14
   

The Rapture of the Church

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:35 am
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/rapture.jpg

"Is this the Rapture, Jimmy?"
"Dude, I don't know, but I can totally see up that chick's dress!"
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:40 am
@joefromchicago,
Blondie ~ Rapture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHPikUPlRD8
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is an arbitrary definition
and therefore, not worthy of credence nor respect.

No, it's a meaningful definition, necessary for reasonable discussion.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I still accept the old definition of no heartbeat, no respiration nor EEG for a few minutes.

If you're going to claim that people have returned from the DEAD, then it's only reasonable that we understand your definition of DEAD.

My definition of DEATH is this: "The irreversible termination of the biological functions that define a living organism".

Your definition of DEATH is this: "The temporary cessation of various physiological functions".

And as far as that goes, I am not at all surprised that many people recover from the definition of DEATH that you hold. It's actually quite common, and not surprisingly, accompanied by various neurological experiences, none of which are much of a mystery to science at this point.

djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:33 am
i once watched an adam sandler movie, and had no brain function for about two hours
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:38 am
@rosborne979,
If the people returning from Hospitals were "SUFFICIENTLY DEAD" then they would not have returned at all.

I heard about the RApture ferom some friend when I was a kid. I was afraid to be out in the open and then Id lose my "personal gravity" and just float up.(a physical property first recognized by scientists Hobbes and Calvin)
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 12:35 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
If the people returning from Hospitals were "SUFFICIENTLY DEAD" then they would not have returned at all.

There's a reason they are called NDE's (NEAR Death Experiences)... because they are not DEAD yet. In their headlong rush to find some evidence for an afterlife, many people just assume that an NDE is an ADE (ACTUAL Death Experience). (something which can't happen because you can't experience something once you're dead).
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 01:59 pm
@rosborne979,
farmerman wrote:
If the people returning from Hospitals were "SUFFICIENTLY DEAD" then they would not have returned at all.


rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
There's a reason they are called NDE's (NEAR Death Experiences)... because they are not DEAD yet.

No; that 's not the reason. Its that thay were not permanently dead.
Thay returned to life, with beating hearts again, etc.


rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
In their headlong rush to find some evidence for an afterlife,
many people just assume that an NDE is an ADE (ACTUAL Death Experience).
As I have pointed out, SOME of them
have been verified (unlike mine, of which I have no memory).

rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
(something which can't happen because you can't experience something once you're dead).
That 's true,
in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to die.
He can only molt off his outer covering.

Interestingly, people who have remembered
returning from death as babies, recall that when out of their material bodies,
thay were full adults, as thay had been before thay incarnated.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 02:00 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i once watched an adam sandler movie, and had no brain function for about two hours
Sounds like u need a good trial lawyer.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 02:06 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

If the people returning from Hospitals were "SUFFICIENTLY DEAD" then they would not have returned at all.

Yeah, like if M.D.s waited until the skeleton was turning to powder.
That 's begging the question; i.e., assuming the answer to a question
within the question itself.
Its also circular reasoning.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 02:27 pm
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is an arbitrary definition
and therefore, not worthy of credence nor respect.

No, it's a meaningful definition, necessary for reasonable discussion.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I still accept the old definition of no heartbeat, no respiration nor EEG for a few minutes.

rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
If you're going to claim that people have returned from the DEAD,
then it's only reasonable that we understand your definition of DEAD.
U quoted it, directly above.


rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
My definition of DEATH is this:
"The irreversible termination of the biological functions that define a living organism".
That is circular reasoning.

rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
Your definition of DEATH is this: "The temporary cessation of various physiological functions".

And as far as that goes, I am not at all surprised that many people recover from the definition of DEATH that you hold. It's actually quite common, and not surprisingly, accompanied by various neurological experiences, none of which are much of a mystery to science at this point.

Your definition begs the question;
i.e., it assumes the answer to the question of death
within the question itself. U advocate circular reasoning.

U have also ASSUMED the absence of confirmation of those experiences.

Some of them were confirmed.

When I was young, the cessation of cardiovascular function
and of respiration for a short time were defined as the end of the story.

I say that death did not exist before incarnation
any more than it exists after incarnation.

Your answer to "death" is that it cannot exist if someone comes back from it.

I am accustomed to people fearing death (meaning the cessation of life),
but (oddly) there r a lot of people who fear life after death.

I wonder Y that fear exists.





David
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 07:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Your definition begs the question;
i.e., it assumes the answer to the question of death

And your statement assumes "the question of death". When in fact there is no such question.

If we are talking about spirituality and ghosts then we're not talking about science. But if we're talking about people living and breathing and about any experiences they had during a temporary cessation of those functions, then we need to recognize the difference between DEATH and a temporary outage of services.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 08:17 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Your definition begs the question;
i.e., it assumes the answer to the question of death


rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
And your statement assumes "the question of death".
When in fact there is no such question.
I question the existence of "death".


rosborne979 wrote:
Quote:
If we are talking about spirituality and ghosts then we're not talking about science.
But if we're talking about people living and breathing and about any experiences
they had during a temporary cessation of those functions,
then we need to recognize the difference between DEATH and a temporary outage of services.
Is it your intention to assume that "people"
as u put it, are their material human bodies?
so that when u bury a cadaver, the PERSON is going down there ?

I believe that is not the fact.
Tell me if I am rong, but if technology advanced to the point
of identifying and conversing with people without human bodies
(the way that e.g., radio waves were discovered) "ghosts" as u put it,
then u 'd include that within science; yes or no ?

From the fact that I have had what I know to be
the real ME outside of my human body,
and seen my human body on-the-job at a distance of about 30 feet, several times,
I know that conscious life is not dependent upon the material flesh n bones.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 09:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That 's begging the question; i.e., assuming the answer to a question
within the question itself.
Its also circular reasoning.

"sufficiently dead" was a term developed by the French Academy for purposes of burial during periods of plague . Physicians were instructed to inert copper needles into the area between the toenails and the underlying cuticle. This was (to them) the most painful yet harmless way to evoke a response if the person were still alive. It has a basis in their legal and medical system.

We used it in the mid 1800's to assure the grave robbers that their cadavers were "sufficintly dead". Dont you like the almost leagalistic bullshit aound of the phrase? Id think an old lawyer would identify with such phrases.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 10:05 am
@farmerman,

I get the point.

The issue is whether death is dichotomous n binary.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 10:07 am
@farmerman,

People really were buried alive
because their physicians did not know better,
hence the tests to which u referred.

That 's Y some of them were buried with their hands
tied to bells above ground.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 10:10 am
@farmerman,

I hope that u enjoyed your flounders. Were thay good ?
I thawt of u when I ordered flounder in a restaurant last nite.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 09:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I question [/size] the existence of "death".

You question the existence of spiritual death. With physical death, you are simply avoiding the question.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 09:34 pm

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 12:43 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I question [/size] the existence of "death".

You question the existence of spiritual death.
With physical death, you are simply avoiding the question.

Human bodies have worn out and molted off.
Sometimes people have gotten back inside them. I did.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 12:47 am

Some folks act like thay have a strong emotional investment
in wearing out of the human body being the end of conscious existence.

I wonder Y that IS ?





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/26/2024 at 02:47:44