In this opinion piece by Uwe Siemon-Netto, he attacks cryonicists' attempts to prolong their lives as, among other things, "unethical," "immoral," "abhorrent," "selfish," and something that only an atheist would do.

For faithful Jews, sticking a dead man in a tank and perhaps experimenting with him is abhorrent because it disturbs the eternal rest of the departed. To Christians, it is singularly egregious because it mocks the Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the Giver of Life," as the Nicene Creed defines the third person in the Trinity.

He, like many, continues to miss the point. Calling these people "dead," is an opinion, not a fact. Just what life-saving measures would he not consider an affront to God, and which ones will he refuse if the circumstances arise?

Rand,

I?ve recently posted here not religious, but philosophical problems with cryonics. Here?s my conclusion which will be a bit telegraphic separated from the whole post.
?Never mind that the technology is primitive. That?s just a matter of time for cryonic proponents. But cryonics runs into several related fundamental problems of philosophical anthropology ?
1) death is a substantial change and thus irreversible
2) the human being is not present in an organ or in a corpse
3) infusing life into a corpse again would require the ability to control an incorporeal subsistent principle (the human soul) which is not possible for corporeal beings in the land of the living
So, sad as it may seem to some, Walt Disney won?t be watching Teddy Ballgame put the wood on the ol? apple anytime in the future.?

--Mark

The phrase 'affront to God' is like the phrase 'disrespect to the Tooth Fairy'