Is it hypocritical for Christians to be terrified of death if heaven is
- Thread starter Lilalena
- Start date
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
No not if the christian has a fear of the unknown to claim to know about the hereafter in full detail is arrogance, it is this kind of arrogance that suicide bombers get trained on. After death is a major major unknown.
LostInThought7
Registered Senior Member
God made humans with necessary instincts such as fear and pain. Without those, we wouldn't survive long enough to do anything. But, he also gave us intelligence, and knowledge that if you're a good Christian/Muslim/Spaghetti Monsterling, then things will be okay once you die. I have known many dying Christians that showed no fear as they lie in their deathbed. The same Christians that probably would run from a raging bear in an earlier year. The only angst I have personally seen in dying Christians is in one man (I haven't talked to tons and tons of dying Christians), my grandfather. His only concern was that he was dying with me still as a non-believer.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
No, it's a normal instinctual response. Self-preservation. Besides, even under most theistic doctrines, there is a lot of important things people have to do BEFORE they die in order to qualify for the blah blah after.
In addition, I don't care how nice heaven is, from my limited perspective I'd rather stay here with my wife (for example). The prospect of never seeing her again, or the grief my death would cause her, makes me terrified of death regardless of what I think might be waiting on the other side.
Very, very few, and probably not just to kill a few civilians. The promise of paradise is a very real encouragement to suicide bombers.
no i don't think it's hypocritical but it certainly shows huge lack of faith, something that will prevent them from getting to heaven (because they don't believe in God enough).
furthermore, it is perfectly logical to assume that being in heaven will bring them closer to God (i guess he lives there?) and yet they don't want to die and be closer to God. they just want to stay on earth where they can potentially commit more sins which is the opposite of what God would want.
so in summary, Christians who are afraid of death, (those who go to the doctor or the hospital when they get sick), automatically offend God and don't have enough faith to warrant a place heaven.
if God wanted human to live past 40 years old he would have let the cavemen do so but this wasn't the case. so any Christians over 40 y/o who take vitamins, supplements, herbs, medications, etc. (things made by people who don't believe in the Christian God, aka scientists) to extend their lives automatically fall into said category.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Not believing in God makes you no less his creation
Hypothetically, if people did not fear death, but could just let nature run its course, humans would be more in touch with evolution and natural selection. The atheists version is about using fear to perpetuate genes that would not make the cut if there was only natural selection. This is de-evolutionary.
It is a Darwinan irony. The atheist say do what I say (natural selection) and not what I do. The theist says do what I do (flow with natural selection) and not what I say. In the end actions speak louder than words with the vision of paradise keeping humans more in touch with natural selection.
If you look in nature, animals do not meditate death or pitch this to each other for fun and profit. They only react to real time threat. They tend to flow with life with thinning of the herd part of the process of life and evolution. If the weak and fearful decided to use more and more resources to perpetuate the regressive genes the result would de-evolutionary. The ancients were in touch with nature in terms of actions. But since you are dealing with human imagination and subjectivities, they needed to overcome the fear fantasies of the atheists, with faith, so humans would not become unnatural and de-evolutionary.
It is a Darwinan irony. The atheist say do what I say (natural selection) and not what I do. The theist says do what I do (flow with natural selection) and not what I say. In the end actions speak louder than words with the vision of paradise keeping humans more in touch with natural selection.
If you look in nature, animals do not meditate death or pitch this to each other for fun and profit. They only react to real time threat. They tend to flow with life with thinning of the herd part of the process of life and evolution. If the weak and fearful decided to use more and more resources to perpetuate the regressive genes the result would de-evolutionary. The ancients were in touch with nature in terms of actions. But since you are dealing with human imagination and subjectivities, they needed to overcome the fear fantasies of the atheists, with faith, so humans would not become unnatural and de-evolutionary.
would you stop be so malicious . you usually have nothing to offer but arrogance
This one seems to be the simplest and most logical reason why people fear death. Nice.
Malicious?
Please elucidate.
Wrong.
I'm just stomping on word salad and unsupported contentions.
I recall that studies show that militant suicide bomber types (or jihad as you called it) are not exceptionally religious - rather its a sense of belonging to a group that brings a sense of over-zealous fortitude. IOW candidates for "jihad" are not fueled by a religious rationalization (and are in fact plagued by the standard "doubts about god" you would expect from any mediocre practitioner) of their acts but by a sort of peer pressure punctuated by a core group.
Last edited:
I think it is hypocritical if you are thinking you are on the right track to get into heaven . Now if you know you don't believe then it is just fear of death it self . If you do believe and are afraid then that must be case you are not sure you going to heaven . If you think your going to heaven why would you be afraid ? unless you didn't really believe ?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
If you were both Christians who believe the party line, then you'd expect to be reunited in Heaven. However, you'll have no physical bodies there (at least according to the doctrine of some of the Christian sects) so your relationship will be considerably different.
The question that has never been answered to my satisfaction is: What about the previous wife who died, resulting in my remarriage? (I'm fortunate enough that this has not actually happened to me, but it happens to millions of other people.) She's been patiently awaiting me to show up and be reunited with her, but then a few years later along comes my current wife, who hasn't remarried and is also looking forward to being with me again. I understand that there's no sex in Heaven (a good enough reason to be in no hurry to go there), but apparently an entire category of feelings, such as love and fidelity, don't work at all the same way they do here.
Golly whiz, I wonder what other things up there aren't quite the same as I might expect?
Perhaps those who practice group marriage are merely getting accustomed to how things will be in Heaven.
Gnashing my teeth in disgust, I would perpetuate our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion. The reason is that, despite the horrors that religion has brought to our planet, all attempts to curtail it, or any of its specific sects, invariably end up bringing even worse horrors.
Religion changes as societies evolve, both from the Stone Age into the Computer Age, and from the era of empire, ignorance and wretched poverty into the era of democracy, universal literacy and prosperity. As people have more, they envy their neighbors a little less, and have less reason to make war upon them. (Of course envy is not the only catalyst for holy war, but it has always been one of the major ones. Even today terrorists who claim religious motivation are based in relatively poor countries and attack relatively rich ones, whether it's Catholic Ireland vs. Protestant England, Muslim Palestine vs. Jewish Israel, or the Muslim Middle East vs. the Christian USA and EU.)
Furthermore, as societies evolve religious identification tends to attenuate. The percentage of the population in Europe, Australia and New Zealand who identify themselves as religious is lower than in the USA (which in many ways lags behind them in social evolution) and far lower than in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Southeast Asia. And the percentage who freely identify themselves as atheists is higher.
So what I would do is find ways to hasten that attenuation. Simply putting this country on a course toward faster social evolution would be a great start, but that's easier said than done--especially if one remembers the Law of Unintended Consequences.
At least at first, I might settle for just leveling the playing field and not continue treating religious organizations like special beloved grandparents who aren't expected to carry their weight. They're businesses and they should pay their fucking taxes like any other business. People who feel the need to practice religious rituals should be free to do so, so long as this does not interfere with their other obligations such as maintaining peace, respecting their neighbors and doing their jobs. No more religious holidays, let's just have one Monday off every month. No more vacations for trips to Mecca if it's a time when the company can't afford to be short-staffed. No more church bells or muezzin calls waking people up who don't go to that church or mosque, they can surely find a way to get this crap on their iPhones the way the rest of us get our crap. If someone wants to stop and pray five times a day then he'd better find a company where the boss is cool with that, no other boss has an obligation to allow it. If someone feels that a certain billboard, song, TV show, t-shirt, bumper sticker or party at the neighbor's house offends their religious faith, then they can just go live somewhere else. If they don't want to carry liquor in their taxicabs then they'd better found their own taxi company and compete with the ones who provide better service to their customers. If they don't want to allow an old blind lady with a seeing-eye dog into their taxi then they can go to jail for discriminating against the disabled, a much more important demographic than the religious one because these people didn't volunteer for their handicap. If their women want to walk around looking like bandits, or like men disguising themselves as women who look like bandits, then they'll have to get used to not being allowed to enter quite a few places, such as public transportation where passengers are highly alarmed by the entrance of a possible bandit.
I would also make sure that education was better balanced. I would make the scientific method one of the cornerstones of the legal system, in the sense that an assertion made without evidence cannot be regarded as true. This would prevent creationism and other such bullshit from being taught in schools.
If you were both Christians who believe the party line, then you'd expect to be reunited in Heaven. However, you'll have no physical bodies there (at least according to the doctrine of some of the Christian sects) so your relationship will be considerably different.
The question that has never been answered to my satisfaction is: What about the previous wife who died, resulting in my remarriage? (I'm fortunate enough that this has not actually happened to me, but it happens to millions of other people.) She's been patiently awaiting me to show up and be reunited with her, but then a few years later along comes my current wife, who hasn't remarried and is also looking forward to being with me again. I understand that there's no sex in Heaven (a good enough reason to be in no hurry to go there), but apparently an entire category of feelings, such as love and fidelity, don't work at all the same way they do here.
Golly whiz, I wonder what other things up there aren't quite the same as I might expect?
Perhaps those who practice group marriage are merely getting accustomed to how things will be in Heaven.
Religion changes as societies evolve, both from the Stone Age into the Computer Age, and from the era of empire, ignorance and wretched poverty into the era of democracy, universal literacy and prosperity. As people have more, they envy their neighbors a little less, and have less reason to make war upon them. (Of course envy is not the only catalyst for holy war, but it has always been one of the major ones. Even today terrorists who claim religious motivation are based in relatively poor countries and attack relatively rich ones, whether it's Catholic Ireland vs. Protestant England, Muslim Palestine vs. Jewish Israel, or the Muslim Middle East vs. the Christian USA and EU.)
Furthermore, as societies evolve religious identification tends to attenuate. The percentage of the population in Europe, Australia and New Zealand who identify themselves as religious is lower than in the USA (which in many ways lags behind them in social evolution) and far lower than in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or Southeast Asia. And the percentage who freely identify themselves as atheists is higher.
So what I would do is find ways to hasten that attenuation. Simply putting this country on a course toward faster social evolution would be a great start, but that's easier said than done--especially if one remembers the Law of Unintended Consequences.
At least at first, I might settle for just leveling the playing field and not continue treating religious organizations like special beloved grandparents who aren't expected to carry their weight. They're businesses and they should pay their fucking taxes like any other business. People who feel the need to practice religious rituals should be free to do so, so long as this does not interfere with their other obligations such as maintaining peace, respecting their neighbors and doing their jobs. No more religious holidays, let's just have one Monday off every month. No more vacations for trips to Mecca if it's a time when the company can't afford to be short-staffed. No more church bells or muezzin calls waking people up who don't go to that church or mosque, they can surely find a way to get this crap on their iPhones the way the rest of us get our crap. If someone wants to stop and pray five times a day then he'd better find a company where the boss is cool with that, no other boss has an obligation to allow it. If someone feels that a certain billboard, song, TV show, t-shirt, bumper sticker or party at the neighbor's house offends their religious faith, then they can just go live somewhere else. If they don't want to carry liquor in their taxicabs then they'd better found their own taxi company and compete with the ones who provide better service to their customers. If they don't want to allow an old blind lady with a seeing-eye dog into their taxi then they can go to jail for discriminating against the disabled, a much more important demographic than the religious one because these people didn't volunteer for their handicap. If their women want to walk around looking like bandits, or like men disguising themselves as women who look like bandits, then they'll have to get used to not being allowed to enter quite a few places, such as public transportation where passengers are highly alarmed by the entrance of a possible bandit.
I would also make sure that education was better balanced. I would make the scientific method one of the cornerstones of the legal system, in the sense that an assertion made without evidence cannot be regarded as true. This would prevent creationism and other such bullshit from being taught in schools.
You must be from the old dictator school and spend a lot of money in security forces, How are you going to educate people who don't want to be educated ?