Hi there STEELEREDUX...

If a belief and trust, however erroneous it is to others, gives some spiritual and emotional solace and comfort to others, especially in their hour of grief, then so be it, allow them that peace. I don't belief anyone has the right to condemn or attempt to disabuse a person, with some scholastic argument, contradicting or rebutting the reality of an afterlife, and the existence of an orthodox Christian God.

Golly there's more than enough pain with us all, 'in the here and now', without some cerebral academic, repudiating everything a person believes will happen, at their time of death. How we deal with such a question, is a personal issue. Our duty is both clear and concise. We do everything possible to ensure that person receives all the emotional and spiritual comfort they seek. Nothing more nor anything less.

Dear o sung wu,

I think if you read what I posted I was attempting to do just that.

Sells may well think “A literal reading of the resurrection of the dead is a horror story” but there are many who take great comfort in a literal interpretation of the bible. There is always a place for 'individualising' the bible's message, for letting slide some aspects that one might find problematic or distasteful. He can indeed welcome “that emphasis on the afterlife is waning in most churches and in scholarly circles it is commonly acknowledged that the kingdom of God is an earthly reality of justice and love.”

But for him to liken the biblical tracts about the resurrection of the dead to horror movies smacks of sectarianism, of wanting to distance his brand of faith from the literalists. It is understandable of course, but what I am taking issue with is his propensity to lecture us on what he sees as our failings as dictated by his version of the bible.

I think people need to understand the more they strip from the bible the less effective any bible bashing will ultimately be. Being clipped under the ears by selected chapters from a couple of the Gospels and perhaps the Letter to the Corinthians is not going to do much head turning. Indeed, why even bother.

Hi Peter

I agree an article such as this can’t cover all the complexity of biblical scholarship, and in general one of the reasons I like your writing that there is clearly a depth of unstated scholarship behind it that informs your argument without it being too academic. But I think your historical shortcuts are material in this case, for two reasons.

First, your argument relies on a sharp dichotomy between Jewish and pagan thinking on the afterlife that in reality didn’t exist – within both Jewish and pagan thought there was a variety of different perspectives at different times.

Second, you imply that the church’s view on life after death is largely a medieval embellishment. But I think that by NT times there was a great diversity of views within Judaism, with belief in some sort of afterlife more common than not. It does seem to have been the “default” position for the NT authors. For example, the synoptics felt the need to tell their readers that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, which would hardly be necessary if most people at the time held this view. Jesus’ response suggests he disagreed with the Sadducees on this. Likewise, Matthew’s many judgement parables and Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross in Luke (“today you will be with me in paradise”) suggest belief in an afterlife. And Paul’s theology hinges on the resurrection proving that Jesus is Messiah.

I agree that the reformation corrected two major flaws in the way the medieval church came to view life after death – that the main purpose of earthly life is to gain admission to heaven when we die; and the way to do this is to accumulate brownie points (which the church had power to award). But we can’t dismiss it entirely.

Dear David,

Other than feeling miserable and desperate, I find it difficult to imagine or hypothetically predict how I would actually conduct myself had I believed myself to be a human, hence mortal, because then "I wouldn't be myself".

But to the little extent that I can imagine so, it seems to me quite likely and reasonable that if I were in that predicament, were about to die and had a dream that could not be fulfilled other than by criminal means - say for example that my dream was to play a Stradivarius and the only way I could do so was by breaking in and stealing it from a famous musician who otherwise refuses to let anybody else touch his precious instrument, then I guess that I would have gone ahead and stolen it.

Rhian,
I think the difference between the culture of Israel and their neighbours is well documented. Read Brevard Child's Myth and Reality in the OT. Israel did not escape the mythological consciousness completely but it did in the main.
I think a compendium of the various views about death in Scripture does not lead to a firm conclusion. Neither does the influence of neo-Platonism on the early Church. We now see all of this as historically conditioned and not very relevant to our situation.
We need to listen as well to the voice of the modern age, especially to physiological science that can demonstrate that consciousness does rely on the proper working of the brain even though we have no idea how it is produced.
The materialist view of the world has won out! Most educated people do not believe in the supernatural or in a personal god. My point in all of this is that the gospel is existential and is true in the absence of the supernatural.

Dear Peter,

<<We need to listen as well to the voice of the modern age, especially to physiological science that can demonstrate that consciousness does rely on the proper working of the brain even though we have no idea how it is produced.>>

Science demonstrates that the CONTENTS of one's consciousness depends on the proper working of the brain - that is WHAT one is conscious of, which could be a combination of sensations, feelings and thoughts, including the empty set when one is not conscious of either - yet science says nothing about consciousness itself: Just because, perhaps due to brain malfunction, one is not aware of any sensations, feelings or thoughts, does not imply that their consciousness itself was affected or has disappeared.

<<The materialist view of the world has won out!>>

And rightly so regarding our view OF THE WORLD.

Give Caesar (science) what is his, but also give God what is His, as religion directs us to become aware that while we may still be IN the world, we are not OF the world.