We are not, according to the Bible, immortal souls (that is an idea smuggled in from Greek philosophy) but creatures of dust made in the image of God (a crazy paradox, but there you are!), destined to return to dust unless God resurrects us, which is our hope (1 Corinthians 15:1-58). So "heaven" and a renewed universe seem to be the same thing.

3. I don't see any way we could know, or even understand, what that will be like. The images of Revelation are obviously images. Concepts like "soul sleep" mentioned in the second Tektonics reference seem to me to be unnecessary - why not just wait and see? And we may perhaps infer that the renewed universe and our resurrected bodies will be physical in a new way (like Jesus' resurrected body), and time will be different or non-existent, but I prefer to simply think that I'll trust God to give me bread and not a stone!

4. The main teaching on hell is from Jesus himself, and it fits in better with the above understanding than the conventional christian belief of modern evangelicalism. Jesus warned about the one (God) who could destroy body and soul (= life) in hell (Matthew 10:28), and in Matthew 25:41-46 he warns about eternal punishment, where the Greek word "eternal" means not "everlasting" but "in or of the age to come". The imagery used of hell (fire and dissolution) comes (I think) from the valley of Hinnom garbage tip outside Jerusalem, and again indicates destruction, not everlasting punishment (the fires do not go out, meaning finality, but the person is destroyed = they forfeit their life, which is what unbelievers are expecting and choosing anyway). So Jesus' teachings here also fit in with us not having immortal souls, but being resurrected into a new heaven and a new earth, with those who reject Jesus not being so resurrected.

So there is much I don't understand, but that is what I think the NT teaches us about the afterlife.

[eastshore4]

Thank you for clarifying that. I bought N.T. Wright's "Simply Christian" last night so hopefully that'll help explain things. Does anyone know exactly what Spong, Kung, etc. are arguing for when they make their case? I don't quite understand their viewpoint... it seems to be that the church needs to "change" but I don't get what change they're encouraging except possibly that the afterlife ideas were tacked on and not the core teaching of the bible(which seems to conflict with the resurrection?)

[unkleE]

Mar 25, 2010 14:21:06 GMT @eastshore4 said:

Thank you for clarifying that. I bought N.T. Wright's "Simply Christian" last night so hopefully that'll help explain things. Does anyone know exactly what Spong, Kung, etc. are arguing for when they make their case? I don't quite understand their viewpoint... it seems to be that the church needs to "change" but I don't get what change they're encouraging except possibly that the afterlife ideas were tacked on and not the core teaching of the bible(which seems to conflict with the resurrection?)

I've never read Kung, and only one book of Spong's (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism). He seems to simply be unable to believe pretty much anything supernatural, which means the resurrection, miracles, supernatural revelation, etc. He points out Biblical inconsistencies, but seems to end up basing his ideas on what modern people will or won't accept. That basis makes it unlikely he can accept ideas about heaven and hell, which he regards as naive and unscientific. There are atheists who say, perhaps unkindly, that Spong is an atheist who hasn't let go of the trappings of christianity.

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2010 21:07:23 GMT unkleE said:

There are atheists who say, perhaps unkindly, that Spong is an atheist who hasn't let go of the trappings of christianity.

"Christian atheist" captures it.

[perplexedseeker]

Spong is a Christian? I always assumed that he was an atheist.

[Deleted]

He is a retired episcopalian bishop.

[perplexedseeker]

Spong kind of reminds me of a "reformist" Christian website I once came across where over a series of posts the site operator admitted that he thought there was no "literal" afterlife, no Incarnation, no Resurrection, no biblical authority, no soul, no free will, and no God except for an "ethical construction" in the minds of believers. One of the commenters called him a "functional atheist", and he didn't really have an answer to that, other than a sentimental attachment to some vague, general idea of Christianity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he was a big fan of Spong's books.

I know that probably sounds pretty harsh coming from a deist, but it kind of vexes me when some people insist on defining themselves as "Christian", when they don't believe a single one out of any of the basic tenets of Christianity (or even generic theism in some cases).

[syzygy]

I wouldn't put Spong and Kung in the same basket. Here's a quote from the epilogue to Kung's book "Eternal Life?"

Trust or mistrust?

The answer of Christian faith is--I hope--now unequivocal. Man and the world are destined to a consummation which will be granted to them by God himself. In the life of the world to come: it is only from there that an ultimate meaning can emerge in human life and the history of humanity. . . .
Either I say no to a primordial ground and primordial goal of human life, of the whole cosmic process, the consequences are unpredictable (sic). The Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, an atheist, ... says: "If he accepts this (negative) message in its full significance, man must at last wake out of his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. He must realize that, like a gipsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world; a world that is deaf to his music, and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his suffering or his crimes."
Or I say yes to a primordial ground and primordial goal of human life and of the whole cosmic process. This does not mean that I can then prove the meaningfulness of the history of the world and humanity, but I can trustingly assume it.
--------
So far I've only scanned the book. He has some interesting things to say about near-death experiences, although he doesn't have the latest data. My English translation was published in 1984.