> In Christianity life is about suffering. You're basically earning heaven points. But when you no longer live for god but only for yourself there is no reason to suffer.
I'm not sure that is true. And even if it would be true for Christianity, I'd guess the same could be said for Buddihsm [0]. Buddhism monks in particular seem to be a miserable lot, as they (try to?) never smile ... at least on photos as shown in temples in Thailand.
The core of Christianity, from my understanding, is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and through accepting Jesus (not through works) one is able to get to heaven. This I think is the defining contrast of Christianity with other major religions, as in Judaism, Hindusm, Buddhism, Islam and probably others good works are needed to get to a better afterlife or reach a final state (nirvana?).
Though please correct me if I am wrong in any of this, as I don't know all of every religion.
P.S.: I myself was born in The Netherlands, but for the last 7 years or so been living in Thailand.
> is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and through accepting Jesus (not through works)
This is true in much of mainline Protestant Christianity, but it's less clear cut in the Catholic and Orthodox branches or in some of the hard-to-categorize groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc). They still emphasize that it's only through Christ you can be saved, but they place varying degrees of emphasis on what you should be doing and why.
None I'm aware of says anything about heaven points through suffering, though.
That’s not what life is about in Christianity at all. Life is about choice in Christianity. Freedom. You can choose to live for yourself or for others, for the world. Dwelling on one’s suffering is a form of egoism that distances one from others and thus God. That’s why suicide is a sin in Christian theology, because it arises from individualism, which denies the Holy Spirit that comprises and composes us all. Asking “why don’t they have the right to kill themselves” is the wrong question from such a theological standpoint. The right question is “why aren’t we rushing to their aid, especially when we have the chance to prevent the type of suffering that would inspire such egoism.” That opportunity certainly won’t always exist, sometimes organisms just break, it’s just the risk of material existence, and coping with that powerlessness is also a part, no doubt the hardest part, of shedding ego.
Thank you for a great comment! I just wanted to highlight the notion of meaning, as you touch upon, that all challenges and sufferings make opportunities to choose God. At least in the Catholic Church, unity with Christ (including, metaphysically, taking part in his suffering on the cross), and letting one's ego go, is the point
There are many different strains of Christianity. In some of them, like many varieties of Calvinism, the notion that people have freedom to choose anything is explicitly rejected.
I posted this quote in another comment, but felt the harshness of your tone may have been dervied from the topic of Christianity.
Christianity isn't the only religion/world view that has the perspective that your life has value to others, even if you yourself feel doomed.
From the Havamal, the wise words of Odin:
> The lame can ride a horse, the handless drive cattle, the deaf can fight and win. It’s better even to be blind, than fuel on a pyre; a corpse is of no use to anyone.
While I can appreciate where you're trying to come from, I wouldn't be so quick to make such an all-encompassing statement. Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." There's a duality here (the now/then tension) in that Jesus brings the fullness of life both here and in the next life.
This doesn't preclude suffering, though, which I agree is a central tenant of Christianity. I would argue the primary role of suffering, from the Christian view, is to bring about conformity to Christ in this life.
Well that entire dogma is giving us monsters like Mother Theresa who thought that by letting people in her care suffer she made it more likely they will make it to heaven - and well, the Catholic Church has agreed with that interpretation and made her a Saint.
This was touched upon in a game called Indika released this year......there's a story there how a guy ended the suffering of his young child who was in constant pain, and was told by a priest during confession time "well you see by killing your son you condemned your soul to eternity in hell, but your child is now definitely in heaven, so actually you did a good thing by sacrificing yourself!". And so the guy went and killed the rest of his family, having come to a logical conclusion that he can't get any more condemned to hell than he already is, but if he guarantees that his entire family goes into heaven then surely that's an absolutely amazing thing to do. I don't know if this was based on a true story or not, but the logic totally applies.
It seems to be a fundamental truth of human existence that we're all extremely critical of others for how quick they are to believe nutty stories about people they disagree with, while sharing that fault. Tribalism is wired deeply into our DNA.
Why is the alternative dogma egocentric hedonism? To me, the alternative to what she was doing is "dogma" of caring for another human. If they need help, if they cry out in pain, help them - not collect imaginary points of sending them to heaven. Not sure where egocentric hedonism plays into this.
You’re replying to someone who presumably thinks that if they personally didn’t have religion, they would be an egotistic hedonist. They don’t realise that doesn’t apply to many other people. I think with people like that, we’re better off if they keep their religion.
I'm doubtful. Way more people are willing to hurt others if they think it's for the greater good compared to people willing to hurt others just for personal gain.
I understand what the end looks like. My grandmother went through it, and she was the only exception her "dry" memory car facility allowed after her withdrawls started. She had been living on two meals at Chilli's a week, with the rest of her caloric intake derived from wine.
I am also going through a cancer scare myself and have been thinking about the future.
Sometimes it is helpful to review the wisdom of the ages, so I'll leave some here for ponder, as I don't know that I'm convinced the short of it is always the best decision:
> The lame can ride a horse, the handless drive cattle, the deaf can fight and win. It’s better even to be blind, than fuel on a pyre; a corpse is of no use to anyone.
I suppose at some point, one's disability does truly leave them beyond repair, beyond productivity. But maybe there is comfort knowing your existence fuels a paycheck for whomever is charged woth your care? But that may be undesirable if it subtracts from your heirs.
It would be helpful if you clarified what brand of Christianity you're talking about, since it's a very old religion that has many many different branches with different teachings. Some of these branches are totally on board with assisted dying, others are not for various reasons. Very few are because suffering is about "earning heaven points".
In many branches of Christianity what you do find is a belief that life is a gift from God and that it's sacrilegious to decide on your own to end that gift earlier than He does. That's not a glorification of suffering per se, but a prioritization of the will of God over your own will—it's based on a belief that even if you don't understand how now, His plan is always better than yours.
I realize that nuance like that doesn't do well on this forum when it comes to religion in general and Christianity in particular, but I do think it's important to accurately represent the other perspective instead of attacking a straw man, even if the other perspective is religious.
"In Christianity life is about suffering. You're basically earning heaven points." I think you're conflating WoW with other people's faith somehow. YMMV
