Medical science is amazing and I am so grateful when it helps to heal me or a loved one. But on a deeper, more philosophical level, what if cancer and other diseases are the natural bridge to death where there awaits a fuller existence? Since no one knows what happens when we die, maybe death is actually the better place to be. Maybe all of the effort which goes into finding cures for diseases and in extending our lives is really just keeping us from a more enlightened experience. Has anyone out there thought of this?
Tags: cancer, Health Medical Pharma, medical science, better existance
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
A woman who worked at an abortion clinic asked God, "if you truly love us so much, if life really does have so much meaning then why all the suffering in this world? Why dont you send us a cure for cancer and all the other heinous diseases of this mortal life?"
God answered, "I did, but you killed him"
Seems to me that the Christians hae thought of this … about 2000 years before you did.
yes, you do never know until your dead however if it’s true and death is only the beginning of a better ‘life’ then we should embrace it
Both Christians & Darwinists.
Christians believe death brings them to God.
Darwinists believe artificial ‘cures’ can weaken the species.
So both would maintain that sometimes death is better.
I believe death is not the end but a gateway to the next life (for some better, sadly for some not so much). However, I believe this life is a tremendous gift to experience things that we won’t know in the next life and I am grateful to have the gift and in no rush to relinquish it. I will know in due time, until then I believe it is my duty to do what is right with this opportunity.
Death is death. In the end, you die, no matter what happens here and now. There is no bridge, because you will end up dead anyways. No matter what comes next.
Sure. Lots of people envision a blissful afterlife. But on what basis would you decide it’s actually true? Others have envisioned a simple end to all suffering, indeed to our very existence when we die. Why is the vision of a fuller existence more likely than an end to our consciousness of self? One is desirable, the other not undesirable in objective terms. What makes you believe one occurs over the other?
I think that we ponder this because it seems, as DesCartes almost said "I think, therefore I am" ( he actually said "Cogito ergo sum" in french) .
Many people, myself included, have some trouble envisioning that the essence of ourselves, that part of us that seems other than our biological self, just ceases to exist when the brain exhibits irreversible cessation of electrical activity for a sufficient period of time, measured at spaced intervals. Yet why are we troubled by this notion? On what basis do our souls live forever, and if they don’t expire with our bodies, then when? And if they do live forever, why can our souls not be aware of having lived in multiple bodies (I mean other than Shirley McClain of course).
I just don’t see how people would believe they know one way or the other.
What if death is really just the beginning and cancer and disease are just the bridges to a better existance?
~~~ What if you had wings? You would fly. But you don’t, so you won’t. Simple.
Your ‘what if’ nonsense is meaningless idle speculation as there is no evidential support for your fantasy, nor is there likely to be. Want to really know? Die and find out!
It is a challenge to humanity.
You must log in to post a comment.