Life after death

"Rest after toil, port after stormie seas
Death after life - these things do greatly please"
   

General Sir Richard Dannatt, an unapologetically evangelical Christian,  has said that we owe it to soldiers to tell them there is an afterlife, when we ask them (as we do, daily)  to risk their lives carrying out government orders.

This is a sticky one: Army Chaplains today have to deal with a wide range of belief systems, including no belief at all;  some young men may never have given it a thought, others may be intelligently and militantly atheist.

One blog heartily approves; on the other hand Arrse,  the splendid "Army rumour service" website,  is so far mainly scornful - having a particular dislike of an army evangelical movement -  "They refer to death as being 'promoted to glory', which I find rather chillingly similar to islam's '72 virgins' nonsense..... How patronising can you get, implying that squaddies are incapable of reading the bible without help?"

     Views on the afterlife:  Muslim,  Buddhist,  Hindu,  Jewish...and of course the atheist point of view which - expressed eloquently here - admits that we know nothing but says  that the afterlife provides excuses for not improving the present life -  "if there is a heaven, it is better for our time on earth not to believe in it".  Most believers would disagree.

Comments

[martin]

I'm totally with the General. I can't believe our people are still suffering from a lack of equipment, manpower and support.

It's just not good enough.

[Allan Davies]

To tell people that they can expect a life after they die is completly wrong. There is no scientific evidence that anyone can live beyond a normal life on earth.I suggest that a good read of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" might cocentrate a lot of minds on how to make our lives better, including not having wars.

[Geoffrey Smith]

I quote: "How patronising can you get, implying that squaddies are incapable of reading the bible (sic)
without help?"
- Army website, quoted by Libby Purves.

The squaddies need all the help that they can get, especially from the Catholic Church. They are no different from the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).

[Z Hussain]

Jesus and Muhammad both taught that there is life after death. Koran has more details of such a life than Bible but both books declare that this life on earth is not the end. Death is only a door to another exisitance. Muslims soldiers serving in the British Army have no problem in believing that there is a life in the Hereafter. Belief in life after death is one of the crucial parts of the Islamic faith. So They don't have to be told this. They know they will go to Heaven when they die, and that virgins for waiting for them. Christian belief is also very similiar to that of Muslims. While we Muslims believe we will be with Prophet Muhammed in Heaven, Christians believe they will be with Jesus Christ in Heaven. Its the same things in reality. Same heaven same enternity. I think Sir Richard is absolutely right that young men sent into wars should be told that if they were to get killed during battle than there is a better future for them on the other side. This would surely boost their morale and give them greater confindence. Currently many soldiers suffer stress and anxiety. Thought of death terrifies most people. This is why we hear that our boys in Afghanistan and Iraq face mental problems when they return. I feel sorry for men who are not given good counseling advice. MOD should do it now.

[richard]

If there is a life after death,which I personally think is bunkum, what has happened to all the millions of combatants from down the ages who have been killing each other, is it all forgotten and just regarded as a jolly good wheeze?

[andrew holden]

Serving soldiers, sailors and airmen can make their own minds up about an afterlife - but I'm all for their chaplains (of whatever denomination or faith) being men and women of conviction. A chaplain who talks about religious doubt and uncertainty is not doing a proper job - although I expect they will also be very sensitive to the various views that personnel already have.

Irrespective of denomination or religion I expect all chaplains to stand for basic humanity and represent a moral and ethical standpoint. Our soldiers are not in Ghengis Khan's army and should act in a moral and legal manner even in difficult circumstances where 'the enemy' isn't signed up to any similar moral or legal framework. Chaplains do this out of the moral and ethical of their religion - but most religions have a humanist basis (ie they were worked out by human beings). Almost every religious (and indeed non-religious) system of ethics has at its heart something like the 'golden rule' - "do to others as you would have them do to you".

NOT, as GWB might say, "let's do it to the B@$#@£s before they do it to us!", which is rather the opposite!

[SHEILA]

Richard is not alone in thinking that life after death is "bunkum". Take up a challenge: look on the internet for Ian McCormack's story - he is now on a speaking tour in the UK and has had an extraordinary experience, evidence of life after death. His name & website come up with "Google".

[Father Bryan Storey]

There's obviously life after death. The garden confirms what science demonstrates. More? Read Jesus. He's worth trusting. He shows so much truth about life, He's worth trusting on death too.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If there is a life after death, which I personally think is bunkum,
what has happened to all the millions of combatants from down the ages who have been killing each other, is it all forgotten and just regarded as a jolly good wheeze?"
- Richard, 18 OCT 2007, 16:59:42

Yes - by the atheists. By the Christians, no. There is nothing morally wrong in being a soldier, as the incident with the centurion in the Gospel testifies. If a soldier is obliged to kill an enemy in the course of active duty, that is not immoral, regardless of what pacifists mistakenly believe. Soldiers are permitted by the moral law of God to defend their country from a perceived aggressor, as our squaddies defended Britain from the Nazis. Those who died as a consequence, both British and German, were rewarded with Heaven or consigned into Hell according to their just deserts and the state of their souls.

[Brian Pennington]

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3) - Dying on the battlefield in no way guarantees a future life. Obeying Jesus' commandments does!

[marcos]

What is the purpose of life after death.? Please can anybody answer my qestion,as far as i know only the dead would be qualified in answering this question and that is extremely unlikely. CHEERS.

[Keith]

I think that Christians and muslims must believe in an afterlife because their religions are responsible for the deaths of countless millions of ignorant and innocent people down through the ages.

[Jenny Corr]

Where are the commited christians in this country? Why are we so afraid to stand up for our God? Isn't it selfish to keep that marvellous secret ,that we can spend eternity in the presence of the God who gave his own life for us?
Don't our servicemen deserve all the comfort that we can give them,as we expect them to give their lives for us too.

[Andrew Milner]

When a bullet leaves the barrel it's got no friends. So if it has your name on it, "Game Over" dude. You only go round once, unless you're Buddhist of course. Nice neutral Buddhish country anyone?
Seems the Army's finding it a little to hard to compete on the theology front with the 72 Virgins promised by Islam. After all no one's ever complained.

[Simon Peter]

General Dannatt belongs to the sect called Evangelicalism. This is a time-expired sect within Christianity.

It claims to believe the New Testament Evangel, but is so totally taken up with its own traditional beliefs and cultural interpretations of the New Testament, that it is a contradiction in terms.

How anti-Evangel for General Dannett to take a truth from the New Testament, and use it to exhort soldiers to go out and die for England!

How cynically self-centred to seek to inspire his troops to achieve greater military success on his watch and under his generalship by abusing the New Testament!

When Martin Luther brought justification by faith to the world's consciousness, he was being truly evangelical, truly consistent with the New Testament.

This general is exhorting soldiers to justification by military fatality. This is a gross distortion of the New Testament, which his sect's affiliation should deplore.

Perhaps, as a member of this time-expired sect, he really does believe that there is only one type of after-life, namely heaven. Or is he wanting his squaddies to risk which of the two after-lives they go to, by military martyrdom?

Yes, indeed, let the soldiers read the New Testament for themselves, and ignore the man-made theology of Britain's Chief of Staff.

[Bob Hyde]

Well said General Dannant.

It's not the role of science to tell us what can and cannot happen and scientific 'proofs' are not the only types of proof we have available to us.

Anyone who has been in a battlefield situation knows full well the reality of the issues of eternity that play on one's mind at such times.

[Patrick Darcy]

Onward Christian Soldiers,
Marching as to War.
Fight for someone elses cause,
Its all been done before.

Politicians lead you.
Generals get you killed.
When your dead and buried,
your famlies still pay the bills.

Onward Christian Soldiers,
Marching as to War.
The Liberals they will scorn you.
Tories leave you poor.
Labour sends you off to fight ,
Then hits you with the Law.

[Andrew Holden]

I can't see anywhere that the General believes that soldiers will automatically get to heaven simply by virtue of dying on the battlefield so people like Simon Peter and Brian Pennington are completely and deliberately distorting his views - and committing the sin of bearing false witness against a neighbour!

As a Christian the General will also believe that soldiers will also need to have faith in Christ - an unspoken assumption in the context of the evangelical conference in which he made his remarks. I'm grateful for the fact that a Christian General believes that soldiers risking their lives in the line of fire should have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel and I expect that he encourages his Chaplains to be fairly forthright in their preaching.

Neverthless, in the modern British Army, Church is no longer a parade and soldiers have the right to opt out (or go elsewhere for their spirituality) if they wish - and I'm sure that the General accepts this.

[Samuel Gee]

Oh for crying out loud. Our Soldiers are volunteers. If they haven't thought about being killed before they sign up then that's up to them. If they have thought about the matter and sign up anyway so much the better. The Army will give you a military funeral and the rest is up to you. Soldiers both atheist and Christian and others serve together all the time. Whatever happens when you're dead is your own concern or worry. Not anyone else's. Telling atheist soldiers that their morale is lacking is condescending considering they believe that they have only one life and risk it anyway. You could just as equally say that soldiers who believe in an afterlife are lacking in morale as they refuse to face the reality of their own death.

[alan]

Geoffrey - you say it's not immoral for a soldier to kill. I'm an atheist, not a pacifist. I'm also a realist. -- Having said that, I too think there are times and situations where self-defence or the defence of others is necessary. But I'm not a Christian. You are (I think). And as such, you should take Christ's words more seriously. The one truly revolutionary thing that Jesus did was to say - Love your enemy (instead of "a tooth for a tooth")!! He did not say - Kill your enemy.(I am not talking about the OT-commandments, but about the NT-sermon on the mount.) Anyone who tries to water down his words is being disloyal to Christ, and that is unbefitting of anyone calling himself a Christian. - Geoffrey, I know you'll disagree with me, but that is my honest opinion.

[Roll]

Never in the field of human conflict, has so much much bollox had to be absorbed by the many, from so few.

[Simon Peter]

Andrew Holden, It is not just a matter of what a public person says, but also what he is perceived to be saying.

You may argue that the world will always distort what a Christian says, and that the General has been subjected to just this sort of treatment. I do not think we should give in to such an argument because of our failure to be clear in what we say, if we decide to speak.

The General did say, "We owe it soldiers to tell them there is an after-life, when we ask them to risk their lives in carrying out government orders." He did say this or you are alleging that the reporter is being economical with the truth.

Since he did say this, he erred! He should have not phrased it in this way. There is no room for half-Gospel comments when, as such a senior person, you will be reported in the media or, at least, you must always assume you will be.

You cannot justify what the General said on the basis of "an unspoken assumption" about the need to have faith in Christ. There can be no unspoken assumptions for a British Chief of Staff venturing into this particular area, which is outside his professional job description.

He should have said something like this, "We, Christians, owe it to soldiers to tell them that, through faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour, there is an heavenly after-life. We, in the military, owe it to our fellow-soldiers to tell them the Gospel about Jesus Christ and the redemption from sin that he obtained for all those who put ther faith in him. We must speak to them about this because we risk their early deaths in carrying out government orders."

There is no verbal short-cut in telling others the Gospel, and concepts such as "after-life" must be described in detail in order to avoid the world misunderstanding.

One misunderstanding is that Arrse state that the army evangelical movement "refer to death as promoted to glory". Death, in and of itself, cannot be automatic promotion to glory.

True, misunderstanding will occur, but every opportunity for such a senior General must be sufficiently detailed to counter and correct any such misunderstandings.

It is, of course, easier to give out half-truths than the full Truth. This is because the half-truth will not bring down upon the speaker much pressure, on account of the Name of Jesus Christ, when compared to the full Truth.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Anyone who tries to water down his words is being disloyal to Christ, and that is unbefitting to anyone calling himself a Christian - Geoffrey, I know you'll disagree with me, but that is my honest opinion".
-Alan, 23 OCT 2007, 18:41:06

And mine too, Alan! No, I don't disagree with you. On the contrary, I think you are perfectly correct.
The problem is, that, having read the Sermon on the Mount, you don't take it further and study the rest of the New Testament, relating this teaching to the unified whole.
Our Lord's admonition to love one's enemies did not deter Him from flogging the merchants out of the temple. So clearly, the application of the Sermon can have its limitations; it takes two to tango.
I quote: "Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2263)
This has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, derived from the Apostles who were taught by Christ. Hence, it is morally lawful to kill an aggressor in war-time, although obviously some actions, such as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, are always gravely immoral. Indeed, Pope Pius XII condemned the American attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, like I said, Alan, it takes two to tango. If someone is determined to kill you, you have the moral right to defend yourself, killing the aggressor if it is quite unavoidable - and in war it usually is.

[alan]

Geoffrey - we agree in part. But I am still puzzled: If we are to believe the bible, Jesus did say "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek". OK, he did eject the merchants from the temple (although he didn't kill them). Are we to interpret this act as "not loving the enemy"? If so, Jesus was obviously guilty of saying one thing and doing another. This would be hypocritical, and we surely don't want to accuse Jesus of being a hypocrite. So I don't think we can use this to show that the application of the Sermon has its limitations. -- As to self defence, and the necessity of military action in a "just and necessary" cause, I - as an atheist - agree that restraining (even to the extent of killing) an aggressor is unavoidable. But I just wonder what Jesus would say. -- (I think, for example, he would certainly condemn the Iraq invasion and its tragic consequences in human misery as unnecessary and "unchristian".)

[Peter Magellan]

A quick question for those of you who believe in life after death: how long do you think it lasts for? THINK before answering...