Mental Tricks to Believe We Will Not Die
We know Christianity has mastered the con that you will not die. You will live on in happiness if you have tithed but in fire and misery if you have not. Sin is worked in there so people not only tithe but behave.
However, we don't need religion to teach us how to avoid facing our own death. We seem wired to find other ways of avoiding it as well.
The link talks of an experiment where peoples' brain waves are monitored when words related to death are spoken. Our brains don't like words like "funeral." According to this study we learn to push the concept of death away from our own. Instead, we think of death as something that happens to other people.
One way of looking at the avoidance of accepting that death applies to ourselves or that we will live on after death is that it keeps people optimistic and happier. The other is that it prevents people from enjoying their lives as much as they might if they accepted that their clock will run out. We've all know or heard about people who had a terminal illness and decided to have experiences they had been putting off. Perhaps all people who be happier if they lived their lives in this way.
On my bookshelf is the famous book, Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky. He was a famous social protester known for saying and doing outrageous things to force officials to help the poor. People ask him, he wrote, how he can tolerate the intense level of hatred he generated toward himself. He said it all has to do with death. Most people know intellectually they are going to die one day, he wrote. "But, they don't take it personally. I, myself, personally know I will die. When I'm dead I won't know what they are saying about me. So I don't care now."
Maybe those are truly "words to live by."
Re "tithe"/ tithing; "You will live on in happiness if you have tithed but in fire and misery if you have not". Not a prerequisite. In fact, we reject it for ourselves and our dear dead loved ones.
ReplyDeleteRe "push the concept of death away from our own". Again, we reject it,
Re "avoidance of accepting that death applies to ourselves, or that we will live on after death is that it keeps people optimistic and happier" Again we reject that.
re; "We've all know or heard about people who had a terminal illness and decided to have experiences the had been putting off; Yes, I have observed that.
re. "Perhaps all people who would be happier if they lived their lives in this way". I reject that. I personally have known and been present in the last days of several, without a thought of regret of missing something they "put off". Actually, there was a sense of a life well lived, contentment. with the exception of my mother who was so far into dementia she had no thought of some such things. I do know however, before dementia set in, she was thankful for living the life she had, and had no regrets. She told me so.
Re Rules for" Radicals" required reading and study for students in university, going into social work. Quietly rejected by many students (true, I personally know some.) who wanted to receive passing grades. I suspect some some economics professors may have required Rules for Radicals. It does cover a broad spectrum, and I don't care what he thought.
little helper; “I personally have known and been present in the last days of several, without a thought of regret of missing something they "put off". Actually, there was a sense of a life well lived, contentment.” I feel certain those folks that shared their last days with you were thankful for your presence. Did you ever meet someone with a level of contentment and satisfaction with their life that they would repeat it all again; the beauty, the ugly, the wonderful and the terrible? I imagine in the discomfort that often accompanies dying most would choose their “heaven” verses a reprise. “Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying.”; Martin Luther.
Delete"did you ever...they would repeat it all again"; yes, including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
DeleteThe good, bad and ugly are part of living. All three are learning and growth opportunities.
Those "heaven verses" No real sure what you mean. (comfort, reassurance?) John 3; 16 (The Gospel in a nut shell) is often remembered, but there's more to it than heaven. Communion is a great comfort.
A great misconception I have seen here on this site often, and on the street is that Heaven is a "reward". Reward for what? something we have done? A good work? Most emphatically not a reward.- - - Rather; The result of faith of what was done FOR us on the cross. (The theology of the cross)
Luther also said; "Upon rising, one should remember his baptism." (not the rite/ritual , but what is contained / represented in it. A sacramental (noun) if you like.
My bad. I misspelled versus. It should have read; "I imagine in the discomfort that often accompanies dying most would choose their “heaven” versus a reprise." A reprise as in; "Was that life? Well then! Once more!". So far in more than seven decades I'd do it again, the vagaries, the joyful, and the awful.
DeleteHelper: don't you think that, in reality, we live in a highly Pelagian age. Which is to say that folks who take heaven seriously tend to think that it is a reward for a life well lived. Or alternatively as something that we obtain mostly through our own efforts. Moreover, I think that that is a kind of default attitude to be found in many of the so-called "men in the pew," Lutheran men included. And while you are at it, what is your take on Luther and the matter of free will?
ReplyDeleteUnknown; re. "we live in a highly Pelagian age". (I rather doubt many even know what/ who Pelagius/Pelagianism is.) Yes, it seems to be a strong strain. Most notably in the post reformation sects. re. Pelagian; .( Pure Pelagian- works alone) in the sense it has become pop theology. Then there is the more subtle and cunning; Semi Pelagianism, where "works assists Grace". Augustin warned about it. It too, along with syncretism it is present in some Lutheran groups not catechized, if at all. It is strongly rejected in The Book Of Concord. Not all Lutherans however subscribe to Pelagius, Semi Pelagianism or syncretism. Most notably, the LCMS, and WELS. They are some of the marks of both. Consequently, your "Lutheran men included" is too conflated.
Deletemaybe my brush was a little broad. not every Lutheran is, consciously or unconsciously, a Pelagian at heart. yet, the reality seems to me that many are (most including Catholics, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.) BTW, did you overlook my question regarding Luther and free will (the bondage of the will and all that)?
DeleteUnknown; @ 8;58. Sorry I missed that. Good topic. Funny you should mention Catholics, as semi Pelagianism was who Augustin was referring to. This has been discussed ad nauseum a few years ago. Re free will @ 1;37. "Free will AND/Or bondage of the will. Two entirely different subjects. On the secular level, everyone has free will, such as being a democrat or republican, peas or carrots, etc. On the sacred level, Everyone has the free will to reject the Faith. (Hence atheists, agnostics, even nones, etc. However when it comes to bondage of the will, no one is free to decide to believe without the aid of the Holy Spirit. If you reject the Holy Spirit, your will is bound, thus "The Bondage of The Will. That is why rejecting the Holy Spirit is called "The unpardonable sin". In the meantime the Holy Spirit is still working behind the scenes to bring everyone to the faith, even though they claim not to believe. I recommend the famous debate between Erasmus "On Free Will", and Luther's Bondage of The Will. If you can't find Erasmus, Luther's "Bondage of The Will" will suffice, as his statements are prefaced with Erasmus's statements. It is a down and gritty read. Then you can decide if you can come to the faith without the working of the third person of the triunity of the Godhead, ie The Holy Spirit. I have even had RCC priests tell me (under their breath, and looking over their shoulder.) Luther won the debate.
DeleteAnother somewhat different take on the Erasmus-Luther business. Erasmus as you know was a prominent humanist of his time. Which, among other things, meant that he had a human centric view of the world: that is to say, a view, that in modern terms, we would call a respect for the "dignity" of human kind. Luther, of course, reacted against the humanists of his time, emphasizing the depravity of man and his utter dependence on the saving work of Christ. In other words, Luther probably thought of Erasmus as a Pelagian of sorts. As to the question of the Holy Spirit and faith, I will take a pass. My expertise, to the extent that I have any at all, is in intellectual history, no theology.
Delete"...in intellectual history, no theology", which misses the point of On Free Will Vs. The Bondage of the Will, Why bother to ask?
Deletedon't know what that response has to do with anything. I simply said that I come to a lot of issues mostly from a secular historical point of view, not a theological point of view (tho' the two realms may overlap).
DeleteI understand your " I don't know." A secular point of view is oblivious of a theological view.
DeleteYou can't clean a fish like you clean a turkey.
OK. I concede your point. Tho' I know something about theology my "bag" is secular intellectual history So be it.
Delete