Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What does the Bible reveal about near death experiences? It seems that many people have experienced a NDE where they saw "the Light," heard a "Voice," felt "Peace," warmth, and love, saw a deceased loved one, saw a tunnel, floated above their body, ascended to Heaven or descended into Hell etc.

It appears that a NDE is experienced when it is not the individuals "time" to die. The Bible indicates that there is an "appointed" time or appointment that humanity has with death.

In this case a Muslim man sees satan after he drowns.

BEcz2hprZqs

The people who had a NDE never died. They suffered a common hallucination that has more to do with the structure of the brain then life after death.

Yeah, most of the affects of NDE's have been reproduced in laboratory settings. These include hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. By sending electrical impulses to the brain areas that are most active during common NDE's, people can experience the same affects without the trauma.

The "tunnel" or "light" affect also has to do with this. When our bodies go into shock or are afflicted with severe trauma, various bodily functions shut down. The body thankfully prioritizes these functions so that the first ones to go aren't life-threatening. Among those shut down very early is eyesight. Vision becomes blurred, and actually goes dark around the edges as our visual functions are shut down. This is often while retaining consciousness. Thus, you're given the sensation of seeing a white tunnel, because only the center of your vision is receiving light for a period of time.

Which isn't to say we understand everything about NDE's. The science behind them isn't perfect. But we have a pretty good understanding of where a lot of it comes from.

Originally posted by Digi
By sending electrical impulses to the brain areas that are most active during common NDE's

which brain areas are most active during a NDE?

http://www.jesuspenpals.com/heaven-hell/79-famous-people-in-hell-pope-john-paul-michael-jackson-selena.html


Angelica died and the Lord showed her people in both heaven and hell
LqwgVo33dyA

JIA please provide proof that we would all see as proof.

Originally posted by inimalist
which brain areas are most active during a NDE?

Blargh, I don't want to muck this up with my layman's understanding. let me see if I can find the article and video where I originally encountered this.

Here's the video. There was an accompanying article in a Skeptic Magazine, where they went into it a bit more fully. But I think the video does a pretty good job of explaining what's going on:

nCVzz96zKA0

Iirc, the article went into a bit more detail about the chemical affects of sudden trauma, fear and terror, and fight or flight responses that are often triggered. but again, I don't want to spout details for fear of being only partially correct (i.e. wrong).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA please provide proof that we would all see as proof.

Proof of what? Heaven? Hell?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Proof of what? Heaven? Hell?



No, we already KNOW those exist here on Earth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, we already KNOW those exist here on Earth.

What do you want proof of?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you want proof of?



That NDE are more then an illusion caused by a trauma.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you want proof of?



You're claiming that NDE's offer us insight into the afterlife. Everyone else in this thread is saying they are a product of brain states during traumatic situations. The video I posted is a good example of how it happens. Shakya is asking you what evidence you have that refutes or overrides this evidence.

Originally posted by Digi
You're claiming that NDE's offer us insight into the afterlife. Everyone else in this thread is saying they are a product of brain states during traumatic situations. The video I posted is a good example of how it happens. Shakya is asking you what evidence you have that refutes or overrides this evidence.

Documented testimonies.

This one is from an atheist medical doctor who is no longer an atheist.

w-v1Fppjlvc

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Documented testimonies.

This one is from an atheist medical doctor.

w-v1Fppjlvc

The video I posted explains how we experience what we do during NDE's. The exact same sensations as the video you just posted, can be created by proper neural stimulus. Nothing the guy says in that video explains otherwise. He just doesn't fully understand what he's experiencing.

Testimonies tell us nothing, especially when we know exactly how most of the affects of NDE's are experienced biologically. It's as if someone tells you they just saw a ghost, and just before that you saw a guy put on a white sheet and run into the room. Which is the more likely explanation, man in a sheet or a ghost?

The video also has a lot of extraneous material about him and his internal thoughts. It makes for a compelling story, but they aren't enlightening us with any evidence, they're just building a narrative to make the whole thing seem more dramatic.

I could also go into the fallibility of memory, especially under extreme circumstances, but I'd like to see you grasp my first point before moving on.

JIA I can find a dozen videos of people claiming to have seen unicorns, but we all know that unicorns do not exist. So what is happening here?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Documented testimonies.

This one is from an atheist medical doctor who is no longer an atheist.

w-v1Fppjlvc

Part 2 of a former atheist medical doctor's NDE.

OnVhKH2C1Jw

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Part 2 of a former atheist medical doctor's NDE.


That was rude.

My Mom had a NDE she drowned in a beach in the coast of Australia. She saw a bright light and communicated with people before she was saved by a lifeguard and brought back to life.
A dream state? possibly/ but I have had similar occurances.

Do people shit themselves in a NDE like they do in death?

Dr Maurice Rawlings - NDE - To Hell and Back

vQ8TEGMj-jc

What if you're wrong about life after death?

What then?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Dr Maurice Rawlings - NDE - To Hell and Back


What if you're wrong about life after death?

What then?



Why don't you carry on a conversation with the rest of us instead of posting video after video?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Dr Maurice Rawlings - NDE - To Hell and Back

What if you're wrong about life after death?

What then?



Living in constant fear like you is no way to live, JIA.

Originally posted by Robtard
Living in constant fear like you is no way to live, JIA.

I am not living in fear. I know the Resurrection and the Life. I know the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I know in Whom I have believed, and still do believe. His Name is Jesus Christ, and He is the Savior of the World.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not living in fear. I know the Resurrection and the Life. I know the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I know in Whom I have believed, and still do believe. His Name is Jesus Christ, and He is the Savior of the World.

What if you're wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why don't you carry on a conversation with the rest of us instead of posting video after video?

Hi Shakyamunison. How are you doing today?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hi Shakyamunison. How are you doing today?

Sometimes I'm not sure where you are coming from.

I'm fine, how are you?

Originally posted by Digi
The video I posted explains how we experience what we do during NDE's. The exact same sensations as the video you just posted, can be created by proper neural stimulus. Nothing the guy says in that video explains otherwise. He just doesn't fully understand what he's experiencing.

Testimonies tell us nothing, especially when we know exactly how most of the affects of NDE's are experienced biologically. It's as if someone tells you they just saw a ghost, and just before that you saw a guy put on a white sheet and run into the room. Which is the more likely explanation, man in a sheet or a ghost?

The video also has a lot of extraneous material about him and his internal thoughts. It makes for a compelling story, but they aren't enlightening us with any evidence, they're just building a narrative to make the whole thing seem more dramatic.

I could also go into the fallibility of memory, especially under extreme circumstances, but I'd like to see you grasp my first point before moving on.

http://www.nowsthetime.org/to-hell-and-back.html

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=46379201

Dr. Maurice Rawlings M.D. was a highly esteemed cardiologist; a war hero, medical director, professor of medicine, was a physician to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, he also served as a physician to the Joint Chiefs of Staff including World War II Generals George C. Marshall, Omar Nelson Bradley, and George S. Patton. However, his greatest accomplishments were all the good works he did to win souls for God's Kingdom. Dr Rawlings at one time was a self professed atheist but the clinical death experiences of his patients had a great impact on his life. Dr Rawlings found that not all of his patients saw a light or had a loving death experience but many of his patients, after being resuscitated, came back to life in sheer terror speaking of Hell. Many years ago Dr Rawlings renounced atheism and accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Dr. Rawlings, at 87, passed away and went home to be with the Lord on January 5th 2010. This documentary, based on his book "To Hell and Back", shows the testimonies of several people who have seen up close the reality of Hell.


Dr. Rawlings was the author of several books, including: "Beyond Death's Door," "Before Life Comes," "Life Wish" and "To Hell and Back," published in several languages. His first and last publications were made into movies.

Dr Maurice Rawlings - NDE - To Hell and Back

vQ8TEGMj-jc

So, if I find a extremely educated war vet that claims to have seen a unicorn. then unicorns exist?

JIA, you don't seem to know what a refutation consists of. You also don't seem to have basic social skills, despite having been on the forums for years. You ignored us, posted videos, then responded with banal pleasantries when Shakya tried to call you out for being rude, missing the point of his request for open discussion. The progression of your posts in this thread is almost consistent with many spam-bots I see in the reports every day.

You also addressed none of my points. I will wait until you have to respond again. I doubt I will need to post again. You're welcome to prove my doubt wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
JIA, you don't seem to know what a refutation consists of. You also don't seem to have basic social skills, despite having been on the forums for years. You ignored us, posted videos, then responded with banal pleasantries when Shakya tried to call you out for being rude, missing the point of his request for open discussion. The progression of your posts in this thread is almost consistent with many spam-bots I see in the reports every day.

You also addressed none of my points. I will wait until you have to respond again. I doubt I will need to post again. You're welcome to prove my doubt wrong.

I do know what refutation consists of. I have numerous threads where I have spent countless hours refuting others posts. I have chosen not to go that route in this thread. Instead I've provided the testimonies of educated atheists who are no longer atheists.

Tell me...what would be the difference between the testimony of someone who you trusted and respected such as a family doctor, a spouse, significant other, etc. telling you what these former atheists describe, and these testimonies?

Would you believe it then?

What if a Christian saw a unicorn, would unicorns exist, would you believe?

Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, most of the affects of NDE's have been reproduced in laboratory settings.

No, that's an over-exaggeration.

Some of the experiences have been marginally reproduced in labs.


Originally posted by Digi
Which isn't to say we understand everything about NDE's. The science behind them isn't perfect.

I agree.

Originally posted by Digi
But we have a pretty good understanding of where a lot of it comes from.

We do not have a pretty good understanding.

For every single case that we can explain with reasoned science, there are multiple exceptions to that same situation. It is frustrating science, at best, and pseudoscience, at worst.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA I can find a dozen videos of people claiming to have seen unicorns, but we all know that unicorns do not exist. So what is happening here?

Actually, no we do not know that unicorns do not exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if a Christian saw a unicorn, would unicorns exist, would you believe?

Depends. The information would have to be evaluated. If the Christian was an avid non-unicorn believer for years and made it a point to voice that opinion but then virtually sh*t themselves about having actually seen a unicorn, they obviously had an experience that was so real to them that they had no choice but to throw away an entire belief system, that was very important to them for decades, and believe what they did not believe prior. That's a lot different than a random Christian believing in unicorns.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What if you're wrong about life after death?

What then?



What if you are wrong?

But dadudemon, does random testimonials from YouTube convince you of anything that you don't already agree with?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Actually, no we do not know that unicorns do not exist.

But JIA clearly does not believe in unicorns. I know this from previous conversations (if you call it that).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But dadudemon, does random testimonials from YouTube convince you of anything that you don't already agree with?

I am skeptical of NDEs and both sides of the argument. I see a clear bias, at times, from supposed "science" regarding NDEs (such as quick and rash generalizations that are non-sequitur or over-exaggerated (for example, the ketamine connection is laughably connected to NDEs but it is crappy science, at best)) and tons of NDE experiences that are magically blamed on the particular faith the the individual believes in...or not explained by natural/pragmatic reasons when they could apply.

For me, it is very difficult to sort out the B.S. from both sides unless I actually have an NDE and/or research this material, myself.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But JIA clearly does not believe in unicorns. I know this from previous conversations (if you call it that).

Does he KNOW they do not exist (requires omniscience) or just states that he doesn't believe they exist?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What if you are wrong?

No real consequence, really. Hello "oblivion". Being wrong about what he believes is not a big deal, imo (discount any discrimintion he imposes on people).

It's the coward's bet and thereby defeats the purpose of actually believing. "I believe cos I fear", not "I believe cos this is what I feel is true to the core of my being." The former makes Jesus cry.

As I said, living in constant fear as JIA does is no way to live, at least imo.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But dadudemon, does random testimonials from YouTube convince you of anything that you don't already agree with?



But JIA clearly does not believe in unicorns. I know this from previous conversations (if you call it that).

What does the Bible say about unicorns?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Does he KNOW they do not exist (requires omniscience) or just states that he doesn't believe they exist?
...

You will have to ask him, but my impression is that it is an absolute to him. That is why I am using that example, and most likley why he is not answering me.

Found a nice write-up on NDEs.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/extrasensory-perceptions/near-death-experience.htm





Originally posted by Robtard
It's the coward's bet and thereby defeats the purpose of actually believing. "I believe cos I fear", not "I believe cos this is what I feel is true to the core of my being." The former makes Jesus cry.

As I said, living in constant fear as JIS does is no way to live, at least imo.

Is that a "coward's bet"? Is it? Or are there an almost infinite number of reasons to "believe" or "not believe"? Can you lump everyone in as having the same reason?

No, you cannot. That would be idiocy, obviously.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will have to ask him, but my impression is that it is an absolute to him. That is why I am using that example, and most likley why he is not answering me.

I would think that they are very likely not to exist, but I cannot be sure because the universe is pretty damn big....another planet may have an animal that looks just like a horse with a horn coming out of the center of its skull. For me, it is quite lame to just dismiss something as sweeping as "unicorns do not exist" without first having a sure knowledge.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What does the Bible say about unicorns?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

What does the bible say about the platypus?

Yu don't have to answer; we all know the answer.

Originally posted by Robtard
What if you're wrong?

Then I've still lived a good, holy life.

But what if you're wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does the bible say about the platypus?

Yu don't have to answer; we all know the answer.

I don't know what you're talking about. This is obviously an argument that I have not heard about.


Tell me of this platypus argument, please?

Originally posted by dadudemon


Is that a "coward's bet"? Is it? Or are there an almost infinite number of reasons to "believe" or "not believe"? Can you lump everyone in as having the same reason?

No, you cannot. That would be idiocy, obviously.


I'm not speaking of everyone now am I, just JIA since he consistently brings up "what if you're wrong" tactic, ie "it's a safer bet to believe than not believe." This makes Jesus cry.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Then I've still lived a good, holy life.

But what if you're wrong?

Fear is neither holy or good.

You tell me, I don't believe in a heaven or hell, ie eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Ergo, neither exist after death (for me).

Originally posted by dadudemon
No real consequence, really. Hello "oblivion". Being wrong about what he believes is not a big deal, imo (discount any discrimintion he imposes on people).

There are more afterlives than "JIA's particular flavor of Chistianity" and "Atheism".

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not speaking of everyone now am I,

Actually, you spoke of JIA's particular bet, not JIA, himself.


Originally posted by Robtard
This makes Jesus cry.

You're probably right. Like I said, Jesus would prefer (it's in the book of Revelations, mang!) a moral atheist rather than a fence sitting Christian.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are more afterlives than "JIA's particular flavor of Chistianity" and "Atheism".

I think what I said still applies, actually. The only other major denomination I can think of that might get him into trouble would be Islam...but I believe there are mercy allowances for the infidels just the same as there are for non-Christians.


But if you want to consider them all equal, cool.

I don't. The 2 man church that believes you must poop in the garden while singing "wheels on the bus" to receive eternal salvation from the Cupcake Baboon God is not really a religion I'd care about, anyway, even if it actually ends up being the one that was really right about everything. I'm sure JIA wouldn't care either.

Gasp...it comes down to personal preference!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you spoke of JIA's particular bet, not JIA, himself.

You're probably right. Like I said, Jesus would prefer (it's in the book of Revelations, mang!) a moral atheists than a fence sitting Christian.

It was directed to JIA, though I can see how you took it in the general sense.

Yup.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think what I said still applies, actually. The only other major denomination I can think of that might get him into trouble would be Islam...but I believe there are mercy allowances for the infidels just the same as there are for non-Christians.

But if you want to consider them all equal, cool.

They all make pretty much the same argument as far as I'm concerned. I really see no reason to say that Lovecraftican cosmology is less likely to be true than Islam simply because Islam has billions more believers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They all make pretty much the same argument as far as I'm concerned. I really see no reason to say that Lovecraftican cosmology is less likely to be true than Islam simply because Islam has billions more believers.

I believe Lovecraft's "philosophy" is called cosmocism or something. I don't know the spelling but that's about what it sounds like.

But I tend to think that in matters of religion, argumentum ad populum might play a little role. Sure, psychology also plays a role (probably the biggest). But I also think there is divine influence going on here.

I also hold all positive religions to be generally good for a person and "godly".

Originally posted by Digi
Here's the video. There was an accompanying article in a Skeptic Magazine, where they went into it a bit more fully. But I think the video does a pretty good job of explaining what's going on:

nCVzz96zKA0

Iirc, the article went into a bit more detail about the chemical affects of sudden trauma, fear and terror, and fight or flight responses that are often triggered. but again, I don't want to spout details for fear of being only partially correct (i.e. wrong).

ya, I sort of thought thats what you meant

the problem is, while I totally believe these mechanisms are what is responsible (maybe not specifically superior temporal, but whatever) for many paranormal experiences, knowing there are biological origins to similar experiences isn't the same as saying we know what areas are active or which specific areas are causing the NDE.

For instance, schizophrenia (which they mention in the video as causing similar experiences) is associated with temporal and frontal areas, and likely mediated by dopamine regulated connections between the two. Basically, because of how interconnected stuff is, we may be able to produce what are "frontal lobe" experiences by influencing activity in the temporal lobe simply by changing the input/output in these connections.

not to be pedantic or anything, I just always give Deadline shit about this when he tries to say there is no brain activity during a NDE. Given the context, any doctor who tried to put a dying patient into a MRI scanner (or even a full EEG cap) would be guilty of criminal negligence causing death, and no ethics/funding agency would ever let an experiment go forward where the goal was to let people die without trying to save them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's an over-exaggeration.

Some of the experiences have been marginally reproduced in labs.

I read that link you posted. Most of the "traits" are explainable, and some have been reproduced. I'd consider that strong evidence for my position. Not irrefutable, but strong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We do not have a pretty good understanding.

For every single case that we can explain with reasoned science, there are multiple exceptions to that same situation. It is frustrating science, at best, and pseudoscience, at worst.

Pseudoscience presupposes a lack of controls and/or empirical evidence. What I've read, and to a certain extent posted, is neither.

Science as a whole deals with provisional truths. You know this. All we're talking about is degrees of believability. I'm sure you'd concede that a scientific explanation is the most likely, because we know for a fact that elements of these experiences are reproducible and caused by brain states. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to say "this is truth." All I'm asking is that we look at the evidence and realize that a scientific underpinning to NDE's is not only possible but likely.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I sort of thought thats what you meant

the problem is, while I totally believe these mechanisms are what is responsible (maybe not specifically superior temporal, but whatever) for many paranormal experiences, knowing there are biological origins to similar experiences isn't the same as saying we know what areas are active or which specific areas are causing the NDE.

For instance, schizophrenia (which they mention in the video as causing similar experiences) is associated with temporal and frontal areas, and likely mediated by dopamine regulated connections between the two. Basically, because of how interconnected stuff is, we may be able to produce what are "frontal lobe" experiences by influencing activity in the temporal lobe simply by changing the input/output in these connections.

not to be pedantic or anything, I just always give Deadline shit about this when he tries to say there is no brain activity during a NDE. Given the context, any doctor who tried to put a dying patient into a MRI scanner (or even a full EEG cap) would be guilty of criminal negligence causing death, and no ethics/funding agency would ever let an experiment go forward where the goal was to let people die without trying to save them.

Ha. That's somewhat of a conundrum.

Your point about similar or identical experiences is well-made. But look at it like this: we can induce an OBE, for example, in a controlled setting, proving it can be induced simply through neural stimulus. Even if it's not identical to an NDE's OBE, we know brain states can cause one, and for a more paranormal interpretation to be plausible, they'd have to show that it in no way emerges from brain activity. There may in fact be more than one biochemical way to experience an OBE, but given what we know, it seems almost impossible that it's not related to brain state in some way.

And I use OBE because it was covered most specifically in the video. We can sub in other NDE phenomenon with the same rationale, though probably not every single one.

Originally posted by Digi
I read that link you posted. Most of the "traits" are explainable, and some have been reproduced. I'd consider that strong evidence for my position. Not irrefutable, but strong.

I consider the "For every aspect of an NDE, there is at least one scientific explanation for it. And for every scientific explanation, there seem to be five NDE cases that defy it." to not be in support of your strongly worded position and in favor of my "this is more nebulous than some would have you believe" position. Keep in mind that I do not think you are explicitly wrong, I only disagree with the degree at which you are expressing you perspective.

Pretend you're a 10 on this topic. I am a 7. Pretend that a 1 would be the most backwards, red neck, bible thumping, Christian.

Originally posted by Digi
Pseudoscience presupposes a lack of controls and/or empirical evidence.

Which is what happens in some of these limited studies. Also, pseudoscience can be that science which has a problem in the setup and or controls.

Real science may not have explicit controls, as well. Just depends on what you are doing. Of course, people create controls from the data, I suppose...but it is not the same thing as designing an experiment with a control or something.

Originally posted by Digi
What I've read, and to a certain extent posted, is neither.

What I have read it is a mixture of science and pseudoscience from both sides of the argument. Not all of it is bad, from both sides, though.

Originally posted by Digi
Science as a whole deals with provisional truths. You know this. All we're talking about is degrees of believability. I'm sure you'd concede that a scientific explanation is the most likely, because we know for a fact that elements of these experiences are reproducible and caused by brain states. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to say "this is truth." All I'm asking is that we look at the evidence and realize that a scientific underpinning to NDE's is not only possible but likely.

Yes, you definitely know that I would concede that because I claim all perceived supernatural is just the natural without insight, yet.

And, no the explanations you refer to also go against your position. Some of it points to genuine OBEs and continuation of consciousness outside of the corporeal flesh. I am quite sure that that is not the position you intended.

Lol @ the Pascal's Wager talk.

That's an extremely weak argument considering there is an infinite number of ways you can be wrong and thus be damned given there are infinite possible ways the Universe could conceivably work.

Not believing and not bothering to live according to the rules of some hypothetical being just happens to be more cost effective.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider the "For every aspect of an NDE, there is at least one scientific explanation for it. And for every scientific explanation, there seem to be five NDE cases that defy it." to not be in support of your strongly worded position and in favor of my "this is more nebulous than some would have you believe" position. Keep in mind that I do not think you are explicitly wrong, I only disagree with the degree at which you are expressing you perspective.

Pretend you're a 10 on this topic. I am a 7. Pretend that a 1 would be the most backwards, red neck, bible thumping, Christian.

There would be degrees past 10, then, in that example. Provisional truths, like I said.

I think some of what you're referring to is probably where we simply have insufficient evidence because the occurrence wasn't directly observed in any objective manner. I'd post a Bill O'Reilly "You can't explain that" meme for humor's sake, but I'm too tired to look it up. Obviously, though, we can't explain everything because we don't always monitor it. inamilist's ethical concerns earlier come to mind as well.

I'm also curious about these cases that openly defy it. Because for it to "defy" scientifically reproduced OBE's or NDE's, not being explainable isn't sufficient to suggest a continuation of consciousness. You'd need particular phenomenon that couldn't be reproduced by the brain, which would require some sort of specialized observation to begin with. I'm happy to peruse some examples if you have them though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I tend to think that in matters of religion, argumentum ad populum might play a little role.

In what? Surely not in defining what is likely to be true about the world.

The wager is based on the principle that we don't know for sure what happens after you die. People's opinions are not a good basis for calculating probabilities about things none of them know anything about. If they have some special knowledge, of course, their opinion does matter but then you're rejecting the premise of the wager.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also hold all positive religions to be generally good for a person and "godly".

The use of the word "positive" makes that sounds like a tautology.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In what? Surely not in defining what is likely to be true about the world.

Yup. That's exactly what I mean. That's not the only element, of course.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The wager is based on the principle that we don't know for sure what happens after you die. People's opinions are not a good basis for calculating probabilities about things none of them know anything about. If they have some special knowledge, of course, their opinion does matter but then you're rejecting the premise of the wager.

I disagree. Why should I trust your opinion over the next? What the masses do should persuade you as that is how a normal person functions. At the end, I think prayer also can play a role in the decision. As I have expressed in the past, for one, Hinudism is the best course of action for their life. For another, strong atheism is the best course of action for their life. For me, Mormonism seems the best answer for my life.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The use of the word "positive" makes that sounds like a tautology.

More like a truism.

"Positive religions are generally good for a person."

Duhhh!

Originally posted by Digi
inamilist's ethical concerns earlier come to mind as well.

That was brought up by the how things work article, as well...I believe.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm also curious about these cases that openly defy it. Because for it to "defy" scientifically reproduced OBE's or NDE's, not being explainable isn't sufficient to suggest a continuation of consciousness. You'd need particular phenomenon that couldn't be reproduced by the brain, which would require some sort of specialized observation to begin with. I'm happy to peruse some examples if you have them though.

lol

No thank you.



You are more than welcome to research them on your own, however.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol @ the Pascal's Wager talk.

That's an extremely weak argument considering there is an infinite number of ways you can be wrong and thus be damned given there are infinite possible ways the Universe could conceivably work.

Not believing and not bothering to live according to the rules of some hypothetical being just happens to be more cost effective.

Not in my version of the wager.

*Relishes Mormonism even more*

Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.


Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, most of the affects of NDE's have been reproduced in laboratory settings. These include hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. By sending electrical impulses to the brain areas that are most active during common NDE's, people can experience the same affects without the trauma.

The "tunnel" or "light" affect also has to do with this. When our bodies go into shock or are afflicted with severe trauma, various bodily functions shut down. The body thankfully prioritizes these functions so that the first ones to go aren't life-threatening. Among those shut down very early is eyesight. Vision becomes blurred, and actually goes dark around the edges as our visual functions are shut down. This is often while retaining consciousness. Thus, you're given the sensation of seeing a white tunnel, because only the center of your vision is receiving light for a period of time.

Which isn't to say we understand everything about NDE's. The science behind them isn't perfect. But we have a pretty good understanding of where a lot of it comes from.

The fact that you're making that arguement shows you haven't done enough research. Stop pretending that because you're an athiest that automaticallly makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundemantlist.

Originally posted by Deadline
Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.




The fact that you're making that arguement shows you haven't done enough research. Stop pretending that because you're an athiest that automaticallly makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundemantlist.

I'm not pretending to be right a priori. I go on in a later post to talk about how I see this as likely but not irrefutable, and how science as a whole deals with provisional truths that can be refuted or changed based on evidence. Fundamentalism implies a dogma, which this is not. If I'm presented with a stronger argument, I will consider it. So far, the explanation I provided seems like the one with the most explanatory power. I realize it doesn't yet know everything about NDE's, but that's also not a reason to throw out what we do know.

My dealings with you on this forum have generally ended with you making accusations against me or "atheists" in general. I'd like to avoid that if possible. It accomplishes nothing, regardless of whether or not we agree on a matter.

Originally posted by Deadline
Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.

Point to the trolling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know what you're talking about. This is obviously an argument that I have not heard about.


Tell me of this platypus argument, please?

It was a long time ago. Literally, the bible does not describe anything like a platypus. This is only a problem for literalists.

Originally posted by Deadline
Serioulsy this topic again, where the athiests are just going to troll.

Those pesky atheist

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g193/danaeouteiro/32862272251121093_zG3MLW2M_c.jpg

I'd hit it

I like that there's a baby in the lunch bag. Om-nom-nom...

Originally posted by Deadline
Stop pretending that because you're an atheist that automatically makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundamentalist.




More seriously, a skeptical position is not automatically an atheistic one. Also, you can be a Christian and still approach everything with skepticism and pragmatism. There's nothing wrong with a skeptical approach to "life's questions"...and, in fact, that approach has generally brought about great changes to understanding and morality (imo).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was a long time ago. Literally, the bible does not describe anything like a platypus. This is only a problem for literalists.

That's what I thought. lol

Figured it was about the literalists.

Originally posted by Digi
I like that there's a baby in the lunch bag. Om-nom-nom...

Just caught that. droolio

Originally posted by dadudemon



More seriously, a skeptical position is not automatically an atheistic one. Also, you can be a Christian and still approach everything with skepticism and pragmatism. There's nothing wrong with a skeptical approach to "life's questions"...and, in fact, that approach has generally brought about great changes to understanding and morality (imo).




Obvoulsy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Those pesky atheist

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g193/danaeouteiro/32862272251121093_zG3MLW2M_c.jpg

Yes, yes I think the world is 10,000 years old. I hate science, it hasn't got anything to do with people actually not conducting proper research.

like anecdotal self-report case studies?

^ Self induced selective amnesia. Thank you for proving my point.

boy, you do make yourself me look foolish sometimes

I'll just take my foot out of my mouth

Originally posted by inimalist
boy, you do make yourself me look foolish sometimes

I'll just take my foot out of my mouth

Don't hurt yourself.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes, yes I think the world is 10,000 years old. I hate science, it hasn't got anything to do with people actually not conducting proper research.

You know that wasn't directed at you, right? I mean, it's the internet and we were chuckling at an amusing image. Your post happened to give reason for it, but it's pretty clear that we don't actually think you're a young-earth Bible thumper. There's really not a whole lot of interpretation required to realize this...it's beyond obvious. But you seem to like feeling persecuted on the forums, so w/e. I'm just trying to keep you from spiraling this thread further.

Just, like, slow down, and either have a conversation with us, or leave. I barely remember talking to you about NDE's, and all you've done is jump in here and attack me (and others) without making a single point. I was having a reasonable discussion, including (surprise) people I don't agree with - go back and read it if you don't believe me - and now we're having a pissing match because you showed up. That is not a coincidence. Because I remember actually discussing things with you at some point, but it was so long ago that all I can remember is you saying something to the affect of "typical atheist ****s" over and over again (paraphrased, of course).

Because I want to be open to having discussions with people who disagree with me, it's how I left religion in the first place, but you're not really giving anyone a chance when you open with "atheists...trolls...etc." and telling me that I think I know everything while quoting a post of mine where I specifically say we don't understand everything about NDE's. It smacks of preconceived bias and closes off any potential discussion.

Originally posted by Digi
Which isn't to say we understand everything about NDE's. The science behind them isn't perfect. But we have a pretty good understanding of where a lot of it comes from.

Originally posted by Digi
Science as a whole deals with provisional truths... I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to say "this is truth." All I'm asking is that we look at the evidence and realize that a scientific underpinning to NDE's is not only possible but likely.

Originally posted by Deadline
Stop pretending that because you're an athiest that automaticallly makes you right. You're no different from a Christian fundemantlist.

You'd probably disagree with the "likely" part in my 2nd quote there, which is fine, but these quotes should still be sufficient to refute your point that I'm some d*ckhole atheist dogmatist. All are taken from this thread, and, as far as I can tell, are not removed from context in a way that obfuscates their meaning.

pffft, he could make that argument way better than you could

ATHEIST DIED, WENT TO HELL, CAME BACK

cF_gJgILBiE

Tamara Laroux Shot Herself, & Went to Hell, Then to Heaven and BACK!!

HGQDkCi-OIY

Hell is NOT a place you go after you die. Hell is a state of mind we choose to live in.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hell is NOT a place you go after you die. Hell is a state of mind we choose to live in.

Are you speaking in absolutes?

How can you be so sure?

Have you died and seen the other side?

Is this something that you can substantiate?

Why should anyone believe you?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t422284.html

Google "Bill Wiese" or YouTube his personal testimony.

It may leave you speechless.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Are you speaking in absolutes?

How can you be so sure?

Have you died and seen the other side?

Is this something that you can substantiate?

Why should anyone believe you?

See, these are legit questions. You're not too ignorant to consider them. Why you can't hold them up to your own beliefs is a mystery to me.

Originally posted by Digi
See, these are legit questions. You're not too ignorant to consider them. Why you can't hold them up to your own beliefs is a mystery to me.

When I say what the Bible--the Word of God--says concerning the existence of a literal Hell, I am speaking in absolutes. But I do so by faith. I take the Bible as God's Word by faith.

How can I be so sure? Again, I believe what the Bible reveals about Hell by faith.

Have I died and seen the other side? No. But I believe the testimonies of many other people who have died and seen and experienced Hell. I have no reason to believe otherwise or to suspect fraud or falsehood. In fact, I am more inclined to believe these individuals for the simple fact that all of them have either become ministers of the gospel afterwards, or devout believers in Jesus Christ.

Is this something that I can substantiate? Again, it is a matter of my faith in the Bible. But the testimony of others' serves to corroborate my faith--which is not based on the senses.

Why should anyone believe me? I firmly believe that people should believe what the Bible reveals concerning Hell because they have nothing to lose by not believing in it. Secondly, it makes sense to me that wicked, sinful people should be judged for their sins. Third, according to the Bible Hell was created for the devil and his angels--not for humanity. This is satan's and his angel's just punishment for rebelling against God. If Hell did not exist then this universe's justice system would be a farce.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Are you speaking in absolutes?

How can you be so sure?

Have you died and seen the other side?

Is this something that you can substantiate?

Why should anyone believe you?

I never speak in absolutes.

I have died many time, but I only see this side. This is the only side with eyes. :-)

As much as you do.

Because it works.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
When I say what the Bible--the Word of God--says concerning the existence of a literal Hell, I am speaking in absolutes. But I do so by faith. I take the Bible as God's Word by faith.

How can I be so sure? Again, I believe what the Bible reveals about Hell by faith.

Have I died and seen the other side? No. But I believe the testimonies of many other people who have died and seen and experienced Hell. I have no reason to believe otherwise or to suspect fraud or falsehood. In fact, I am more inclined to believe these individuals for the simple fact that all of them have either become ministers of the gospel afterwards, or devout believers in Jesus Christ.

Is this something that I can substantiate? Again, it is a matter of my faith in the Bible. But the testimony of others' serves to corroborate my faith--which is not based on the senses.

Why should anyone believe me? I firmly believe that people should believe what the Bible reveals concerning Hell because they have nothing to lose by not believing in it. Secondly, it makes sense to me that wicked, sinful people should be judged for their sins. Third, according to the Bible Hell was created for the devil and his angels--not for humanity. This is satan's and his angel's just punishment for rebelling against God. If Hell did not exist then this universe's justice system would be a farce.

Ok, so you admit that it's based on faith. That's a good thing.

But, please recognize that you are speaking in absolutes. The same criticisms of shakya's argument can be brought against you, and your defense isn't based on evidence but faith. So in that sense, there's no reason to believe you over anyone else's beliefs.

On the point of: I believe the testimonies of many other people who have died and seen and experienced Hell. This is again a faith-based belief, and while you might think you're looking at evidence, all you're looking at is something you can't explain. I've shown how the affects of "Hell" can be, to a large extent, recreated simply by the brain in NDE situations. So not only do we not know for sure that they experienced Hell, but we have reason to believe that they might have experienced something very normal. The fact that they became Christians also means nothing. I'm not calling them liars, all I'm saying is that they don't know for sure what they experienced either.

The "nothing to lose" argument begets a longer discussion involving Pascal's Wager and a few other things, so I don't think I'll touch on it right now.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so you admit that it's based on faith. That's a good thing.

But, please recognize that you are speaking in absolutes. The same criticisms of shakya's argument can be brought against you, and your defense isn't based on evidence but faith. So in that sense, there's no reason to believe you over anyone else's beliefs.

On the point of: I believe the testimonies of many other people who have died and seen and experienced Hell. This is again a faith-based belief, and while you might think you're looking at evidence, all you're looking at is something you can't explain. I've shown how the affects of "Hell" can be, to a large extent, recreated simply by the brain in NDE situations. So not only do we not know for sure that they experienced Hell, but we have reason to believe that they might have experienced something very normal. The fact that they became Christians also means nothing. I'm not calling them liars, all I'm saying is that they don't know for sure what they experienced either.

The "nothing to lose" argument begets a longer discussion involving Pascal's Wager and a few other things, so I don't think I'll touch on it right now.

In my previous post I admitted that I was speaking in absolutes yet in your previous post you respond by telling me that I am speaking in absolutes. I'm not sure why you reaffirmed that I was speaking in absolutes because I never denied that I was.

Second, those were not criticisms of Shakyamunison's argument. Remember: I am not on here arguing with anyone. I am just spreading the Good News. I was merely giving Shakyamunison an opportunity to intelligently discuss his reasons why he believes that Hell is not a literal place in the afterlife as the Bible and many, many other people state.

I don't believe that anyone's testimony of Hell is evidence. I recall stating that their testimony serves to corroborate (i.e. support with authority or make more certain) my faith--which I have already established is based on the Bible.

I don't recall anyone ever recreating the torment of Hell by their brain.

You state that they don't know for sure what they experienced.

If ten people died and felt their spirit's descend into the depths of the earth, encountered the gates of Hell, exceedingly hot flames, all kinds of grotesque, demonic creatures, pain, darkness, the smell of sulphur, torture, as well as the recognizable souls of others who were once alive--but then by the grace of God made it back into their body's to live and tell about it, I think it stands to reason that these people are not all just having a bad, oxygen-deprived dream. There's too much continuity and congruency with what the Bible reports about Hell and their experiences which invariably match Biblical record.

Thanks for your time and patience Digi. I enjoy conversing with you.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In my previous post I admitted that I was speaking in absolutes yet in your previous post you respond by telling me that I am speaking in absolutes. I'm not sure why you reaffirmed that I was speaking in absolutes because I never denied that I was.

Second, those were not criticisms of Shakyamunison's argument. Remember: I am not on here arguing with anyone. I am just spreading the Good News. I was merely giving Shakyamunison an opportunity to intelligently discuss his reasons why he believes that Hell is not a literal place in the afterlife as the Bible and many, many other people state.

I don't believe that anyone's testimony of Hell is evidence. I recall stating that their testimony serves to corroborate (i.e. support with authority or make more certain) my faith--which I have already established is based on the Bible.

I don't recall anyone ever recreating the torment of Hell by their brain.

You state that they don't know for sure what they experienced.

If ten people died and felt their spirit's descend into the depths of the earth, encountered the gates of Hell, exceedingly hot flames, all kinds of grotesque, demonic creatures, pain, darkness, the smell of sulphur, torture, as well as the recognizable souls of others who were once alive--but then by the grace of God made it back into their body's to live and tell about it, I think it stands to reason that these people are not all just having a bad, oxygen-deprived dream. There's too much continuity and congruency with what the Bible reports about Hell and their experiences which invariably match Biblical record.

Thanks for your time and patience Digi. I enjoy conversing with you.

This is the most cogent discussion I've ever had with you.

The way you present your arguments does make it sound like you're "doling out truth" instead of simply presenting ideas for consideration. And if you truly believe that it's just a personal faith, there's no reason to believe you over any other voice in the wind.

As for the accounts, I could get into selective bias, the fallibility of memory, and scientific research into NDE's to poke holes in your conviction in them - and I've done much of that in this thread - but it's much better if you do that thinking for yourself. Because for every faith-based belief that may or may not be harmless, there's overtly discriminatory beliefs (like some contained in many of your coveted Chick Tracts) that cause unneeded harm to people and bring evil into the world. And it's only when you learn to dissect even your own beliefs with a critical eye that you achieve the awareness necessary to be truly loving, rather than just a voice spouting a doctrine that been fed to him and is dogmatically accepted without considering the possibility of error.

As for torments of hell in the brain, the video I posted wasn't even that long, but contained some of this. Even in a small amount of research, people reported presences, demons, out-of-body experiences, etc. It doesn't amount to proof, but it amounts to another possible explanation.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...Besides, the circumstantial evidence in favor of an afterlife is staggering.

Circumstantial evidence is NEVER staggering.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

I've always found this statement intriguing. It implies (imho) comparison, ie, that Jesus was aware of other 'ways'. What would he be refering to?

Originally posted by Mindship
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

I've always found this statement intriguing. It implies (imho) comparison, ie, that Jesus was aware of other 'ways'. What would he be refering to?

It is also very similar to what Buddha said, but not so absolute. However, we don't really know how absolute Jesus was.

http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm

NyTFtSl0IoI

Ask Jesus Christ to reveal to you the Truth.

^ Even a Buddha can experience hell, but your video is a pile of...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is also very similar to what Buddha said, but not so absolute. However, we don't really know how absolute Jesus was. Nonetheless, apparently my question made JIA uncomfortable. Bummer. I really wanted to get his opinion since he seems pretty knowledgeable about this stuff.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm

NyTFtSl0IoI

Ask Jesus Christ to reveal to you the Truth. oh my LOL

Is the brain washing complete yet? lol

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Is the brain washing complete yet? lol

No, my mind is still dirty.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah. I knew you'd have an answer that made more sense than what I'd been told in the past. In past discussions (my younger, pre-KMC days), I seem to remember Christians interpreting Jesus' statement as meaning no other religious paths (ie, the ones we know today) will lead to God. And while I accept that you do feel this way, it was hard for me to see how that particular statement could be used to support that position.

Thanks, JIA.

That is precisely what Jesus means.

No other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ah. I knew you'd have an answer that made more sense than what I'd been told in the past. In past discussions (my younger, pre-KMC days), I seem to remember Christians interpreting Jesus' statement as meaning no other religious paths (ie, the ones we know today) will lead to God. And while I accept that you do feel this way, it was hard for me to see how that particular statement could be used to support that position.

Thanks, JIA.

The New Testament also says that others will be saved by what laws they had to abide by. So there are definitely multiple ways of "salvation" as long as you live your life as you think is proper/moral. Could you really say God is omnibenevolent if only a few select lucky people were saved? Even Jesus Christ said the atonement was for everyone.


Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is precisely what Jesus means.

No other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

No, this is wrong. What Jesus Christ is saying is that everyone is saved by his atonement and no other. He is not saying that no other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, this is wrong. What Jesus Christ is saying is that everyone is saved by his atonement and no other. He is not saying that no other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

This reading of the line makes a lot more sense as an answer to the question Thomas asks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The New Testament also says that others will be saved by what laws they had to abide by. So there are definitely multiple ways of "salvation" as long as you live your life as you think is proper/moral. Could you really say God is omnibenevolent if only a few select lucky people were saved? Even Jesus Christ said the atonement was for everyone.




No, this is wrong. What Jesus Christ is saying is that everyone is saved by his atonement and no other. He is not saying that no other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.

No one comes to the Father except through His Son Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is precisely what Jesus means.

No other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven. So then I was correct in my inferring that this is what Jesus meant by that statement, in which case, I have to ask again: what other paths was he referring to?

Originally posted by Mindship
So then I was correct in my inferring that this is what Jesus meant by that statement.

Well you seemed to imply that Jesus must have been aware of other paths to God the Father.

But this is false.

The Lord Jesus affirmed that He, and He alone (exclusively), is "the" Way--meaning the "only" Way to the Father in Heaven.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.

No one comes to the Father except through His Son Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The New Testament also says that others will be saved by what laws they had to abide by. So there are definitely multiple ways of "salvation" as long as you live your life as you think is proper/moral. Could you really say God is omnibenevolent if only a few select lucky people were saved? Even Jesus Christ said the atonement was for everyone.




No, this is wrong. What Jesus Christ is saying is that everyone is saved by his atonement and no other. He is not saying that no other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well you seemed to imply that Jesus must have been aware of other paths to God the Father.

But this is false. So he wasn't aware of other paths? Then how could he mean...Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No other religious paths will lead to the Father in Heaven. ...unless he was referring to other paths which may later arise? (sorry, I don't mean to be dogged, I'm just trying to understand). In other words, Jesus was speaking proactively, as it were, not retroactively?

Originally posted by Mindship
So he wasn't aware of other paths? Then how could he mean......unless he was referring to other paths which may later arise? (sorry, I don't mean to be dogged, I'm just trying to understand). In other words, Jesus was speaking proactively, as it were, not retroactively?

I don't know that the Lord necessarily spoke pro- or retroactively.

The Lord was just making it plain for Thomas and the rest of His disciples that He is the Way to His Father in Heaven.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't know that the Lord necessarily spoke pro- or retroactively. I would think either would be well within God's abilities. But perhaps Jesus was simply referring to contemporary idol worship, eliminating the need for either pro or retro.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would think either would be well within God's abilities. But perhaps Jesus was simply referring to contemporary idol worship, eliminating the need for either pro or retro.

Hopefully, I have sufficiently answered your original question.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hopefully, I have sufficiently answered your original question. H'm. I think more you were a sufficient catalyst such that I answered it for myself.

Originally posted by Mindship
H'm. I think more you were a sufficient catalyst such that I answered it for myself.

What kind of cow did you call JIA?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What kind of cow did you call JIA? Stop. Please. I beg you.

Originally posted by Mindship
Stop. Please. I beg you.

Utterly impossible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Utterly impossible. I surrender unconditionally.

Originally posted by Mindship
I surrender unconditionally.


You gotta be grazy!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gotta be grazy! facepalm2

It was inevitable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people who had a NDE never died. They suffered a common hallucination that has more to do with the structure of the brain then life after death.

Prove it.

The burden of proof is on you.




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

It is self evident. If they had died, then they would not be able to tell their story.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is self evident. If they had died, then they would not be able to tell their story.

That's whey it's called near death because their spirit's came back into the bodies.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

There is no spirit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no spirit.

You are in denial.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Spirit is based on the incorrect idea that the human body is filled with a liquid that must be balanced to be healthy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Spirit is based on the incorrect idea that the human body is filled with a liquid that must be balanced to be healthy.


No, God is a Spirit, and humans are created in His image and likeness.




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, God is a Spirit, and humans are created in His image and likeness.

If I have a soul, then my cat also has a soul.

Your cat can't accept Jesus.

Also, Jesus took a legion of demon spirits and put them into pigs who then ran over a cliff. I don't think the NT or OT spots animal empathy.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your cat can't accept Jesus.

Also, Jesus took a legion of demon spirits and put them into pigs who then ran over a cliff. I don't think the NT or OT spots animal empathy.

The separation of humans from animals has lead to the suffering of animals for a very long time. That is a Karma that is very hard to overcome.

If someday an alien race comes to Earth and starts harvesting us without any consideration of what we think, then we have it coming.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If someday an alien race comes to Earth and starts harvesting us without any consideration of what we think, then we have it coming. Word.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The separation of humans from animals has lead to the suffering of animals for a very long time. That is a Karma that is very hard to overcome.

If someday an alien race comes to Earth and starts harvesting us without any consideration of what we think, then we have it coming.

Time to play Prey. Nab that protein!

Originally posted by Mindship
Word.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. If it wasn't you posting, I wouldn't think there was a deeper meaning (if one at all). So, tell me, please.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, I don't get it. If it wasn't you posting, I wouldn't think there was a deeper meaning (if one at all). So, tell me, please. Hey, I can be shallow!

No deeper meaning. Just me using a past-its-time, ethnic colloquialism which generally means, "yes, that's true / I agree with you."

I was having a similar discussion with a friend last week, talking about the inner life of animals, and the way I put it was, God have mercy on us for how we've treated those with whom we share the planet.

Originally posted by Mindship
No deeper meaning. Just me using a past-its-time, ethnic colloquialism which generally means, "yes, that's true / I agree with you."


http://data1.whicdn.com/images/6269235/Sheldon_Cooper_by_SlivErJap_large.jpg

Originally posted by Mindship
Hey, I can be shallow!

No deeper meaning. Just me using a past-its-time, ethnic colloquialism which generally means, "yes, that's true / I agree with you."

I was having a similar discussion with a friend last week, talking about the inner life of animals, and the way I put it was, God have mercy on us for how we've treated those with whom we share the planet.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://data1.whicdn.com/images/6269235/Sheldon_Cooper_by_SlivErJap_large.jpg I dunno. That word always struck me as a good name for a street drug.

It is a street drug

Also, what I quoted looked very much like Sheldon-speak.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Also, what I quoted looked very much like Sheldon-speak. What I said?

Yeah, I love words.

Originally posted by Robtard
What if you're wrong?

What if you're wrong?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What if you're wrong?

Now this sounds like an intelligent conversation.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What if you're wrong?

Answering a question by parroting the question is dodging the question, you parroting question dodger.

Hope you're proud of yourself now, you made baby Jesus cry and you've ruined Christmas.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What if you're wrong? fPJQw-x-xho

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
fPJQw-x-xho

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your cat can't accept Jesus.

Also, Jesus took a legion of demon spirits and put them into pigs who then ran over a cliff. I don't think the NT or OT spots animal empathy.

That's because we are not animals.

We are not the product of evolution.

We are of more value than many sparrows (or pigs, ravens, and sheep for that matter).

Click link for proof: http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=more+value&qs_version=NKJV

God would rather an animal lose its life than a human, that's why animals were sacrificed on behalf of humans.

But God does not condone animal cruelty.



Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.



No, Jesus didn't put demons into pigs.

He simply permitted the demons to enter them so that a human--who is created in God's image, and who is of more value--could be set free from them.

There's a difference.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That's because we are not animals.

This kind of thinking leads to great evil. This is why animals are so mistreated by humans. The human ego that tries to set us above the natural world is the closest thing to a real Satan.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We are not the product of evolution.

Then we do not exist.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We are of more value than many sparrows (or pigs for that matter).

Again, that evil human ego that takes us out of our place in the real world will be our downfall.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God would rather an animal lose its life than a human, that's why animals were sacrificed on behalf of humans.

Then your god is evil!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But God does not condone animal cruelty.

Sounds like rationalization.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, Jesus didn't put demons into pigs.

True! There are no such things demons, so Bodhisattva Jesus did not put imaginary demons into pigs.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
He simply permitted the demons to enter them so that a human--who is created in God's image, and who is of more value--could be set free from them.

Dancing unicorns.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There you go with the sarcasm again.

Why the anger and bitterness?

Yes, you are supposed to believe that you--and every person reading this post--is of more value than a pig.

Pigs are just animals, but humans were created in the image and likeness of God.

God gave Adam and Eve dominion over this planet and everything in it--including the animal kingdom.

God did not give animals dominion over humans.

Animals don't slaughter and eat humans--humans slaughter and eat animals (I'm not talking about wild animals attacking humans).

Lord Jesus ate broiled fish and honeycomb, so eating animals is not a sin.



...and millions of animals suffer because of this ignorance. Why the anger and bitterness? I am always angry and bitter towards evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...and millions of animals suffer because of this ignorance. Why the anger and bitterness? I am always angry and bitter towards evil.

No, millions of animals suffer because of negligence by people who are not righteous.

God does not condone animal cruelty.

He says in His Word,


Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.


Did you see that?

A righteous man regards the life of his animal.

So the converse is true.

An unrighteous man does not regard the life of his animal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, millions of animals suffer because of negligence by people who are not righteous.

God does not condone animal cruelty.

He says in His Word,

Did you see that?

A righteous man regards the life of his animal.

So the converse is true.

An unrighteous man does not regard the life of his animal.
There you go again judging people. You have no right to judge people you do not know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There you go again judging people. You have no right to judge people you do not know.

Who have I judged?

The unrighteous?

I think it is your own conscience (given to you be God) which convicts you.

Again, the Bible said it not me.

You really need to learn how to distinguish between what I say, and what the Bible says.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who have I judged?

The unrighteous?

I think it is your own conscience (given to you be God) which convicts you.

Again, the Bible said it not me.

You really need to learn how to distinguish between what I say, and what the Bible says.

You have separated the world into righteous and unrighteous. That is a judgment that you are not qualified, or have the authority to make.

So, every time I say you are wrong it is my "conscience (given to you be God)" that is convicting me? So, you can never be wrong. That is psychotic.

So, you never take responsibility? That is why you can never learn.

All I see is what you say. Please leave the bible out of our conversation. I cannot debate a book or video, unless you are the person who wrote it or made it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, millions of animals suffer because of negligence by people who are not righteous.

God does not condone animal cruelty.

He says in His Word,


Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.


Did you see that?

A righteous man regards the life of his animal.

So the converse is true.

An unrighteous man does not regard the life of his animal.

So the righteous man is good to animals, except when someone is possessed by demons, in which case **** em, 2000 of them can die?

Jesus, Son of God is so powerful, he gave demons permission to murder pigs en masse instead of you know, just forcing them to go back to Hell?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So the righteous man is good to animals, except when someone is possessed by demons, in which case **** em, 2000 of them can die?

Jesus, Son of God is so powerful, he gave demons permission to murder pigs en masse instead of you know, just forcing them to go back to Hell?

I don't know about you but I happen to like bacon.

But, more importantly, I'd rather 2,000 pigs die than see you or your loved one running around a cemetery naked, screaming and hollering, and out of your mind because you are demon-possessed.