LIFE AFTER DEATH.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 18986, 1 July 1933, Page 9

LIFE AFTER DEATH.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The letter signed “ Believer” in to-day’s issue reminds me of the saying attributed to one of our Allies in the late war, “admitted by ourselves to be the greatest nation on earth.” There was only one mistake in his letter in my opinion. It should have read, to quote, verbatim, “because I and ’others of - your correspondents (who have written in direct opposition to them) have proved without a shadow pf doubt ‘to our own complete satisfaction.’ ” The addition of the words emphasised should prove acceptable to both sides in this much debated subject. It is a good Job for all that freedom of thought is still permissible la New Zealand. Your correspondent’s effusion savours too much of the spirit that Inspired the Inquisition to derive much attention from the people who appreciate freedom. —I am, eto., THIS FREEDOM. Hamilton, June 29, 1933.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —As no abler pen than mine has essayed to answer “ Believer’s" letter, may I point out a few obvious errors in his “proofs.” “ Believer" fails to differentiate between Scriptures applying to the body (this mortal) and the soul. " Only God hath immortality" Is true, but has “ Believer” never read also that “ The Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” and "he that believeth hath everlasting life." These passages do not tally with life remark that immortality is a prize to be gained. As children of God we partake of His immortality. From where does “ Believer” gather his thought that Christ was given immortality after being raised. As God, Christ is equally immortal with the Father, but if “ Believer” will read Hebrews 11. he will find why “ He took on Him the seed of Abraham” —that He might suffer death, even then, being who He is, “it was not possible that He could be holden of it." “ Believer’s" statement that we are admonished to seek after Immortality is hardly correct, yet it is easily answerered. In having-* sought the Saviour, we have also sought immortality as they are Inseparably linked. Having considered such passages as “absent from the body, present with the Lord,” and “them also which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with Him" (when living saints on earth are translated), it should appear obvious to anyone, professing belief in the Bible, that the soul of the believer already has Immortality, although the body must yet put it on.—l am, etc.. L.B. Frankton, June 29, 1933.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —During the disoussion on this subject Matthew, chapter 18 has been referred to, and to the mind of the Spiritualist the general interpretation of this chapter is open to review. It cannot be understood if read literally. Take the first verse, “ Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." This is one of the most important and impressive declarations that ever fell from the Ups of the Master. To understand its significance it is necessary to refer to two preceding verses—- “ Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, out them off, and oast them from thee; it Is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather thou having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire, nd if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life witli one eye rather thou having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”

It is very obvious that this language is not to be taken literally. There would he no sense in cutting off a hand or a foot, or in plucking outran eve, because there was something wrong with them, and" in order that they might escape being cast into “everlasting fire." We do not carry the members of the physical body forward into the next life to be punished for some natural defect. There is, in short, no sense whatever in this phraseology when interpreted liter- j ally. And inasmuch as Jesus never; talked nonsense, it is plainly evident! that He must have spoken symboli-1 cally. We have, therefore, to get at 1 the inner meaning, or the underlying spiritual significance of the terms employed. He was essentially a mystic,; and consequently frequently expressed j Himself In mystic language. j Jesus was referring to different | forms of sin, or habitual evil habits, and the point He sought to Impress on His hearers was that if they allowed these deeply ingrained habits to “bind” them on earth, they would discover that such habits would still “bind” or cling to them when they awakened in the spiritual world. Therefore, it was far better to “cut off or “pluck out" such habits here and now. The habitual drunkard on earth is consumed with a burning desire for drink when expressing himself in the astral body. He is, in short, “earth bound” —an awful hell while it lasts, and out of that condition he has, by much striving, and the assistance of higher powers, to grow. The rake, the glutton, etc., arc in the same category. The man who worships the “golden calf” is also one commanding pity. He carries his miserly trails forward into the spiritual world, and having concentrated all Ills efforts on accumulating wealth, which has no currency in the life beyond, lie wakes up on the astral plane only to discover that he is a spiritual pauper clad in rags and tatters, lie finds the words of the Master literally true, “ Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” He lias to atone for the past, and strive to help others before lie can hope to rise from his gloomy earthhound prison.” lie lias to reap exactly as he has sown, and to go through the cleansing fires of self-purification. Eventually, thank God, lie will be freed from this earth-bound suffering and remorse, and commence the upward journey towards tile heaven world. This is no imaginary picture. it is perfectly true. “ Whatsoever ye shail bind on earth shall be hound in heaven.” —1 am, etc., TRUTH. Hamilton. June 29, 1933. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Your correspondents on the above subject are still evading my main contention which is that the Bible from beginning to end warns against, and condemns, seeking for

manifestations from “familiar spirits." The help of the Holy Spirit of God is freely given to every sincere disciple of Christ, without the need for a dark room, soft music, mediumistio trances and a straining for uncertain phenomena which, when induced, is generally of no ethical value. Your correspondents do not like me rejecting their views, and I am accused of lack of sympathy with their psycical investigations. I am sympathetic to all sincere inquirers for truth, hut cannot approve of spiritualism for the following reasons; — ■l. There is no need for the socalled “proof” of life after death. Christ declared: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man coniclh unto the Father but by me.” lie said not one word of approaching the Father by way of a medium with clairvoyant powers and a seance. It is not necessary, lie taught that there is “life after death" by resurrection if we believe, and a "second death" if we do not. , . 2. I do not agree that “spiritism lias “new truth," and “further revelation," but is akin to the old necromancy of Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, etc. Even the Maoris could get the “direct voice,” as recorded by Judge Manning in “ Old New Zealand, and Mr Tregear tells us in the “ Maori Race” of the supernatural powers ot the tohungas, exercised long before the coming of white man to these shores. 3. I do not find any scriptural authority for believing that man is other than mortal, and that the brain Is the seat of the intelligence. As Sir Arthur Keith and others definitely advance this

as a reasonable conclusion, it adds to the claim that the opinion is scientific.

4. I am sure that the Bible proves that Spiritualism is not only here, but is to increase alarmingly as this age closes, and that it is to be the direct agent for gathering the nations together for the great “Armageddon.” “And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon (by his word) unclean spirits, for they are spirits of demons, working signs; which go forth unto tlie kings of the whole world, to gather them together unto the war of the groat day of God, the Almighty . . . And they gathered them together into liic place which is called llar-Mage-don.”—Rev. 10: 13-IG. This place is in the vale of Esdralelon, in Palestine, and the conflict is imminent to our generation.

5. I am quite aware of the sins, inequalities, injustices, ,and shortness of life in this age, hut I also believe that human life is long enough for the test of each. God cannot create virtuous persons. There must lie Hie possibility of evil for a choice of good and God, else wc arc automatons. Life, environment, sustenance, enjoyments, are God’s gifts, quite apart from a future life, and the “end is not yet.” C. I recognise the dellnite authority of tiie Word of God and do not believe for a moment that John was at all influenced by Platonic philosophy as Marcus Janies suggests. Plato taught a more reasonable philosophy than many of the orthodox to-day, who hold the preposterous idea that a human joeing can beget “immortal souls or spirits.” Plato laugh I the creation of souls befpre the creation

of bodies, and the return of souls to bodies, again and again—in a word, “reincarnation." Neither in John’s gospel nor anywhere else in the Word is such a heresy taught. It is the devil’s lie —“ Ye shall not surely die.” There is more about “resurrection” at the return of Christ in John’s gospel than in any of llie others. John wrote “Marvel not at this: lor the hour comctli when all that are in the tombs (mark where they are) shall Pear llis voice, and shall come forth (from the tombs) ; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment.”—John 3:282<j, Christ speaks of this time as the “last dav,” also recorded by John. This plain leaching of resurrection at a future date in no way accords with the uncertain guesses of a philosopher groping in tile dark. Paul speaks of such: “The Greeks socle after wisdom; hut we preach Christ cruciliod, unto Hie Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles (Greeks) foolishness.” Bishop Barnes lolls us that 1 lain was no heller Ilian his limes, and with the oilier philosophers of his day committed the unspeakable sin ol sodomy, a sin which, with necromancy, required the extirpation of the peoples of Palestine in Joshua's day. (See Men 1. 18:11-12).

This futile allempt to obtain information on mail’s dosliny by forbidden methods is like a foolish chemical experiment with the covers of Hie Bilde in order to flint out its contents. I recommend Marcus James, Mr Hansen, and others, whose scanty knowledge of its uicskagc and purpose

is so obvious, to read the Book.—l am, eto., JO SI AH SALISBURY. Hamilton. June 29, 1933.