Perspectives On Death

THURS., SEPT. 10, 1987, 5:59 AM
FARM, STUDY

This evening you will review and comment upon the perspectives on death that you presented last week. You have a class that is more strongly Christian in perspective than any of the alternatives… but all are represented in some proportion. Shouldn’t you have My observations on this matter before you make your comments? Of course.

The Christian perspective that you present is the most normative for the short time you have to describe it. Among Christians there is a range of interpretation, certainly, with the main difference being the literalness of hell to which most humans have gone and will go at death. Some are scared into accepting Christ, for the prospect of eternity in a burning hell is certainly not one to accept if there is a viable alternative. Thus, in this extreme orthodox Christian view, of those who die today throughout the world only a select few will go to heaven… those who have been born again by fully accepting My offer of salvation and eternal life or by responding to My urgent call AND those who are faithful members of the “right” church. All others will go to hell, with no way out. When I make My judgment it is for time and eternity.

A more liberal Christian view does not affirm this one-time judgment and just assumes that because I am a God of love I must offer some way out of hell for this majority of those in whom I placed an immortal soul. The Holy Scriptures are not at all clear on this, but many Christians feel that I must have “some other way.” This perspective assumes only one earth life, of whatever length, and then consciousness and individuality continuing on for eternity, in some spiritual environment that has some physical characteristics… to bring forth feelings of pleasure or of pain.

The humanistic perspective you present either denies Me or ignores Me and assumes that when the life force is gone from the body consciousness is “just gone” also. Oh, memories remain, through photographs, writings, and deeds, but nothing conscious. This does urge a revering of human life and the development of myriad ways to maintain life and postpone death… rightly. I allow this, just as I allow technological developments to kill people more effectively. I approve of life maintaining techniques and machinery when it is part of genuine service of humans to fellow humans and when there is acceptance of death as a natural part of the life cycle. Otherwise it is something I allow without My blessing.

The ecological perspective just doesn’t consider Me, but gives no more credence to all the efforts to hallow human life. This sees the interrelationships of all creatures with one another and with the earth scene and sees death as just a way of maintaining life. The dead should go back into the earth just like your dead rabbits and chickens so that more life can be nurtured. For, you see, there is a continuation of life through the interchange of molecules, atoms, and, ultimately, energy. There is no consciousness, but there can… should… be continuation.

Life after life is the assurance that consciousness continues after physical death and that there is an active world of spirits in the beyond. It has the assurance of acceptance and love, but then only mystery “beyond the barrier.”