I'm a Christian fundamentalist, and I can't figure out this argument at all.
You appear out of nowhere ... with 1 post ... and a username "Fundie" ... perfectly crafted to respond to this particular topic in this particular thread. And you dont look, or think, or smell like a Fundie at all. I sense something fishy going on here.
You're speaking to a guy who has a degree in Biblical studies, from one of the most conservative Bible Colleges ever known to the human race, who graduated with Honors and a degree in Philosophy and Religion. So as far as useless book knowledge on Christianity, its theology, and how Christians think and perceive things - I am choc full of that stuff. And quite honestly, in all my years I have never heard a single "fundie" call themselves a "fundie". Its a derogatory term created by those who can't stand Fundamentalist Christians. Its not a term even I called myself when I used to be one. You dont speak or think like a "fundie" and your viewpoints don't match those of a fundie. So either you are pretending to be a Fundie or you're one of those people who thinks you're a Fundie because of some loose association with the Christian faith, at best. So let me just get that out there right at the beginning. Lets just call it a hunch that you may not be what you say you are.... call it a vibe.
I can't see what problem Christian theology has with medical procedures that save someone's life and involve any combination of unconsciousness, stopped hearts, stopped brain activity, deep hypothermia, solid state hypothermia, and/or molecular nanotechnological repair. If it works, I simply say glory be to God. I think it'd be great for unproven medical procedures to work out and for lifespans to be vastly extended, health to be improved, and for people to live virtually indefinitely.
We're not really discussing logic here. If people thought logically, the entire planet would be in a horrific uproar right now that we're all going to die. If perspective and reality played into the equation with religion, there would be no stigma associated with this. But anyone with any basic knowledge of Christianity knows exactly why Cryonics is viewed as many possible negative things. Im not saying it should be that way. And I agree with you that it shouldnt be that way. For all the exact same reasons. If you arent aware of their reasons for having a problem with it, then I am skeptical of the level of knowledge you have on the social opinions of those in the Church.
If I woke up from one of these treatments, I can't imagine why you think I would see it as disproof of God, disproof of the afterlife, or disproof of a soul.
You're assuming that nothing happens spiritually when someone dies. You have absolutely zilch to draw upon, to make that assumption, therefore your conclusion that none of this matters is ... quite simply ... faulty logic. My assumption that something spiritual may occur after the moment of death at least has nearly 15,000 years of world religions backing it, and the agreed upon belief system of literally hundreds of billions of people who have ever lived. So at least that's something. But wouldn't it be funny if it were all wrong?
That's what we're discussing here. Exactly what we're discussing. So poo-pooing this topic is terrible logic. Someone being dead for 600 years who reports no afterlife - this is significant. Extremely. You cant compare someone dead for 30 seconds to someone dead for 600 years, spiritually. (im assuming, based on the theologies of the worlds religions). You also cant compare a non thinking embryo to a person who has lived for 70 years and then died. Theoretically / Religiously speaking of course. This is an annoying argument because neither of us knows the "rules" after death when it comes to God, Spirits, Timing, Heaven, Hell or simply - "Nothingness". However I do firmly believe that the first person revived from Cryonics will be carrying news regarding the "afterlife" that many scientists, sociologists, theologians, and the general public will want to hear about. "Man dead for 600 years says - No Heaven" would be the headlines. And if you truly believe that isnt going to carry some weight (at least with todays audience), we can agree to disagree.
Luke is correct that there *is* a subset of Christianity that believes the state of the spirit / soul is "sleep" until the final judgment day when all the dead will rise. In such a situation, there is no heaven after the lights go dark.
Who knows ... maybe the resurrection of the dead mentioned in the bible is .... Cryonics. God works through Science in every other way doesn't He?
In fact, cloning happens in nature all the time (identical twins), and I never worry about how they got two souls, nor would I worry if artificially induced cloning were developed.
Once again I completely agree with you, but I dont agree that the question on the table is a non-issue.
Well they wouldn't ask that question. You know what the response to that is. Great, you went from a whopping 6 minutes to a whopping 10 minutes. People who believe in a spirit / soul would say "So what?"
Why would there be any response? Nobody offers these medical treatments as disproof of the existence of a soul, and I can't figure out why you or anyone else would want to offer cryonic suspension as such.
Youre negating a thousand theological problems in your statements. You are the most peculiar fundamentalist christian ive spoken to in years. Then again Ive met hundreds of people who claim to be something Christian-related, and they dont have the first clue about their own theology, so maybe thats the group you fit within. No disrespect intended. Association by familial ties, Living in Texas, watching Fox News a lot, or even going to a Christian Church doesn't make you a Christian. What makes you a fundamentalist christian is your belief system. If you believe that there is "no response" to the question of death / spirit / heaven / and what happens after you die, then your form of Christianity is not one I am familiar with. Even though I completely agree with you
But I dont claim to be a "Fundie" anymore....
with potentially workable suspension, we move from a presumption of death to a presumption of life. We will practically never know when a person is not going to be revived; some people may wait centuries before we work out how to cure what ails them and get them breathing and conscious again.
Creative semantics at best. You can no more claim the person is still alive than I can claim they are permenantly dead. But what i can do is confidently claim theyre CURRENTLY dead. You cant confidently claim anything. Therein lies the difference. For you to claim theyre still alive is a nonsensical statement that is being adopted into these circles for the sake of necessity. I saw it in the "Long Life" book Ive been reading as well, where it was the fundamental point of the legal battle. The assumption that the person was just suspended versus dead. Therefore it wasnt a murder. Reminds me of a tricky attorney, which it was, in the book. No. Theyre dead.
Just like if you turn off my computer, its for all intents and purposes dead. The only difference is there's a button I can press to revive it. So we wouldnt really call the computer dead. But thats based on one criteria: that we know it can CURRENTLY be restarted. When the computer no longer starts despite all our efforts, its called "Dead". Likewise, with current technology, you cant restart any of these people. Therefore they are dead. For now. The proper semantics is whether this state of being is permenant, or just current. Are they revivable? Or will they remain dead.
Maybe this answers my above question. Maybe youre just in denial about their current state, so you can pretend the whole "god / spirit" thing doesnt kick into gear when they die. Maybe you believe the theological doctrine that the dead "sleep" until judgment day. Then again Jesus also told the theif on the cross "You will be with me this day, in Paradise". However id place bets you weren't aware of two schools of thought on this issue as none of your post indicates even the slightest bit of Biblical knowledge. By the way, when exactly does it kick into gear if 600 years of being dead doesnt initiate that process? You'd think if there WAS a god and a human spirit, dying might be the transition point for all of that?
But it is a valid discussion to wonder if its even possible. Likewise I dont see how the anesthesia, or "being asleep" or "coma" argument mentioned above is even valid to this thread. In none of those cases is the person recognized as dead so obviously - on a theological level - their spirit / soul wouldn't be expected to depart from their body. Im just looking at this how those with faith would look at it.
I'm not really sure you have a clear bearing on how a person with faith would look at it.
This was the most humorous part of your post. I doubt you've met anyone with as much understanding of Christian theology in your life, to be quite honest. Especially one who no longer holds to some of that theology and has seen things from both sides of the coin rather than the one-sided blind viewpoint that can't entertain thought experiments like these. Rest assured I know more about how a person of faith would view things than I could ever want to know. I dont say that arrogantly. Im not too incredibly proud of it, because it has made my thought-life nearly impossible to live with. We are having a three part discussion here:
(1) Those of "Faith" who actually hold to established Theologies *would* state that its *not possible* to raise the dead.
(2) Despite our optimism on resucitation techniques, nobody has ever raised the "long dead".
(3) So the question of whether its even possible to revive a "long dead" individual is a valid one, and one which those of faith would say "no" to.
Moving on...
That's three different Christian perspectives, none of which seem to meet your predictions of how a person of faith would look at it.
And three Christians who hang out on a Cryonics forum - out of 70 million Christians in this world, is a very good cross section. You're right ... you just failed Science 101. Statistically insignificant is a term that even 3 out of 70 million doesn't even come close to meeting. Tell you what. I can have 700 of my classmates from my graduating class shoot you an email and let you know why cryonics is "of the devil", is "against gods will" and any number of other upsetting, ridiculous things if you really want to engage me in how Christians think. Without you even telling me, I can painfully see you dont hold to the same belief systems as most Christians. No matter what you may think. No matter what you have tricked yourself into believing. Christianity isnt a smorgasbord of differing ideas. Thats the beauty, and the downfall of Religion. There is only one definition. One rulebook. One set of beliefs. Otherwise it becomes another religion, and you're given a different Title. There are denominations for the discrepencies, but major issues like this one are different. Christianity has a guidebook and a rule book. And those who dont hold to the viewpoint simply need to change their title from Christian, to something else. Im not saying theyre right. And I dont agree with them. But you are not, by a longshot, one of them. At least not on this topic.
Consider that a compliment.
-CB-
Edited by CryoBurger, 12 October 2010 - 07:29 AM.
