Thoughts on death.

I have come to believe that death is just as important to the Father as Life. Through my life I have seen how suffering and death produces greatness in some men. I wonder if God allows pain, suffering, and death because it has the greatest impact on the living. It seems to me that suffering and death produce life in the people that are close to it and see it. Although, it does not produce life in everyone. When a man loses a loved one, he typically seeks answers and crys out to the Father, on some occasions those deaths cause a man to rise up and become great. What do you think? Do you think God allows the suffering because it has the potential to be the greatest change in those around it? What if God doesn’t view death as we do?
image

What if he views death as someone simply coming home to be with him. Could death be a calculated decision made by God to cause the greatest growth in the Kingdom? I’m not saying I know every one is in (heaven) but I think maybe God sees death as a tool and one way to further the Kingdom. I think death, pain, and suffering are calculated decisions which have the potential to have great impact with Kingdom people. I know this isn’t something that could ever be taught from a pulpit, or spoken much to people, it’s simply my thoughts on the matter. I think when God sees death he doesn’t see it as such a terrible thing.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Thoughts on death.

  1. Hey Jared,

    I always enjoy your blog posts….You are a thinker and I respect that above all else. Your brother Shane is also.

    Thomas Paine broaches this subject in his book “The Age of Reason”. (first published in 1794). Surely God views death differently than we do for death to us is surely like a birth to God (if it is true that we return to him after we die). Highlighted part at the end is most specific to your blog post.

    The Christian mythologists tell us that Christ died for the sins of the world, and that he came on Purpose to die. Would it not then have been the same if he had died of a fever or of the small pox, of old age, or of anything else?
    The declaratory sentence which, they say, was passed upon Adam, in case he ate of the apple, was not, that thou shalt surely be crucified, but, thou shalt surely die. The sentence was death, and not the manner of dying. Crucifixion, therefore, or any other particular manner of dying, made no part of the sentence that Adam was to suffer, and consequently, even upon their own tactic, it could make no part of the sentence that Christ was to suffer in the room of Adam. A fever would have done as well as a cross, if there was any occasion for either.
    This sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam, must either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or have meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently, the act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their system, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things happening to Adam and to us.
    That it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die; and if their accounts of longevity be true, men die faster since the crucifixion than before: and with respect to the second explanation, (including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute for the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently representing the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a pun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles, St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the habit without being aware of the cause.
    If Jesus Christ was the being which those mythologists tell us he was, and that he came into this world to suffer, which is a word they sometimes use instead of ‘to die,’ the only real suffering he could have endured would have been ‘to live.’ His existence here was a state of exilement or transportation from heaven, and the way back to his original country was to die.—

    You can read the entire book in a couple of hours…I have read it more than 6 times now. The book is available online for free at the link below.

    http://infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html#5

    I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

    Trae Morris
    Bursar
    Eastern Arizona College
    928 428-8223
    trae.morris@eac.edu

    • I think the historical belief systems surrounding Christ, and the teachings that exhist based on those systems has caused Christians and non-Christians to miss the point in regards to his death and resurrection. There was the first Adam who sined (chose to be his own God) and then the second Adam which came to reconcile. Based on the life and teachings of Jesus its hard for me to conclude that he was suffering exile. He taught things that, in my mind, would not coincide with one who was in a state of exilement. When Adam sinned he opened the door for man to be seperated from God. Sin is not an action, it is a state of choice, the choice to be your own God. God created man for relationship, and much of the Hebrew teachings show him searching out men who sought to know him. Once man gained the knowledge of good and evil he knew there was both, and he had the free will to choose. God, just as any father, desires love without manipulation, that is why we have free will. Religion is what manipulates, twists, and distorts the character of God. Jesus came as a man to die, but God had set prophecies in motion hundreds of years before the death of Jesus, detailing it. Jesus suffered to take on the pain that is associated with mans eniquity. Were popular Christian belief gets it wrong is their reasoning for why. Spiritual death is seperation from God, but he desires to know us and us know him. In order to get Sin out of the way to have relationship something has to die. Action vs Reaction. Sin=spiritual and sometimes physical pain and death. God decided to send a part of himself to suffer and die in order to reconsile that relationship, it was the only thing big enough to counter the cause and effect of sin. From my own personal experiences and thoughts I have come to believe a couple things, #1, Gods number one goal is to love us and for us, out of our own free will, to love him. #2 He desires to know us and us know him. These, in my mind are why he couldnt just die of a fever. Just before he dies the sins of world are laid on him. I know there is much to dispute all these things, but the point im getting to is this; yes Jesus died to provide eternal life by taking on the sins of the world, BUT, he more so died to resurrect and allow man access to the Father without being sinless. God desires relationship above all else, which is why he sent a part of himself to take on the eniquity of man. There is much theology on the statement made by God to Adam about eating of the tree. But, looking at it simply, Adam did not physicaly die right then but he did seperate himself from God. I have the Age of Reason but its been 10 + years since i’ve looked at it, i will revisit it. A different perspective on the typical Christian veiw of God, “who is God” Harold Eberle.
      As always, I greatly appreciate you reading and commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s