In *A Grief Observed* ([pdf here](https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/PDFs/GriefObserved_CSL.pdf)) , Lewis makes reference to God as a clown (page 7): > And this separation, I suppose, waits for all. I have been thinking of H. and myself as peculiarly unfortunate in being torn apart. But presumably all lovers are. She once said to me, ‘Even if we both died at exactly the same moment, as we lie here side by side, it would be just as much a separation as the one you’re so afraid of.’ Of course she didn’t *know*, any more than *I* do. But she was near death; near enough to make a good shot. She used to quote ‘lone into the Alone.’ She said it felt like that. And how immensely improbable that it should be otherwise! Time and space and body were the very things that brought us together; the telephone wires by which we communicated. Cut one off, or cut both off simultaneously. Either way, mustn’t the conversation stop? > > Unless you assume that some other means of communication — utterly different, yet doing the same work, would be immediately substituted. But then, what conceivable point could there be in severing the old ones? Is God a clown who whips away your bowl of soup one moment in order, next moment, to replace it with another bowl of the same soup? Even nature isn't such a clown as that. She never plays exactly the same tune twice. C. S. Lewis describes the loss of his wife in terms of their communication being severed upon her death before he expresses his frustration with God and his apparent arbitrariness in his dealings with mankind. Lewis assumes another type of communication other than time, space, and physicality (body) which brought he and Joy together but what could he (Lewis) have been possibly thinking regarding another type of connection? The soup analogy throws me a bit in attempting to follow his reasoning here. Could someone unravel his logic for me?

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

This question is directed to followers of the Catholic Faith, why do they believe that the dead can still be saved if we intercede for them when scripture explicity states that it is appointed for men to live once after which death and judgment follow. *Hebrews 9:27* >And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment I interpret the verse above to mean that after we die then there is nothing we can do to either glorify or provoke God and that is why we await judgment for works done while in the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus also shows that the dead can't be saved because the rich man would have applauded to Abraham to intercede for him to enter into life but that didn't happen, the brothers of the rich man were the ones who were still in the world and their hearts were hardened against the prophets and the oracles, which mean that you can still be saved while still in the world and not when you have departed from it. Why do Catholics believe so?

Revelation 9:6 says: >*"In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them." (NKJV)* This seems to describe a period of intense suffering or judgment in which people desire to die, yet are unable to. My question is: does this imply that murder (the unlawful killing of another person) will also be impossible during this time?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source) . What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

I understand that the Bible teaches that humans have a body and a soul. I have heard it stated that at death, the soul is separated from the body. I also am aware of those who take the “soul sleep” position which I think would say the soul remains within the body at death, but is asleep until the resurrection. My question then is this: what Scriptures describe what happens to the believers at death?

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentating on John 18:31 ("It is not lawful for us to put any man to death"), writes: >it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, *Hist. Jud.* iv. 6). But weren't the Pharisees known for following the letter of the law, such as Ex. 22:18 : "Malefactors thou shalt not suffer to live"? They considered Jesus a great seducer, sorcerer, malefactor.

Romans 6:23 states: 'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' I've understood this is a difficult concept since while some believe it to mean a purely physical death (which we are redeemed from during the end times in our resurrection) others seem to believe that this may simply be a *spiritual* death, entailing disconnection from God? Assuming the physical death is an aspect of this death, how come those who are raptured during the end times are not condemned to death before rising again if the wage of sin is death?

I have been thinking about cremation but don’t want to go against the Word so leaning more towards burial.

For those that maintain that the soul is not destroyed in the lake of fire, but instead results in eternal suffering, how then do you interpret death being cast into the flames? Revelation 20:14 (NASB) > Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. Is "Death" merely tormented or is it truly destroyed? What would it even mean for death to suffer?

Well, I was recently listening to Mike Wingers Biblethinker Q and A, and in it he said that attempting to speak with deceased loved ones is equivalent to necromancy in many cases. The question I had is how Catholic teaching regards this. According to Catholic doctrine, is it considered necromancy to try to speak with deceased loved ones? I am aware that Catholicism teaches that it is appropriate to pray to saints and to pray for deceased loved ones, but how does it regard speaking to loved ones who have passed on. Can they hears us? If so, can they respond? Heres the link to Mike Wingers Q and A episode where he addressed the subject of speaking with deceased loved ones and necromancy: [10 Questions with Mike Winger (Episode 13)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=BQjBRaVXDCI&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fbiblethinker.org%2F&feature=emb_imp_woyt) YouTube video.

Acts 7:59-60 >**59** And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! **60** And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep. Why did not Stephen call upon the "only true God?" It's interesting that Stephen's confession and Jesus' confession (Luke 23:34), there is a striking contrast; Jesus "commended" His spirit to the Father but Stephen, to the Lord Jesus Christ, why?

Since the dawn of humanity, our life expectancy has greatly increased . It went from 30 to 80 years in developed countries. What if we collectively manage to eradicate all diseases (like cancer for example)? Humans will still be dying from accidents and murders, just not from diseases. Does Bible allow us to cure all diseases if it is done ethically? Or should Christians be protesting against any attempts to improve our medicine (like cancer research)? I've heard an argument that all attempts at life extension is "playing God" and most medical advances in one way or another extend our lives. I wonder if it is correct.

Judas Iscariot committed suicide when he realized the evil that he had done. > Matthew 27:3-5 (KJV) > > **3** Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, >
**4** Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. >
**5** And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. The passage in Matthew shows that Judas hanged himself, but Acts 1 says something else: > Acts 1:18-19 (KJV) > > **18** Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. >
**19** And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Are these two passages contradictory? How did Judas die?

Luke and Matthew tell of when Jesus brought a young girl back to life. Before he did it however, Jesus says to the people that the girl is only sleeping: > **Luke 8:52** > > Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep." > > **Matthew 9:24** > > he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him. Why did he tell the people that she was only asleep when she was clearly not? A few things come to my mind: 1. It was a parable 2. He wanted to hide his power from the people, as he did at other times. The problem here is that that would've been a lie. So, what reason was there to tell the people that she was sleeping, rather than that she was dead and he raised her from the dead?

According to the author of this article who is from White Throne Ministries, he teaches that the spirits of the dead are not in heaven but sleep in the sands awaiting one of the two resurrections. He quotes the following verse which was written by Peter under the influence of The Holy Spirit. *Acts 2:29* >"2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. *Acts 2:34* >For David is not ascended into the heavens:" Jesus talked of a **separation of believers and non-believers at death** through the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and reinforced that teaching on the cross when He told him that he will be with him in paradise that same Friday. *Luke 23:43* >Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise He then says that a different meaning would be conveyed if that comma were to be removed and also that from other events that happened on that Friday we learn that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday because of the words Jesus said to Mary after rising from the dead. *John 20:17* >Jesus saith to her, Touch me not: for I have not yet ascended to my Father: According to that author, the words above prove that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday, hence justifying the need for a comma in the promise to thief verse. He backs it all up with all the verses from Acts that none of the Fathers have ascended to heaven but my question is, The Book of Revelation says there are martyrs under the altar who cry out to God for revenge against the inhabitants of the earth. These are the spirits of those martyrs that are spiritually in heaven. *Revelation 6:10* >the souls of martyrs who were killed for their faith in God cry out from under the altar, asking God when he will judge and avenge their deaths: The verse above is the first proof that the saints spiritually unite with God in paradise but their flesh await a re-union in the resurrection. The second proof is the presence of Elijah and Moses during the transfiguration for we know Moses died and the angels buried him, Elijah went to heaven with a chariot of fire. Where did their spirits come from during the transfiguration if the spirits of the righteous do not inherit paradise after death?

In Genesis 2:17 God said to Adam: > "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat > of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." > (KJV) Why did knowledge of good and evil result in death? Why is that kind of knowledge so deadly? How is this matter explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestantism?

**Arius' death was it miraculous or was he poisoned?** Arius died in 336, at Constantinople of some gory intestinal disorder. Some believe that his death corresponded to the prayers of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others believe that he may have been poisoned. Have any historians or medical professionals ever explained what type of poison could have produced the death of Arius in such a gruesome manner? [Hemorrhagic death of Arius](https://historyoftheearlychurch.wordpress.com/2021/06/07/75-the-freak-hemorrhage/) *Who believed that his death was a miraculous event and why?* *Those who believe he was murdered, what kind of poison could produce the physical manner in which he died?*

Ok so, I haven’t seen anyone ask this question really… Since when we die we know we won’t have any knowledge, ecclesiaties 9:5 nor any consciousness we will be in a state of slumber right? It will be like when we were in our mother’s womb, we don’t (at least I don’t) remember anything from being in there. Will it feel like after death when Jesus returns, 5 seconds have passed since we died, or 40 years? Or 2,000 years… You get what I mean?