Dualism (Identity)
dhw: (Under “What makes life vital”) When people say consciousness “emerges”, they usually mean that it is produced by the interplay between the neurons. If consciousness exists independently and the brain is a receiver and not a transmitter, the progressive complexity of the nervous system and of brains is the RESULT of increasingly complex consciousness, not the producer. Is that what you mean?-DAVID: The concept of receiving consciousness arises from the discovery that NDE's demonstrate consciousness independent of a living brain. The theory is really a form of dualism. -I'd have thought that consciousness existing independently of the brain was the whole point of dualism, and NDEs, OBEs, and many other psychic experiences seem to suggest this is so. DAVID: I am sure the extreme complexity of our brain, as compared to lower animals, results in a much more complex form of consciousness, which we certainly have. -This seems contradictory. If consciousness is independent of the living brain, how can the complexity of the brain RESULT in complex consciousness? DAVID: Under this thought, there is a universal consciousness 'out there' with lower and higher levels that can be 'received' by the brain at its current level of complexity (or "receivingness"). Since I believe as God, the universal consciousness, it all fits with my way of looking at things. -Vaguer and vaguer. Why does there have to be a universal consciousness just because each of us has a complex consciousness of our own? Why not zillions of individual consciousnesses? What you have written actually suggests that we are not thinking our own thoughts at all, but thinking (“receiving”) God's thoughts. Exit free will.
Dualism
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 02:14 (3328 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I'd have thought that consciousness existing independently of the brain was the whole point of dualism, and NDEs, OBEs, and many other psychic experiences seem to suggest this is so.-So do I. > > dhw:This seems contradictory. If consciousness is independent of the living brain, how can the complexity of the brain RESULT in complex consciousness?-By being a more complex receiver, receiving more complex 'wave lengths'. > > dhw: Vaguer and vaguer. Why does there have to be a universal consciousness just because each of us has a complex consciousness of our own? Why not zillions of individual consciousnesses? What you have written actually suggests that we are not thinking our own thoughts at all, but thinking (“receiving”) God's thoughts. Exit free will.-Not at all. I make my own thoughts. My consciousness is simply using part of the universal consciousness which allows me to do that. NDE's indicate this is possible. In other words I download part of the UC to use until I pass on. No more unreasonable than all the other theories.
Dualism
DAVID: I am sure the extreme complexity of our brain, as compared to lower animals, results in a much more complex form of consciousness, which we certainly have. dhw: This seems contradictory. If consciousness is independent of the living brain, how can the complexity of the brain RESULT in complex consciousness? DAVID: By being a more complex receiver, receiving more complex 'wave lengths'-But a receiver receives; it doesn't produce. The production comes from elsewhere. What you are saying makes the brain passive, and a passive “consciousness” would put humans in precisely the situation you want to impose on bacteria: namely, that they receive instructions and do not initiate them. DAVID: Under this thought, there is a universal consciousness ‘put there' with lower and higher levels that can be ‘received' by the brain at its current level of complexity (or ‘receivingness'). dhw: Vaguer and vaguer. Why does there have to be a universal consciousness just because each of us has a complex consciousness of our own? Why not zillions of individual consciousnesses? What you have written actually suggests that we are not thinking our own thoughts at all, but thinking (“receiving”) God's thoughts. Exit free will. DAVID: Not at all. I make my own thoughts. My consciousness is simply using part of the universal consciousness which allows me to do that. [...] In other words I download part of the UC to use until I pass on. No more unreasonable than all the other theories.-So what is the universal consciousness transmitting to your receiver brain? Clearly not thought, if you are thinking your own thoughts. If you mean the universal consciousness has given you the means to think your own thoughts, but that means is not the brain (which is only a receiver), what is it? A blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will (because you think your own thoughts)? What then is “you”, if your God has given “you” a blob to shape? (You will notice that I opened this thread under the category of “Identity”.) These are the sort of questions that, as Tony says, make our heads hurt, but that is the point of such a forum - to consider, articulate, question the various theories, in the hope that eventually something might make sense. As for using part of the UC until you pass on, this sounds as if you lose your particular blob when you die - which is the exact opposite of the NDE. Could you perhaps be a little more explicit? -xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TONY: These conversations kind of make my head hurt because we start swinging all over the map, partly because no one really sets up any definitions and sticks with them throughout the conversation.-The problem of consciousness makes most heads hurt! The framework you've given us is very stimulating, although as a non-technical ignoramus, I'm never at ease with computer analogies. I need to give it some more thought, but perhaps you could start me on my way by explaining what your “external user” and “third party independent interpreter” are analogous to in the two sentences below:-TONY: To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. [...] Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 20:42 (3327 days ago) @ dhw
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > TONY: These conversations kind of make my head hurt because we start swinging all over the map, partly because no one really sets up any definitions and sticks with them throughout the conversation. > >DHW: The problem of consciousness makes most heads hurt! The framework you've given us is very stimulating, although as a non-technical ignoramus, I'm never at ease with computer analogies. I need to give it some more thought, but perhaps you could start me on my way by explaining what your “external user” and “third party independent interpreter” are analogous to in the two sentences below: > > TONY: To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. [...] Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless.-When you by a computer from the store it comes with a basic operating system. That operating system doesn't really do much. It runs the machinery and provides you with some basic functionality, that is about it. In order for the computer to do anything useful, it needs to receive input from, and operated by, a user. That user is akin to consciousness. The user not only makes decisions for the computer as to how it is operated, configured, and what programs it has installed, but it is also the user that interprets the output from the computer. The computer does all the grunt work. It takes all the raw data and processes it and returns it to the user in a form that the user can interpret and use. Without the user, the computer does nothing but maintain, much like a person in a coma.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
I asked Tony to explain the “third party independent interpreter” part of his computer/consciousness analogy.-TONY: [...] In order for the computer to do anything useful, it needs to receive input from, and operated by a user. That user is akin to consciousness. [...]-Thank you. The key word for me is independent, and that is the essence of dualism. You also say: “NDE's, OBE's and other 6th sense type phenomena all attest that this analogy is good” - again emphasizing that consciousness can exist independently of all the other factors. And so you appear to be arguing in favour of the dualism favoured by David. However, the more I study your beautifully laid out “recap”, the more convinced I become that you are as neutral as I am on the subject. I'll try to explain why I'm still confused:-TONY: So to recap: •All life is comprised of 4 components: Energy, Information, Mechanics, and Consciousness. •Consciousness is greater than and separate from, but dependent upon, the preceding three fundamental elements.-This is where I begin to find your scheme confusing. NDEs suggest that consciousness is NOT dependent on the energy, information and mechanics that are essential to LIFE. Our identity (inseparable from our consciousness, but not confined to it) may depend on all the information that we have collected throughout our lives - consciousness has to be conscious of something - but that is all. •Removal of any of the three fundamental elements compromises the ability of Consciousness to function.-During life itself, this is true, because all kinds of influences (illness, drugs, alcohol etc.) can affect our consciousness, but according to NDEs, consciousness functions perfectly well without the energy and mechanics of life. (I'm not putting the case for an afterlife - I'm simply trying to understand how NDEs fit your analogy.) •The existence of any of the three fundamentals individually or taken together does not explain consciousness because while removing one of the three fundamental elements compromises consciousness, it has been shown to function in a short term limited capacity without them. -If, as I assume, you are referring here to NDEs and other psychic experiences, you seem to be saying that the three fundamentals essential to life are actually irrelevant to our understanding of the nature or cause of consciousness, because it can exist independently. But then you qualify this (“short term limited capacity”) which suggests there is a kind of brief remission from dependence on the three fundamentals, and then it dies with the rest, which suggests in turn that it IS dependent on them! •This model makes no assumptions about a universal consciousness because it would have to be, by necessity, independent of the physical form.-I agree. Your model allows for individual consciousnesses to be temporarily separate and independent, and that is all. •Science can not explain the spark of energy that produces life or kickstarts consciousness. •Science can not explain what happens to that energy after death.-Three hearty cheers from me. I would add that NOTHING can explain life or consciousness, and NOBODY can explain what happens after death because nobody knows what happens after death. We simply have lots and lots of theories. To sum up your analogy and your recap: we know nothing.-If my understanding of these arguments is correct (a big “if”?) I can't help feeling, Tony, that you would make a good agnostic!
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 13, 2015, 00:33 (3326 days ago) @ dhw
Sorry I had to trim so much to meet the word count..->DHW: You appear to be arguing in favour of the dualism favoured by David. However, the more I study your beautifully laid out “recap”, the more convinced I become that you are as neutral as I am on the subject. I'll try to explain why I'm still confused: >DHW: This is where I begin to find your scheme confusing. NDEs suggest that consciousness is NOT dependent on the energy, information and mechanics that are essential to LIFE. Our identity (inseparable from our consciousness, but not confined to it) may depend on all the information that we have collected throughout our lives - consciousness has to be conscious of something - but that is all.-During NDE's and OBE's the body is not completely dead. It still provides energy and an 'anchor' of sorts, if you will. More importantly, if NDE's or OBE's are remembered then apparently the brains functions have not entirely ceased. Either that, or there is some form of buffer between the consciousness and the brain. This would act sort of like RAM in my computer analogy, storing data in the form of energy until it could be written more permanently to the hard disk (brain).- >DHW: According to NDEs, consciousness functions perfectly well without the energy and mechanics of life. -See Above. NEAR death is not the same as dead. When you are dead, there is no spark of life in you. You are dead. Mostly dead is something else altogether because the body still contains the spark.-> > DHW:If, as I assume, you are referring here to NDEs and other psychic experiences, you seem to be saying that the three fundamentals essential to life are actually irrelevant to our understanding of the nature or cause of consciousness, because it can exist independently. But then you qualify this (“short term limited capacity”) which suggests there is a kind of brief remission from dependence on the three fundamentals, and then it dies with the rest, which suggests in turn that it IS dependent on them!-Consider the human heart, for a moment, or even the entire body below the neck. You can remove someones heart, or their entire body, and the brain will continue to function for a short time after the removal has occurred. That means that while the brain does have dependency upon the functions of the heart, it still retains a degree of autonomy. I think consciousness works the same way. It IS dependent upon energy, information, and the mechanics of the body, but it is able to function autonomously for a limited duration. ->DHW: If my understanding of these arguments is correct (a big “if”?) I can't help feeling, Tony, that you would make a good agnostic!-I'm afraid not, my friend. I do not see how something so complex, with so many redundancies, and with so many interconnected moving parts that all have to have existed simultaneously from the beginning fully functional could have been arrived at by chance. There had to be a designer. Therefore, I am afraid that my theist cap is still firmly affixed to my head.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
dhw: This is the usual muddling use of “information”. I presume what you mean here is that God doesn't give bacteria the information necessary for them to be conscious. You have made your opinion about bacteria clear.... DAVID: Not muddling. Life runs on information. You cannot escape that.-I was answering your comment that “bacteria do not receive information”. Now what are you saying? That bacteria are not alive? Of course bacteria receive information. But our subject is consciousness, and I was helpfully trying to clarify your muddling use of the word!-dhw: And instead of a “blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will”, you have much more grandly called it “a pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness”. Your last sentence tells us that receiving consciousness gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness.-DAVID: I arrive at this quantum thought about the brain/consciousness, because of the evidence that the scientist's actions in 'second choice' experiments show that his/her consciousness can go back in time or forward in time to affect quantum particle properties. Secondly, cell functions are being shown more and more to have quantum level activity and certainly neurons can work that way.-I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that consciousness is independent of the neurons, and that the brain receives consciousness but does not produce it. -dhw: I agree that something gives us consciousness, but how do you know it's NOT the sum of neurons firing? You even suggested it was, when you wrote that “the extreme complexity of our brain [...] results in a much more complex form of consciousness.” Or has someone actually discovered a complex pattern of quantum energy in the human brain (and a less complex one in a chimp's brain)?-DAVID: I presume that difference (human/chimp) will be shown in the future. I start with the belief that the inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. It had to exist from the beginning as the universe was created.-I wouldn't presume that any such pattern will be discovered. Nor would I presume that the future will show us how divine consciousness has always existed (theism), or how life and consciousness evolved from inorganic materials (atheism). Both sides start with a belief, and proceed to draw logical conclusions from a premise that has no basis other than pure speculation. dhw: As for your belief that the receiver idea may have validity, that merely tells us you think dualism may be true. Sorry, I can't find an explanation here. But as always I am struggling as much as you. I can't make sense of consciousness. Hence this discussion. DAVID: Agreed. Of course it is a struggle. We have no idea how it exists but we know it does.-And that is the honest truth. It's a privilege, though, to throw ideas at one another, and I am grateful for all these exchanges.-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-TONY: During NDE's and OBE's the body is not completely dead. It still provides energy and an 'anchor' of sorts, if you will. More importantly, if NDE's or OBE's are remembered then apparently the brains functions have not entirely ceased. Either that, or there is some form of buffer between the consciousness and the brain. This would act sort of like RAM in my computer analogy, storing data in the form of energy until it could be written more permanently to the hard disk (brain).-In your computer analogy, you specifically said that consciousness was the equivalent of an independent user, and you said that NDEs confirmed this analogy. It's clear from your entire post, however, that this is not the case, and consciousness does depend on the material self, so you are not a dualist. May I then assume you believe that your consciousness emerges from the brain and eventually dies with the brain, unlike David's, which is a quantum pattern of energy that the brain receives from God and that goes back to God when we die?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 13, 2015, 20:55 (3325 days ago) @ dhw
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > TONY: During NDE's and OBE's the body is not completely dead. It still provides energy and an 'anchor' of sorts, if you will. More importantly, if NDE's or OBE's are remembered then apparently the brains functions have not entirely ceased. Either that, or there is some form of buffer between the consciousness and the brain. This would act sort of like RAM in my computer analogy, storing data in the form of energy until it could be written more permanently to the hard disk (brain). > >DHW: In your computer analogy, you specifically said that consciousness was the equivalent of an independent user, and you said that NDEs confirmed this analogy. It's clear from your entire post, however, that this is not the case, and consciousness does depend on the material self, so you are not a dualist. May I then assume you believe that your consciousness emerges from the brain and eventually dies with the brain, unlike David's, which is a quantum pattern of energy that the brain receives from God and that goes back to God when we die?-Consciousness IS an independent user, in a sense. The mistake you are making here is a form of absolutism. Nothing, aside from perhaps God, is absolutely independent. Everything is dependent upon something. Like any analogy, if you take the computer analogy too far, it will of course fall apart because it is only an analog not an exact duplicate of the situation. -It is independent in the sense that, even if the brain, body, information, or energy is damaged, corrupt, or even missing for a limited time, it can still function. It is independent in the sense that it can examine or even diagnose any of the other elements. It is independent in the sense that it can exert direct control over the other elements. There have even been reported cases of where a person "wills" themself to die, and others where the consciousness has simply given up and caused the rest to die. Much like shutting down a computer because you don't want to play anymore.-There actually is Biblical writings that do indicate that the energy returns to God, but I do not believe that energy is conscious, at least not in the form we are discussing. I tend to think it is more like backing up the hard drive before scrapping an old computer so that the information can be restored at some point. You can have all the data in the world, but without a consciousness to experience it, it is just data. It is not alive.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
DHW: In your computer analogy, you specifically said that consciousness was the equivalent of an independent user, and you said that NDEs confirmed this analogy. It's clear from your entire post, however, that this is not the case, and consciousness does depend on the material self, so you are not a dualist. May I then assume you believe that your consciousness emerges from the brain and eventually dies with the brain, unlike David's, which is a quantum pattern of energy that the brain receives from God and that goes back to God when we die?-TONY: Consciousness IS an independent user, in a sense. The mistake you are making here is a form of absolutism. Nothing, aside from perhaps God, is absolutely independent. Everything is dependent upon something. Like any analogy, if you take the computer analogy too far, it will of course fall apart because it is only an analog not an exact duplicate of the situation. It is independent in the sense that, even if the brain, body, information, or energy is damaged, corrupt, or even missing for a limited time, it can still function. It is independent in the sense that it can examine or even diagnose any of the other elements. It is independent in the sense that it can exert direct control over the other elements. There have even been reported cases of where a person "wills" themself to die, and others where the consciousness has simply given up and caused the rest to die. Much like shutting down a computer because you don't want to play anymore.-All of the above makes perfect sense, and we all know that the mind can influence the body just as the body can influence the mind, but as you will have gathered from the heading of this thread, I am grappling with the concept of dualism, which basically argues that mind and matter are two separate things. The concept of the soul which survives bodily death is totally dependent on this view of the mind (which is inseparable from consciousness). It IS an absolute. Either the conscious mind is part of and therefore dependent on the material self, or it is not. David's God-given quantum pattern of energy is clearly not, which leaves him free to believe in a non-physical identity that may survive the death of the body. I suspect from your answer and the rest of your post that you do not share this view, but I'd still like to know what you think IS the source of consciousness: materials, or something else?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 14, 2015, 21:16 (3324 days ago) @ dhw
DHW:.. I am grappling with the concept of dualism, which basically argues that mind and matter are two separate things. The concept of the soul which survives bodily death is totally dependent on this view of the mind (which is inseparable from consciousness). It IS an absolute. Either the conscious mind is part of and therefore dependent on the material self, or it is not. David's God-given quantum pattern of energy is clearly not, which leaves him free to believe in a non-physical identity that may survive the death of the body. I suspect from your answer and the rest of your post that you do not share this view, but I'd still like to know what you think IS the source of consciousness: materials, or something else?-I do not believe that the consciousness survives the death of the body. My belief is, to use my computer analogy again, that a back up is made to a spare disk at death. ECC 12:17 says that "the spirit returns to god". But, it is important to not that the word that is translated as spirit is not referring to some consciousness that continues existence, literally translates as 'wind' or 'energetic/active force'. It is my belief that on death, the 'spirit returns to God', returning the energy to where it originated and carrying with it a backup of the data of that individual.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 15, 2015, 00:21 (3324 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: I do not believe that the consciousness survives the death of the body. My belief is, to use my computer analogy again, that a back up is made to a spare disk at death. ECC 12:17 says that "the spirit returns to god". But, it is important to not that the word that is translated as spirit is not referring to some consciousness that continues existence, literally translates as 'wind' or 'energetic/active force'. It is my belief that on death, the 'spirit returns to God', returning the energy to where it originated and carrying with it a backup of the data of that individual.-If your scenario is true, how do NDE'rs see other people who have died?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 15, 2015, 06:39 (3324 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: I do not believe that the consciousness survives the death of the body. My belief is, to use my computer analogy again, that a back up is made to a spare disk at death. ECC 12:17 says that "the spirit returns to god". But, it is important to not that the word that is translated as spirit is not referring to some consciousness that continues existence, literally translates as 'wind' or 'energetic/active force'. It is my belief that on death, the 'spirit returns to God', returning the energy to where it originated and carrying with it a backup of the data of that individual. > >David: If your scenario is true, how do NDE'rs see other people who have died?-I have no good answer for that. I can not say for certain that they do. Suffice to say this much, though. From a christian perspective, there is another layer of life that is somewhat parallel to our own. The spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with. Do they really see people that they know? I am not sure. Do they see something? I do not doubt that at all. However, as far as having knowledge of things that their senses could not tell them, there is a fairly simple answer. Our senses are, in many ways, so much noise. If our brains are receivers, then it is not unthinkable that we also receive information from the world around us that is routinely drowned out by our known five senses. It could be that turning off the noise from the body enables us to 'hear' these other sources of information that much clearer.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 15, 2015, 14:55 (3324 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> >David: If your scenario is true, how do NDE'rs see other people who have died? > > Tony: I have no good answer for that. I can not say for certain that they do. Suffice to say this much, though. From a christian perspective, there is another layer of life that is somewhat parallel to our own. The spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with. Do they really see people that they know? I am not sure. Do they see something? I do not doubt that at all. -My perspective is from reading many of these 'experience' descriptions. Many are veridical, that is, newly discovered information found only through the experience, is shown to be true. But the NDE'rs recognize people they know and converse with them telepathically. I don't know how a blob of consciousness/ soul can have external features. The example in Eben Alexander's book of his finding a dead sister, whom he did not know existed, who acts as his guardian angel, is striking. (He was adopted and she died before his birth.) He is not a nut job. His background was that of an academic neurosurgeon atheist before his coma and obviously is a firm believer now.-My thought to explain this is to turn to the religious belief that the body is simply a vessel for the soul. When the soul is separated from the dead vessel it can express an aura of the vessel's appearance (i.e., the living body) to another soul. And although dhw giggles at this, I think it works at the quantum level somehow. God based reality through quantum activity. This is where basic explanations lie, but of course we are not there yet, if we will ever be.
Dualism
by BBella , Monday, March 16, 2015, 04:56 (3323 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
>From a christian perspective, there is another layer of life that is somewhat parallel to our own. The spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with. -What do you mean "actively interact with the material realm"? In your opinion, can the spirit realm inhabit the material realm?- >Do they really see people that they know? I am not sure. Do they see something? I do not doubt that at all. However, as far as having knowledge of things that their senses could not tell them, there is a fairly simple answer. Our senses are, in many ways, so much noise. If our brains are receivers, then it is not unthinkable that we also receive information from the world around us that is routinely drowned out by our known five senses. It could be that turning off the noise from the body enables us to 'hear' these other sources of information that much clearer.-In light of your opinion above about people seeing something and receiving information, do you think that is what happened in the examples given in the Bible of biblical characters speaking to spirits or gaining information from necromancers that spoke to the dead? And what about Job who saw a spirit pass by him and other examples in the scriptures of the dead or past dead coming again as other people, for example?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 16, 2015, 20:05 (3322 days ago) @ BBella
edited by dhw, Monday, March 16, 2015, 21:31
> >From a christian perspective, there is another layer of life that is somewhat parallel to our own. The spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with. > > What do you mean "actively interact with the material realm"? In your opinion, can the spirit realm inhabit the material realm? > -Yes, I believe they can. I am not certain to what degree, but I do believe that spirits can, at the very least, affect the material world to some degree. - > >BBELLA: In light of your opinion above about people seeing something and receiving information, do you think that is what happened in the examples given in the Bible of biblical characters speaking to spirits or gaining information from necromancers that spoke to the dead? And what about Job who saw a spirit pass by him and other examples in the scriptures of the dead or past dead coming again as other people, for example?-I am not sure what you are referencing with this "past dead coming again as other people". As I said above, I do think that spirits can interact and affect the material world. I do not know to what degree.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
Dhw: I'd still like to know what you think IS the source of consciousness: materials, or something else?-TONY: I do not believe that the consciousness survives the death of the body. My belief is, to use my computer analogy again, that a back up is made to a spare disk at death. ECC 12:17 says that "the spirit returns to god". But, it is important to not that the word that is translated as spirit is not referring to some consciousness that continues existence, literally translates as 'wind' or 'energetic/active force'. It is my belief that on death, the 'spirit returns to God', returning the energy to where it originated and carrying with it a backup of the data of that individual.-I am bewildered. Consciousness is spirit or energy or wind, and therefore NOT the product of materials. And yet it dies (does not survive) when the materials die. But the data of which it is conscious and which form the identity of the person who had them continue to exist independently of the materials and are somehow attached to the blob of energy that has returned to God, although the blob is not aware of them. Individual consciousness has died, but it has survived. Your computer analogy of a back-up disk really doesn't help, I'm afraid. How does your blank spirit have and not have its individual data? In your response to David on the subject of NDEs, you say “the spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with” and perhaps “we also receive information from the world around us that is routinely drowned out by our known five senses.” I find the latter quite an attractive explanation, but it cannot constitute interaction between the material realm and the spiritual if the five senses are drowned out and consciousness is spirit. Then it can only be interaction between spirit and spirit. Furthermore, if NDE spirits communicate with other spirits, they have all kept their identity, independently of the materials that embody the five senses. You can't have your NDE spirit communicating with blanks! Xxxxxx-To David: in your response to Tony on the subject of NDEs (which chimes in with much of my own), you say that I giggle at the idea of the soul expressing the appearance of the dead person. I don't. (See above.) I take NDEs very seriously, and I would only giggle at the idea of an afterlife in which the dead person does NOT retain his/her identity. There has to be recognition. I don't have an explanation for NDEs, and am quite open-minded on the subject.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 15, 2015, 20:40 (3323 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I am bewildered. Consciousness is spirit or energy or wind, and therefore NOT the product of materials. And yet it dies (does not survive) when the materials die. But the data of which it is conscious and which form the identity of the person who had them continue to exist independently of the materials and are somehow attached to the blob of energy that has returned to God, although the blob is not aware of them. Individual consciousness has died, but it has survived. Your computer analogy of a back-up disk really doesn't help, I'm afraid. How does your blank spirit have and not have its individual data? > - Where are you getting this "blob" from? Any energy can contain information. That is how RAM on your computer works. Let me try to simplify this. -Components of a human: Energy, Matter, Information, & Consciousness. At death, the energy (spirit) departs, returning to God with a backup of the information. The material body and the information contained with it deteriorate. Without the presence of energy, information, and the mechanical body, there is nothing there to support consciousness. It simply ceases to exist. This is no different than what would happen if you were to back your computer up to an external hard drive and then smash the computer to bits. The data exists, but there is nothing acting upon it until/unless that data is restored to another computer.- >DHW: In your response to David on the subject of NDEs, you say “the spiritual realm is said to actively interact with the material realm that we are all familiar with” and perhaps “we also receive information from the world around us that is routinely drowned out by our known five senses.” I find the latter quite an attractive explanation, but it cannot constitute interaction between the material realm and the spiritual if the five senses are drowned out and consciousness is spirit. Then it can only be interaction between spirit and spirit. Furthermore, if NDE spirits communicate with other spirits, they have all kept their identity, independently of the materials that embody the five senses. You can't have your NDE spirit communicating with blanks! > -I never said consciousness was spirit. > Xxxxxx > > To David: in your response to Tony on the subject of NDEs (which chimes in with much of my own), you say that I giggle at the idea of the soul expressing the appearance of the dead person. I don't. (See above.) I take NDEs very seriously, and I would only giggle at the idea of an afterlife in which the dead person does NOT retain his/her identity. There has to be recognition. I don't have an explanation for NDEs, and am quite open-minded on the subject.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
I asked Tony what he thought was the source of consciousness, materials or something else, and misunderstood his reply, which I thought equated consciousness with the spirit. Tony believes that consciousness does not survive the death of the body, but the spirit (= energy) does, and returns to God with a “backup” of the individual's data. I hope this is a fair summary. I called the unconscious spirit a blob.-TONY: Where are you getting this "blob" from? Any energy can contain information. Yes, but we are talking about an individual's information. So are you saying that the spirit is me but because it is unconscious (consciousness, remember, has died with my body) it doesn't know it's me? What is this backup? Forgive me, but I have an image of a blank balloon floating up to heaven with a memory stick attached to it and wobbling along in the breeze. None of this would make any sense if you believed even one NDE, in which patients claim to have communicated with dead people. In your post last Friday you argued that because the patient was still alive, consciousness was not yet dead. But the dead person's spirit would have to contain the information relevant to its identity, including memories, and would have to be conscious of these in order to communicate with the NDE patient. So in that case, consciousness could not have “simply ceased to exist” when that particular person died. No doubt I am being obtuse, but perhaps you could dispense with images and, just as plainly as you have said that consciousness dies with the body, tell us either how you think the spirit (energy) can retain its identity without consciousness or, alternatively, confirm that in your view the spirit (energy) that survives death has no identity.
Dualism
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 00:36 (3322 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: None of this would make any sense if you believed even one NDE, in which patients claim to have communicated with dead people. In your post last Friday you argued that because the patient was still alive, consciousness was not yet dead. But the dead person's spirit would have to contain the information relevant to its identity, including memories, and would have to be conscious of these in order to communicate with the NDE patient. So in that case, consciousness could not have “simply ceased to exist” when that particular person died. No doubt I am being obtuse, but perhaps you could dispense with images and, just as plainly as you have said that consciousness dies with the body, tell us either how you think the spirit (energy) can retain its identity without consciousness or, alternatively, confirm that in your view the spirit (energy) that survives death has no identity.-As a physician, we observe no external evidence of consciousness capable of being functional. In Alexander's case seven days of a non-recording EEG. Flat lines! This mean the thinking cortex cannot be working. Could a deeper area of the brain be hiding a functional consciousness? Not in Alexander's neurosurgical opinion.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 07:13 (3322 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Yes, but we are talking about an individual's information. So are you saying that the spirit is me but because it is unconscious (consciousness, remember, has died with my body) it doesn't know it's me? What is this backup? Forgive me, but I have an image of a blank balloon floating up to heaven with a memory stick attached to it and wobbling along in the breeze. > -The spirit is no more "you" than your hard drive is your computer. It is a critical component, but still just a component of a larger whole.-->DHW: None of this would make any sense if you believed even one NDE, in which patients claim to have communicated with dead people. In your post last Friday you argued that because the patient was still alive, consciousness was not yet dead. But the dead person's spirit would have to contain the information relevant to its identity, including memories, and would have to be conscious of these in order to communicate with the NDE patient. So in that case, consciousness could not have “simply ceased to exist” when that particular person died. No doubt I am being obtuse, but perhaps you could dispense with images and, just as plainly as you have said that consciousness dies with the body, tell us either how you think the spirit (energy) can retain its identity without consciousness or, alternatively, confirm that in your view the spirit (energy) that survives death has no identity.-I don't believe that I have ever claimed that I DID believe that anyone communicated with the dead. I believe they saw something. I believe that, when the 5 senses we use predominantly are switched off, we have access to more information than we are typically aware of. I also never claimed that the spirit retained it's identity separate from the other parts that make up the whole. I said that the spirit, the energy, makes a backup of your data.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
Dhw: Yes, but we are talking about an individual's information. So are you saying that the spirit is me but because it is unconscious (consciousness, remember, has died with my body) it doesn't know it's me? What is this backup? Forgive me, but I have an image of a blank balloon floating up to heaven with a memory stick attached to it and wobbling along in the breeze. TONY: The spirit is no more "you" than your hard drive is your computer. It is a critical component, but still just a component of a larger whole.-And the backup? You have said the spirit has no consciousness, so what and where is this wretched back-up with all the information about me? DHW: None of this would make any sense if you believed even one NDE, in which patients claim to have communicated with dead people. In your post last Friday you argued that because the patient was still alive, consciousness was not yet dead. But the dead person's spirit would have to contain the information relevant to its identity, including memories, and would have to be conscious of these in order to communicate with the NDE patient. So in that case, consciousness could not have “simply ceased to exist” when that particular person died. No doubt I am being obtuse, but perhaps you could dispense with images and, just as plainly as you have said that consciousness dies with the body, tell us either how you think the spirit (energy) can retain its identity without consciousness or, alternatively, confirm that in your view the spirit (energy) that survives death has no identity.-TONY: I don't believe that I have ever claimed that I DID believe that anyone communicated with the dead. I believe they saw something. I believe that, when the 5 senses we use predominantly are switched off, we have access to more information than we are typically aware of. I also never claimed that the spirit retained it's identity separate from the other parts that make up the whole. I said that the spirit, the energy, makes a backup of your data.-But you say the spirit has no consciousness. How can it even know my data, let alone record them, if it has no consciousness? It's a blob of energy that according to you survives my bodily death and returns to God without “me” but carrying this mysterious backup. As regards NDEs, David tells us that many patients claim actually to have met dead people. You have referred to them as providing support for your analogy, so you must know this. Are you then claiming that those patients are lying, or deluded?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 05:37 (3321 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: And the backup? You have said the spirit has no consciousness, so what and where is this wretched back-up with all the information about me?-From a biblical perspective, the spirit returns to god, much like taking the back up of your computers hard drive and putting it in your pocket. Why? Well, because (from a biblical perspective) there is the prospect of resurrection. In order to resurrect someone, you would need a back up of their critical data, no? Otherwise you wouldn't be restoring someone, you would be creating someone new. -> > DHW: None of this would make any sense if you believed even one NDE, in which patients claim to have communicated with dead people. In your post last Friday you argued that because the patient was still alive, consciousness was not yet dead. But the dead person's spirit would have to contain the information relevant to its identity, including memories, and would have to be conscious of these in order to communicate with the NDE patient. So in that case, consciousness could not have “simply ceased to exist” when that particular person died. No doubt I am being obtuse, but perhaps you could dispense with images and, just as plainly as you have said that consciousness dies with the body, tell us either how you think the spirit (energy) can retain its identity without consciousness or, alternatively, confirm that in your view the spirit (energy) that survives death has no identity. > > TONY: I don't believe that I have ever claimed that I DID believe that anyone communicated with the dead. I believe they saw something. I believe that, when the 5 senses we use predominantly are switched off, we have access to more information than we are typically aware of. I also never claimed that the spirit retained it's identity separate from the other parts that make up the whole. I said that the spirit, the energy, makes a backup of your data. > > But you say the spirit has no consciousness. How can it even know my data, let alone record them, if it has no consciousness? It's a blob of energy that according to you survives my bodily death and returns to God without “me” but carrying this mysterious backup.- How does a back up hard drive know what was contained on your computer at the moment that it made the backup? Is the back up hard drive a computer? Does it function like a computer? No, it does not. Data can be written to it, or recovered from it, but it has no 'consciousness'. - > >DHW: As regards NDEs, David tells us that many patients claim actually to have met dead people. You have referred to them as providing support for your analogy, so you must know this. Are you then claiming that those patients are lying, or deluded?-Deluded or lying are both very negative statements. Perhaps misled, misguided, or even conned might be better put. I think that they see something. I think that they believe what they see is really what they think it is. So no, I do not think they are lying or deluded. However, from a biblical perspective the are not speaking to the dead.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 14:13 (3321 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: As regards NDEs, David tells us that many patients claim actually to have met dead people. You have referred to them as providing support for your analogy, so you must know this. Are you then claiming that those patients are lying, or deluded? > > Tony: Deluded or lying are both very negative statements. Perhaps misled, misguided, or even conned might be better put. I think that they see something. I think that they believe what they see is really what they think it is. So no, I do not think they are lying or deluded. However, from a biblical perspective the are not speaking to the dead.-Since I am dragged into this discussion I have to step in to support my point of view. I understand your point of view that the Bible is infallible, but you have sidestepped the repeated observation that the NDE'rs not only 'see' the dead, they learn confirmable information they could not otherwise have discovered or known previously. How do you view this aspect of the experience, since new information is exchanged, that is, new for the experiencer? It seems to me you are denying the concept of a 'heaven' with a gathering of souls.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 19:56 (3320 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW: As regards NDEs, David tells us that many patients claim actually to have met dead people. You have referred to them as providing support for your analogy, so you must know this. Are you then claiming that those patients are lying, or deluded? > > > > Tony: Deluded or lying are both very negative statements. Perhaps misled, misguided, or even conned might be better put. I think that they see something. I think that they believe what they see is really what they think it is. So no, I do not think they are lying or deluded. However, from a biblical perspective the are not speaking to the dead. > >David: Since I am dragged into this discussion I have to step in to support my point of view. I understand your point of view that the Bible is infallible, but you have sidestepped the repeated observation that the NDE'rs not only 'see' the dead, they learn confirmable information they could not otherwise have discovered or known previously. How do you view this aspect of the experience, since new information is exchanged, that is, new for the experiencer? It seems to me you are denying the concept of a 'heaven' with a gathering of souls.-No, I have explicitly said that they do not see the dead; that they have been duped, beguiled, misled, conned. I have been trying to limit my direct references to the bible, but since it seems I need to be explicit, let me elaborate. (2 Cor 11:14) "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.." That there is a heaven is not a question, though I do not believe it to be what pop-culture makes it out to be any more than I believe in Dante's version of hell. However, I do believe in angels and demons that are locked in a 'spiritual war'. I do believe in angelic/demonic creatures that can and do interact with humans. -I also believe that 'the dead are conscious of nothing' and “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all . . . Their love and their hate and their jealousy [all of which they felt while alive] have already perished.” (Ecc 9:5,6) “The dead do not praise [God]; nor do any who go down into the silence of death,” (Psalm 115:17).-All of that said, I am perfectly willing to accept that there is a large difference between clinical death, and real death. We know that humans die in stages, which is why I can accept NDE's which are "NEAR" death experiences. However, if the dead have no thoughts, love, hate, jealousy, or even worship god (which kind of shoots that whole pop-culture heaven thing in the foot, which not-so-incidentally originated as a Babylonian myth, as did hell and purgatory), how can they talk to anyone? So if it is not the dead, then who could it be? Who would stand to benefit by deceiving people into believing something that is not truth? The father of the lie, perhaps, via his servants? These creatures are witnesses to all that goes on around the world, and it would be trivial for them to supply external misleading information to a susceptible individual. -As for your last statement, I am categorically denying the pop-culture version of heaven with immortal souls of all the dearly departed plucking their harps and sitting on fluffy clouds. Not only is it patently ridiculous for reasons I won't go into in this thread, but it is also completely and utterly unscriptual.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 19, 2015, 00:03 (3320 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: No, I have explicitly said that they do not see the dead; that they have been duped, beguiled, misled, conned. I do believe in angelic/demonic creatures that can and do interact with humans. -Therefore, you have concluded that the correct and verifiable information which is imparted during NDE's, is to fool the near to death person? Is that the correct interpretation? > > Tony: As for your last statement, I am categorically denying the pop-culture version of heaven with immortal souls of all the dearly departed plucking their harps and sitting on fluffy clouds. Not only is it patently ridiculous for reasons I won't go into in this thread, but it is also completely and utterly unscriptual.-Thank you. Perfectly clear.
Dualism
DHW: And the backup? You have said the spirit has no consciousness, so what and where is this wretched back-up with all the information about me?-TONY: From a biblical perspective, the spirit returns to god, much like taking the back up of your computers hard drive and putting it in your pocket. Why? Well, because (from a biblical perspective) there is the prospect of resurrection. In order to resurrect someone, you would need a back up of their critical data, no? Otherwise you wouldn't be restoring someone, you would be creating someone new. -But you keep saying that my spirit has no consciousness and is not “me”. I don't understand how it can have a backup of me without being me. I asked what and where it was, not why you think there has to be one. Now you are talking of resurrection, which is physical. So is your theory of consciousness that God is recording our lives and has a library of memory sticks stored somewhere in his cosmos? And one day he will bring up my skeleton, blow my particular blob of his spirit back into it (which presumably will bring back my inners and outers), insert the memory stick labelled dhw, which contains my consciousness and the rest of my identity, and hey presto here I am again? If not, how do you visualize the process, and once more please explain the actual nature of the backup. DHW: As regards NDEs, David tells us that many patients claim actually to have met dead people. You have referred to them as providing support for your analogy, so you must know this. Are you then claiming that those patients are lying, or deluded? TONY: Deluded or lying are both very negative statements. Perhaps misled, misguided, or even conned might be better put. I think that they see something. I think that they believe what they see is really what they think it is. So no, I do not think they are lying or deluded. However, from a biblical perspective the are not speaking to the dead.-Yes, they are negative, and your substitutes, especially “conned”, all suggest that somebody is tricking these near dead folk. Do you think the surgeons are injecting them with some hallucinatory drug that happens to provide them with information that not even the surgeons know? This is absurd. On the other hand, “I think that they believe what they see is really what they think it is” means that, since you disbelieve their claims, they are deluded. Your criterion for believing that they are deluded or are being tricked appears to be your interpretation of something in the bible. I'm not going to be drawn into another dispute over exegesis, but surely you can come up with a more convincing explanation of how these patients mistakenly claim to see dead people and get information from them that nobody could possibly know (see David's response).-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-I have just read your response to David. I'll leave the above, but I see you are now claiming that the Devil has conned the NDE patients. As a result of his con, Eben Alexander, an atheist, is now a firmly committed theist, and as far as I know, many NDE patients do feel much closer to God after their experience. So who the heck is your Satan working for? And I would still like to know how the backup is made and is going to function.
Dualism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 19, 2015, 00:33 (3320 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have just read your response to David. I'll leave the above, but I see you are now claiming that the Devil has conned the NDE patients. As a result of his con, Eben Alexander, an atheist, is now a firmly committed theist, and as far as I know, many NDE patients do feel much closer to God after their experience. So who the heck is your Satan working for? And I would still like to know how the backup is made and is going to function.-Thank you for this comment re NDE. Since I am schooled only in the Old Testament, and have read some of the Gospels, I don't understand resurrection. I thought it meant getting together in some sort of heaven. In Revelations aren't the saved pulled up into heaven and the rest of us left behind, or am I mixing up two different beliefs? Jesus' resurrection was very brief.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 19, 2015, 03:17 (3320 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: I have just read your response to David. I'll leave the above, but I see you are now claiming that the Devil has conned the NDE patients. As a result of his con, Eben Alexander, an atheist, is now a firmly committed theist, and as far as I know, many NDE patients do feel much closer to God after their experience. So who the heck is your Satan working for? And I would still like to know how the backup is made and is going to function. > >David: Thank you for this comment re NDE. Since I am schooled only in the Old Testament, and have read some of the Gospels, I don't understand resurrection. I thought it meant getting together in some sort of heaven. In Revelations aren't the saved pulled up into heaven and the rest of us left behind, or am I mixing up two different beliefs? Jesus' resurrection was very brief.-There was a small group of "annointed" ones, 144k by number, that would rule in heaven. Everyone else's feet stay on terra firma.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 19, 2015, 02:45 (3320 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: But you keep saying that my spirit has no consciousness and is not “me”. I don't understand how it can have a backup of me without being me...How do you visualize the process, and once more please explain the actual nature of the backup. -Ok, I will try again. A computer has a bunch of components. Some are what are called I/O devices, that receive inputs and output data. RAM (Random Access Memory) stores information in energy form. A hard disk actually writes the information to a physical structure, and is hence called physical memory. Processors take information, and process that information mechanically based on algorithms, and return information. However, all of that still is not conscious. It requires a user to make concious decisons regarding that information, and to give instructions to the machine to carry out. Of course, this entire process requires energy, in electrical form, which acts as a carrier for information between components. If the machinery was showing signs of failure, a savvy user would create a backup of the information. When the user replaced the hardware with an upgraded model, he could then restore that information to the new device, thus preserving all of the information from the former machine. A VERY savvy user, could create an image backup, and put it on an exact duplicate of the hardware, and the user would notice no difference except that the new hardware would perform better. - Now, as it relates to our discussion. Your body serves as the I/O components and other hardware accessories of the machine. Your brain acts as both a processor and a physical storage device for information. Your spirit provides the energy, which I strongly suspect acts like RAM, a information storage buffer that holds information as energy. Yet, all of these things combined to not equal a consciousness. The machine needs a driver, a user, and the consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts. The conscious takes the information stored in the brain (memories) and the processed sensory data and makes decisions and issues commands which are then returned to the machine (Brain/Body complex) and executed. When the hardware fails, an image is taken of all the information stored, including the genetic blueprint, and that information is stored (as energy) via the spirit, which returns to god for safe keeping. Because the spirit is no longer there and the hardware is no longer functioning, the consciousness ceases to function. It knows nothing, does nothing, is aware of nothing. The spirit acts, as you said, like a thumbdrive, or more specifically, like an image of your entire system. But it is ONLY information. There is no consciousness there. -The bible talks, a lot actually, about death and the resurrection. Your material body is recycled into the earth (dust to dust), your consciousness ceases to exist, and your spirit returns to God. During the resurrection, a new body is formed(because the old no longer exists) using the genetic information preserved by the spirit to create an replica of your body (albeit with fewer issues). Then your information (memories, experiences, knowledge are loaded) on to the new brain. As you are now once again comprised of energy, physical materal, and information, consciousness emerges, replete with all your memories which influences your personality. ---> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >DHW: Eben Alexander, an atheist, is now a firmly committed theist, and as far as I know, many NDE patients do feel much closer to God after their experience. So who the heck is your Satan working for? - Suppose for a moment, my agnostic friend, that you acknowledge something is either truth, or a lie. If something is a truth, then anything that deviates from it is a lie. If something is a lie, things that deviate from it may or may not be the truth. Now, the bible protrays Jehovah as a God of Truth and Righteousness. There is no lie in him. So, if he were to proscribe a path, and is incapable of lying, then that is the path we must follow. Now, there is a theory called 'Nudge Theory" which basically talks about gently nudging people the way you want to go by offering them other options instead of beating them over the head with what you want them to do. Now, if Jehovah says that there will be a resurrection on earth of both the righteous and the unrighteous, and that Christ died as a ransom for our sins, and that no one ascended to heaven before Christ, then by convincing this man that dead relatives go to heaven Satan has succeeded in making both God and Christ out to be liars. Not only has he convinced one man, but he also convinced anyone that listens to his story and takes it at face value, thus achieving major gains (turning people away from his enemy, God) as well as tarnishing his reputation and devaluing the sacrifice of his son. -Satan's time is short. He is going down, and he knows he is going down. His only goal at this point is to take as many others down with him as he can. That is why he is described as "roaming about like a roaring lion seeking to devour". He doesn't have to convince people to worship him, he simply has to convince them not to worship God the way God instructed us to do. He simply makes God out to be a liar, which is the same tactic used all the way back at the very beginning.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
DHW: So is your theory of consciousness that God is recording our lives and has a library of memory sticks stored somewhere in his cosmos? And one day he will bring up my skeleton, blow my particular blob of his spirit back into it (which presumably will bring back my inners and outers), insert the memory stick labelled dhw, which contains my consciousness and the rest of my identity, and hey presto here I am again?-Thank you for your very detailed, very patient response to this. Basically, it seems that my account was not far out, except that the unconscious spirit IS the memory stick (I don't know the word “thumbdrive”). God or his work force will give me a new body (based on the stored information), insert the memory stick, and the two together will bring me back to life, and consciousness will result from the union of body and spirit. If that is correct, we can leave it there.-DHW: Eben Alexander, an atheist, is now a firmly committed theist, and as far as I know, many NDE patients do feel much closer to God after their experience. So who the heck is your Satan working for? -TONY: [...] Now, if Jehovah says that there will be a resurrection on earth of both the righteous and the unrighteous, and that Christ died as a ransom for our sins, and that no one ascended to heaven before Christ, then by convincing this man that dead relatives go to heaven Satan has succeeded in making both God and Christ out to be liars. Not only has he convinced one man, but he also convinced anyone that listens to his story and takes it at face value, thus achieving major gains (turning people away from his enemy, God) as well as tarnishing his reputation and devaluing the sacrifice of his son. -Closeness to God need not denote being in heaven. David will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are lots of NDEs who simply meet dead relatives. No specific mention of heaven, although very often there is great tranquillity. In any case, lots of believers are convinced that they have an immortal, individual soul and that heaven is real. Is Satan working on them too? If dear sweet Mrs X prays to God and Jesus every day, loves God and Jesus, lives a good life in accordance with what the Holy Father tells her is what God and Jesus expect of her, and believes she has an immortal soul that will go to heaven when she dies, do you really think your Satan could be said to have turned her away from God? In fact, I would have thought that for someone who is "roaming about like a roaring lion seeking to devour", such a case would reduce him to a pathetic miaow - but what in hell do I know?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 19, 2015, 21:34 (3319 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Closeness to God need not denote being in heaven. David will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are lots of NDEs who simply meet dead relatives. No specific mention of heaven, although very often there is great tranquillity. In any case, lots of believers are convinced that they have an immortal, individual soul and that heaven is real. Is Satan working on them too? If dear sweet Mrs X prays to God and Jesus every day, loves God and Jesus, lives a good life in accordance with what the Holy Father tells her is what God and Jesus expect of her, and believes she has an immortal soul that will go to heaven when she dies, do you really think your Satan could be said to have turned her away from God? In fact, I would have thought that for someone who is "roaming about like a roaring lion seeking to devour", such a case would reduce him to a pathetic miaow - but what in hell do I know?-Closeness to God certainly doesn't denote being in heaven. Not sure where that came from, but I agree with you on that. When a lion roars, it typically sneaks up on its pray, puts its head very low to the ground and roars. The prey then has no idea which way the lion is coming from and panics. It is a clever deception. I am not the judge of anyone. I can't say what would be the outcome for your sweet Mrs X. But here is something to think about. It is a known, well documented, and proven fact that most religions, including some forms of Christianity, are utterly riddled with pagan influences. Idolatry, ancient pagan holidays, and even teachings that directly contradict the bible. There are parts of the bible that warn people to "flee" from those things, so I am going to assume that it matters.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: Closeness to God certainly doesn't denote being in heaven. Not sure where that came from, but I agree with you on that.-Perhaps my point was not clear. You claimed that if the NDE patients thought they were in heaven, Satan was deliberately deceiving them, e.g. by giving them the information about their dead relatives etc. which they could not otherwise have known. According to you, God doesn't send dead people to heaven, so Satan could then make the patients believe God was a liar. But if, as apparently was the case in some instances, they did NOT think they were in heaven and still got the information, and were then resuscitated and turned to God, what in the name of hell was Satan hoping to achieve? TONY: I am not the judge of anyone. I can't say what would be the outcome for your sweet Mrs X. But here is something to think about. It is a known, well documented, and proven fact that most religions, including some forms of Christianity, are utterly riddled with pagan influences. Idolatry, ancient pagan holidays, and even teachings that directly contradict the bible. There are parts of the bible that warn people to "flee" from those things, so I am going to assume that it matters.-My sweet Mrs X will no doubt be mightily relieved. I'm certainly not going to contradict the rest of your post, though I strongly suspect that many Christians would disagree with some of your own interpretations of what God wants from you. Ultimately, what “matters” in my view is (a) what seems right to you, and (b) that what seems right to you does no harm to others and, preferably, actively benefits you and others. I would like to think that is the case with all the nice folk on this forum!
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 03:44 (3318 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Closeness to God certainly doesn't denote being in heaven. Not sure where that came from, but I agree with you on that. > > DHW: Perhaps my point was not clear. You claimed that if the NDE patients thought they were in heaven, Satan was deliberately deceiving them, e.g. by giving them the information about their dead relatives etc. which they could not otherwise have known. According to you, God doesn't send dead people to heaven, so Satan could then make the patients believe God was a liar. But if, as apparently was the case in some instances, they did NOT think they were in heaven and still got the information, and were then resuscitated and turned to God, what in the name of hell was Satan hoping to achieve?- It doesn't matter if they believed the dead were in heaven, or hell, or walking around on the earth. If they believed the dead were alive (in the sense of an afterlife) then the deception hit right on the money. -God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. -If satan convinces someone of ANYTHING other than that, he has made god a liar. --> > TONY: I am not the judge of anyone. I can't say what would be the outcome for your sweet Mrs X. But here is something to think about. It is a known, well documented, and proven fact that most religions, including some forms of Christianity, are utterly riddled with pagan influences. Idolatry, ancient pagan holidays, and even teachings that directly contradict the bible. There are parts of the bible that warn people to "flee" from those things, so I am going to assume that it matters. > > DHW:.. Ultimately, what “matters” in my view is (a) what seems right to you, and (b) that what seems right to you does no harm to others and, preferably, actively benefits you and others. I would like to think that is the case with all the nice folk on this forum!-And believe it or not, to a large extent the bible actually largely AGREES WITH YOU (or you agree with it, depending on your perspective). In fact ALL of the laws, with exception of those regarding the sole worship of Jehovah, fall under your part (b). Every single one of them. Those that aren't directly related to (b) fall under the heading of "Love Jehovah your God with your whole heart" and only worship him. (Read Romans chapters 12 and 14)-Unfortunately, what you seem to fail to see is that these pagan holidays and traditions were meant to honor other gods. Even praying to the statue of Mary is bowing before a false idol, because Mary is NOT god. So, what you see as innocent harmless fun, is not innocent.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 04:10 (3318 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: It doesn't matter if they believed the dead were in heaven, or hell, or walking around on the earth. If they believed the dead were alive (in the sense of an afterlife) then the deception hit right on the money. -But if it changes atheists into believers, what does Satan gain? > > Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. -Quotation, please.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 05:16 (3318 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: It doesn't matter if they believed the dead were in heaven, or hell, or walking around on the earth. If they believed the dead were alive (in the sense of an afterlife) then the deception hit right on the money. > > But if it changes atheists into believers, what does Satan gain? > > -Atheist are believers, too, you know, but they believe a lie. Still, belief is not enough. Even demons believe in God. Yet if you believe but continue to do what is wrong, what virtue is there in your belief. Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26)- > > Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. > > Quotation, please.-Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7,
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 18:39 (3317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > > > Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. > > > > Quotation, please. > > Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7,-Thank you. I am not widely read and needed guidance. You have quoted the OT, and the way I was taught, Judaism holds that there is no reference of any major sort to a Heaven. We are told to trust in God in the afterlife. There is no emphasis on Satan. I've been taught that is a Christian concept. So my thoughts about an afterlife are really on my own. None of the quotes talks about souls, and in my mind if souls enter an afterlife they carry soul/consciousness with them. Souls are discussed and recognized (Neshamah in Hebrew). Animals also are considered to have souls (Nefesh). With our different backgrounds, I can see why we look at it differently.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 20:25 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > > > Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. > > > > > > Quotation, please. > > > > Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7, > >David: Thank you. I am not widely read and needed guidance. You have quoted the OT, and the way I was taught, Judaism holds that there is no reference of any major sort to a Heaven. We are told to trust in God in the afterlife. There is no emphasis on Satan. I've been taught that is a Christian concept. So my thoughts about an afterlife are really on my own. None of the quotes talks about souls, and in my mind if souls enter an afterlife they carry soul/consciousness with them. Souls are discussed and recognized (Neshamah in Hebrew). Animals also are considered to have souls (Nefesh). With our different backgrounds, I can see why we look at it differently.-According to the OT, humans and animals do not HAVE souls, they ARE souls. A rather subtle but profound difference. (Gen 2:18-20, Ecc 3:19,20, Num 31:28)->The traditional rendering of the Hebrew word ne?phesh and the Greek word psy·khe?. In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal has. (Ge 1:20; 2:7; Nu 31:28; 1Pe 3:20; also ftns.) In contrast to the way that the term “soul” is used in many religious contexts, the Bible shows that both ne?phesh and psy·khe?, in connection with earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal. ..words have most often been rendered according to their meaning in each context, using such terms as “life,” “creature,” “person,” “one's whole being,” or simply as a personal pronoun (for example, “I” for “my soul”)... When referring to doing something with one's whole soul, it means to do it with one's whole being, wholeheartedly, or with one's whole life. (De 6:5; Mt 22:37) In some contexts, these original-language words can be used to refer to the desire or appetite of a living creature. They can also refer to a dead person or a dead body.—Nu 6:6; Pr 23:2; Isa 56:11; Hag 2:13. - As I have said before, Ancient Hebrew was a concrete language. They simply did not have words for intangible abstract concepts. If they had to refer to an abstract, it was done through the illustration of something tangible. For example, the word for "spirit" literally means breath or wind, and the word for passion literally meant a flaring of the nostrils.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 22:33 (3317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: According to the OT, humans and animals do not HAVE souls, they ARE souls. A rather subtle but profound difference. (Gen 2:18-20, Ecc 3:19,20, Num 31:28)-You are exactly correct. I should have stated it that way: -Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord god formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."-> > Tony: As I have said before, Ancient Hebrew was a concrete language. They simply did not have words for intangible abstract concepts. If they had to refer to an abstract, it was done through the illustration of something tangible. For example, the word for "spirit" literally means breath or wind, and the word for passion literally meant a flaring of the nostrils.-I am amazed at your education. Again, thank you.
Dualism
by BBella , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 19:45 (3317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: It doesn't matter if they believed the dead were in heaven, or hell, or walking around on the earth. If they believed the dead were alive (in the sense of an afterlife) then the deception hit right on the money. > > > > But if it changes atheists into believers, what does Satan gain? > > > > > Atheist are believers, too, you know, but they believe a lie. Still, belief is not enough. Even demons believe in God. Yet if you believe but continue to do what is wrong, what virtue is there in your belief. Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26) > > > > > Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. > > > > Quotation, please. > > Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7,-I've believed both ways on these scriptures (in the past) when affiliated with two different religions. One religion believed those scriptures and others like them were meant to address the physical body when the spirit leaves; the body itself is no longer conscious of anything. It is dead. The other religion believed as you do, though a different religion than yours.
Dualism
TONY: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. If satan convinces someone of ANYTHING other than that, he has made god a liar.-David asked for quotations, and you offered Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7. I don't even know if God exists, and I certainly don't think any human can tell us with authority “God says...”. Your post takes us back to the old problem of authorship. My Oxford Companion to the Bible says of Ecclesiastes: “How this book found a place in the Hebrew canon remains a puzzle.” Well, some fallible human put it there, just as some fallible human decided the dead are conscious of nothing. (I'd better make the usual remark that I don't have a clue - I can only pick on points raised here.) The unknown author (David?) of the Psalms does say that human thoughts perish, but then he obviously didn't know that our thoughts survive in the backup you keep telling us about, so that doesn't count. Psalm 115, 7 deals with idols, so you've got the reference wrong there. A quick google reveals Luke 16, 19-31 for a parable in which the dead talk to the dead (as well as mentioning hell and, presumably by extension, heaven). Was this Mr. Satan putting a wacky idea into Jesus's head (or into Luke's, since he's our reporter)? Then there's Jesus himself who dies and comes to life again, and who also tells his crucified neighbour, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Not much of a promise if the guy isn't even going to know he's there. DHW: ... Ultimately, what “matters” in my view is (a) what seems right to you, and (b) that what seems right to you does no harm to others and, preferably, actively benefits you and others. I would like to think that is the case with all the nice folk on this forum! TONY: And believe it or not, to a large extent the bible actually largely AGREES WITH YOU... -Yes, it's a basic tenet in most religions and in humanism and in any half decent society: do as you would be done by. TONY: Unfortunately, what you seem to fail to see is that these pagan holidays and traditions were meant to honor other gods. Even praying to the statue of Mary is bowing before a false idol, because Mary is NOT god. So, what you see as innocent harmless fun, is not innocent.-I never raised this subject, never commented, don't know why you raised it, and can't see its relevance to consciousness and the “spirit” and a possible afterlife. DAVID: But if it [the NDE]changes atheists into believers, what does Satan gain? TONY: ...if you believe but continue to do what is wrong, what virtue is there in your belief. Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26)-Who is talking about doing wrong? Is my sweet Mrs X, who loves God, Jesus and her neighbours, and never said boo to a goose, doing wrong because she hopes to go to heaven when she dies? I don't get the impression that Eben Alexander is now seeking to preach God and serve the Devil either.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 20:56 (3317 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. > If satan convinces someone of ANYTHING other than that, he has made god a liar. > > David asked for quotations, and you offered Ecc 9:5,6,10 Psalms 146:3,4, Psalm 115:7. > I don't even know if God exists...Your post takes us back to the old problem of authorship. My Oxford Companion to the Bible says of Ecclesiastes: “How this book found a place in the Hebrew canon remains a puzzle.” Well, some fallible human put it there, just as some fallible human decided the dead are conscious of nothing. (I'd better make the usual remark that I don't have a clue - I can only pick on points raised here.) The unknown author (David?) of the Psalms does say that human thoughts perish, but then he obviously didn't know that our thoughts survive in the backup you keep telling us about, so that doesn't count. Psalm 115, 7 deals with idols, so you've got the reference wrong there. A quick google reveals Luke 16, 19-31 for a parable in which the dead talk to the dead (as well as mentioning hell and, presumably by extension, heaven). Was this Mr. Satan putting a wacky idea into Jesus's head (or into Luke's, since he's our reporter)? Then there's Jesus himself who dies and comes to life again, and who also tells his crucified neighbour, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Not much of a promise if the guy isn't even going to know he's there. > -I view the bible as the divinely inspired word of God. I have given you the litmus test for that. You disagree. We shall just have to agree to disagree. I never said that "thought survives", I said information survives. One is a noun, one is a verb. As for Luke, (a) it is a parable (which even you recognize) and (b) read it all the way to the end. The point of the whole parable was that, as I have said to you before, some people won't believe the truth, even if you brought someone back from the dead to prove it to them. -One article says:->By what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus, did Jesus teach torment of the wicked after death? >Is the account, at Luke 16:19-31, literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one's fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself. >What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54. >What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire? >In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the “nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom's hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.—La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.--->DHW> I never raised this subject, never commented, don't know why you raised it, and can't see its relevance to consciousness and the “spirit” and a possible afterlife. > -It was relevant because you were talking about NDErs that converted, and asking what the harm could be or what Satan could hope to accomplish. - >DHW: Who is talking about doing wrong? Is my sweet Mrs X, who loves God, Jesus and her neighbours, and never said boo to a goose, doing wrong because she hopes to go to heaven when she dies? I don't get the impression that Eben Alexander is now seeking to preach God and serve the Devil either.-(That part you didn't understand above was about your sweet Mrs. X) You always kind of seem to miss the forest for the trees. If you were given a road map, with a series of left and right turns to navigate, would you need to turn the opposite direction each time in order to get lost? No, you need only NOT turn in the correct direction. Satan doesn't have to get people to serve him, he only has to get people to either a) not serve god, or b) *think* they are serving god when in fact that are doing things detestable to him.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
Tony: God Says: The dead are conscious of nothing. dhw: The unknown author (David?) of the Psalms does say that human thoughts perish, but then he obviously didn't know that our thoughts survive in the backup you keep telling us about, so that doesn't count.-TONY: I never said that "thought survives", I said information survives. One is a noun, one is a verb. -Thought and information are nouns, survive is a verb. What does that prove? How the backup can record the information that constitutes my individual identity, and yet exclude my opinions, hopes, beliefs, memories, predilections, tastes and all my other characteristic thoughts I do not know. TONY: As for Luke, (a) it is a parable (which even you recognize) and (b) read it all the way to the end. The point of the whole parable was that, as I have said to you before, some people won't believe the truth, even if you brought someone back from the dead to prove it to them. -I did read the parable to the end, and got the message. “...Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” does not mean that people don't rise from the dead. My point is that Jesus (or Luke, the reporter) used an image of dead people talking to dead people (one in hell, the other presumably in heaven), which seems a highly unlikely image for someone who knows that dead people don't talk to each other and there is no such place as hell. I notice you've skipped my reference to Jesus himself (and his promise to his neighbour on the cross) as a prime example of a dead man walking and talking. TONY : ...Pagan holidays and traditions were meant to honor other gods...So, what you see as innocent harmless fun, is not innocent. DHW: I never raised this subject, never commented, don't know why you raised it, and can't see its relevance to consciousness and the “spirit” and a possible afterlife.-TONY: It was relevant because you were talking about NDErs that converted, and asking what the harm could be or what Satan could hope to accomplish.-I don't know what pagan holidays and traditions have to do with NDE patients turning to the God you worship. Once more, please tell us what Satan would have gained from their new or reinforced love of your God. TONY: ...if you believe but continue to do what is wrong, what virtue is there is your belief. Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26) DHW: Who is talking about doing wrong? Tony [...] Satan doesn't have to get people to serve him, he only has to get people to either a) not serve god, or b) *think* they are serving god when in fact that are doing things detestable to him.-But my sweet Mrs X is serving God, worshipping him and nobody but him, and helping her neighbours, and her only “crime” is believing she has a soul that will go to heaven when she dies. This is what she has been told by Mummy and Daddy and the Reverend Moishe Mohammed Smith. Bearing in mind your quote from James, and the fact that she hasn't read a couple of lines in Ecclesiastes or been informed of your interpretation of God's thoughts, what wrong is she actually DOING that you think is so detestable to God?
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 22, 2015, 14:34 (3317 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: But my sweet Mrs X is serving God, worshipping him and nobody but him, and helping her neighbours, and her only “crime” is believing she has a soul that will go to heaven when she dies. This is what she has been told by Mummy and Daddy and the Reverend Moishe Mohammed Smith. Bearing in mind your quote from James, and the fact that she hasn't read a couple of lines in Ecclesiastes or been informed of your interpretation of God's thoughts, what wrong is she actually DOING that you think is so detestable to God?-I am totally confused by this discussion. My Judaism is much simpler.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 23, 2015, 00:34 (3316 days ago) @ David Turell
David: I am totally confused by this discussion. My Judaism is much simpler.-It doesn't have to be confusing. Quite often the discussions on here become circular because we each talk from our respective systems of beliefs. In this case, the discussion is actually quite simple. -DHW Is wondering how NDE's bringing people to religion could be a win for satan. I am trying to explain to him that if their religion has them worshiping false gods, even through ignorance, then it is a win for satan.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 23, 2015, 00:21 (3316 days ago) @ dhw
Thought and information are nouns, survive is a verb. What does that prove? How the backup can record the information that constitutes my individual identity, and yet exclude my opinions, hopes, beliefs, memories, predilections, tastes and all my other characteristic thoughts I do not know.- Pardon me, I was looking at thought as an action (past tense), a thought, once thought, is not longer a thought, but information. Thinking, the action producing said thought, is the verb which ceases upon death. Clear as mud?- > > TONY: As for Luke, (a) it is a parable (which even you recognize) and (b) read it all the way to the end. The point of the whole parable was that, as I have said to you before, some people won't believe the truth, even if you brought someone back from the dead to prove it to them. > >DHW: .. My point is that Jesus (or Luke, the reporter) used an image of dead people talking to dead people (one in hell, the other presumably in heaven), which seems a highly unlikely image for someone who knows that dead people don't talk to each other and there is no such place as hell. I notice you've skipped my reference to Jesus himself (and his promise to his neighbour on the cross) as a prime example of a dead man walking and talking.-That Christ promised his neighbor that he would be with him in paradise is a reference to the resurrection, not to walking talking dead. It is not a highly unlikely image if you consider the audience was not just Jews, but gentiles who believed in Hades (Greeks).->DHW: I don't know what pagan holidays and traditions have to do with NDE patients turning to the God you worship. Once more, please tell us what Satan would have gained from their new or reinforced love of your God. >-This is where a lack of biblical knowledge kind of comes into play. Doing things for false gods is considered spiritual adultery. It got the Israelites in a whole heap of trouble repeatedly throughout their history. Pagan holidays are celebrations to pagan gods. Easter to the Goddess Ishtar. New Years to the Roman God Janus. Valentines Day goes back to Lupercalia for Lupercus, a fertility god. Halloween goes back to Samhain when the dead could walk among the living. Christmas goes back to Saturnalia for the Roman God Saturn.-If God requires exclusive devotion, and people are lead to a system of beliefs that deceptively encourages the worship and celebration of other God's, then how do you think that will work for them? The information regarding the pagan origins are pretty common knowledge, so they can't claim ignorance, and the admonition to only worship Jehovah is explicit in the bible, so they can't claim they didn't know it was wrong. - >DHW: But my sweet Mrs X is serving God, worshiping him and nobody but him, and helping her neighbours, and her only “crime” is believing she has a soul that will go to heaven when she dies. This is what she has been told by Mummy and Daddy and the Reverend Moishe Mohammed Smith. Bearing in mind your quote from James, and the fact that she hasn't read a couple of lines in Ecclesiastes or been informed of your interpretation of God's thoughts, what wrong is she actually DOING that you think is so detestable to God?-Mrs. X's crime is knowingly choosing to practice things which are detestable to god. See the information on pagan holidays above. Failure to read and study the bible is not an excuse either. There are numerous admonitions throughout the bible regarding such things, and it instructs to examine the scriptures daily and to keep digging as if for buried treasure. If she makes no effort to learn, then what she has is faith without works.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
Dhw: Thought and information are nouns, survive is a verb. What does that prove? TONY: Pardon me, I was looking at thought as an action (past tense), a thought, once thought, is not longer a thought, but information. Thinking, the action producing said thought, is the verb which ceases upon death. Clear as mud?-You used Psalm 146 to support your claim that “God says: the dead are conscious of nothing.” The relevant words here are: “In that very day his thoughts [= noun, i.e. the product and not the action of thinking] perish”. I pointed out that according to you, our opinions, hopes, beliefs, memories etc. were stored away in a memory stick. For us to be ourselves again, the information it stores must include such thoughts. And so according to you, human thoughts do not perish. Exeunt two of your proofs, since Psalm 115 proved to be a wrong reference. -dhw: I notice you've skipped my reference to Jesus himself (and his promise to his neighbour on the cross) as a prime example of a dead man walking and talking. TONY: That Christ promised his neighbor that he would be with him in paradise is a reference to the resurrection, not to walking talking dead. -According to Luke, Jesus says: “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Not “Hey buddy, I'll see you in a few thousand years when I put your memory stick back in your skeleton!” And you've again skipped the example of Christ himself.-TONY: It is not a highly unlikely image if you consider the audience was not just Jews, but gentiles who believed in Hades (Greeks).-Ugh, why encourage these ignorant gentiles with a story that confirms their Satanic beliefs? DHW: I don't know what pagan holidays and traditions have to do with NDE patients turning to the God you worship. Once more, please tell us what Satan would have gained from their new or reinforced love of your God. TONY: Doing things for false gods is considered spiritual adultery. It got the Israelites in a whole heap of trouble repeatedly throughout their history. Pagan holidays are celebrations to pagan gods. Easter to the Goddess Ishtar. New Years to the Roman God Janus [etc....] The information regarding the pagan origins are pretty common knowledge, so they can't claim ignorance, and the admonition to only worship Jehovah is explicit in the bible, so they can't claim they didn't know it was wrong-Have you studied these NDEs? Or are you simply assuming that anyone who turns to God is automatically a pagan unless he accepts your interpretation of the Bible and your concept of how Jehovah is to be worshipped? DHW: But my sweet Mrs X is serving God, worshiping him and nobody but him, and helping her neighbours [...] what wrong is she actually DOING that you think is so detestable to God? TONY: Mrs. X's crime is knowingly choosing to practice things which are detestable to god. See the information on pagan holidays above. Failure to read and study the bible is not an excuse either. There are numerous admonitions throughout the bible regarding such things...-What detestable things is she practising? Again, you are assuming that this adorable lady, who worships the same God as you, is a wicked pagan just because she hopes to go to heaven when she dies. Even if she goes to church over Easter, thinking she's commemorating the death and return to life of Jesus (which in my view she understandably regards as evidence that the dead simply move to another plane of life), do you truly believe that Satan's got her, and God and Jesus find her worship detestable? Honestly, hand on heart?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 23, 2015, 20:02 (3315 days ago) @ dhw
What is the difference between these two:-"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."-Greeks didn't use commas. Jesus was dead for three days and only resurrected after three days. So, given that piece of information, which insertion of the comma above (in the translation to English) makes sense?- > What detestable things is she practising? Again, you are assuming that this adorable lady, who worships the same God as you, is a wicked pagan just because she hopes to go to heaven when she dies. Even if she goes to church over Easter, thinking she's commemorating the death and return to life of Jesus (which in my view she understandably regards as evidence that the dead simply move to another plane of life), do you truly believe that Satan's got her, and God and Jesus find her worship detestable? Honestly, hand on heart?-It is not my place to judge her. However, that pagan influence is something that the bible is quite clear on. The bible also states that there are provisions made for those that truly are ignorant that something they are doing is wrong, as opposed to those that know it is wrong and do it anyway. (That's discussed in Romans and I have mentioned it in previous discussions). Worshiping pagan god's is wrong. Not sure what else you want to hear, as apparently your primary argument seems to be that people should do whatever THEY feel is right and good, and as long as they do that all should be well. I am actually surprised that you make that argument considering that even in OUR legal system, ignorance of the law is no excuse from it. And God's legal system is far less convoluted than our own.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: What is the difference between these two: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” "Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Greeks didn't use commas. Jesus was dead for three days and only resurrected after three days. So, given that piece of information, which insertion of the comma above (in the translation to English) makes sense?-Remind me to get a Watchtower lawyer if I ever get into trouble! The St James version reads: “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Unequivocal. You tell us the Bible is the word of God - but presumably that only applies to your version. The St James version must have been fiddled by Satan, then. (The three-day break is a mystery, but we know from NDEs that it's only a matter of minutes to get there and back. Easy for Jesus.) Scene: a court in heaven. God and Jesus presiding. The year 5000,000,014 (shortly after Charles Taze Russell's prediction) -FRED: I thought you said I would be with you in paradise on the day we were crucified! JESUS: Misunderstanding, my friend. You put the non-existent comma in the wrong place. GOD: And since you believed that when you died, your conscious spirit would immediately go to paradise, you have despicably let yourself be used by Satan. Guilty. FRED: But I've just heard that Jesus's conscious spirit went straight to paradise. JESUS: Not till three days later. FRED: So what were your body and spirit doing for three days? JESUS: I ain't tellin'. GOD: Next! *************************-TONY: Worshiping pagan god's is wrong. -My lovely Mrs X isn't worshipping a pagan God. She worships your God and Jesus. -TONY: Not sure what else you want to hear, as apparently your primary argument seems to be that people should do whatever THEY feel is right and good, and as long as they do that all should be well. I am actually surprised that you make that argument considering that even in OUR legal system, ignorance of the law is no excuse from it. And God's legal system is far less convoluted than our own.-Hold on, hold on, not only is my sweet Mrs X suddenly worshipping pagan gods, but now I'm arguing for a free-for-all! I have stated my position: “Ultimately, what “matters”...is (a)what seems right to you, and (b) that what seems right to you does no harm to others and, preferably, benefits you and others.” That is the basis of most religions, humanism and the laws of our would-be democratic society. In my view, (b) is broken for instance by anyone who feels it is right and good to go out and kill people who disagree with his version of God's laws. And if you prosecute my beloved Mrs X for believing she has a conscious soul that might go to heaven when she dies, I shall defend her by informing the court that your view of the law depends on a few words in the Bible, of which there is nobody on this earth who is capable of offering a definitive interpretation, as is proved by your juggling with Luke 23, 43, and your problems with Psalm 146,4.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 21:42 (3314 days ago) @ dhw
Remind me to get a Watchtower lawyer if I ever get into trouble! The St James version reads: “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Unequivocal. You tell us the Bible is the word of God - but presumably that only applies to your version. The St James version must have been fiddled by Satan, then. (The three-day break is a mystery, but we know from NDEs that it's only a matter of minutes to get there and back. Easy for Jesus.) > > Scene: a court in heaven. God and Jesus presiding. The year 5000,000,014 (shortly after Charles Taze Russell's prediction) > > FRED: I thought you said I would be with you in paradise on the day we were crucified! > JESUS: Misunderstanding, my friend. You put the non-existent comma in the wrong place. > GOD: And since you believed that when you died, your conscious spirit would immediately go to paradise, you have despicably let yourself be used by Satan. Guilty. > FRED: But I've just heard that Jesus's conscious spirit went straight to paradise. > JESUS: Not till three days later. > FRED: So what were your body and spirit doing for three days? > JESUS: I ain't tellin'. > GOD: Next! > *************************- I'm not the judge, but I would assume that anyone that removed the pagan teachings from their doctrine (i.e. Heaven/Hell afterlife, trinitarian godhead, and other such stuff) and spent some time studying the bible as it is, would quickly realize what the intent was. It is the inclusion of those ideologies which stem from pagan origins that muddy up the waters. God judges hearts and intent as well as actions. I have repeatedly said I do not have the right nor the authority to judge anyone, much less convict them of crimes. I am merely telling you what is in the bible. You, and everyone else, have the free will to make their own choices of what to do with the information, provided you understand the potential consequences of doing your own thing. That was Pascal's Wager. - > > TONY: Worshiping pagan god's is wrong. > > My lovely Mrs X isn't worshipping a pagan God. She worships your God and Jesus. > > TONY: Not sure what else you want to hear, as apparently your primary argument seems to be that people should do whatever THEY feel is right and good, and as long as they do that all should be well. I am actually surprised that you make that argument considering that even in OUR legal system, ignorance of the law is no excuse from it. And God's legal system is far less convoluted than our own. > >DHW: Hold on, hold on, not only is my sweet Mrs X suddenly worshipping pagan gods, but now I'm arguing for a free-for-all! I have stated my position: “Ultimately, what “matters”...is (a)what seems right to you, and (b) that what seems right to you does no harm to others and, preferably, benefits you and others.” That is the basis of most religions, humanism and the laws of our would-be democratic society. In my view, (b) is broken for instance by anyone who feels it is right and good to go out and kill people who disagree with his version of God's laws. And if you prosecute my beloved Mrs X for believing she has a conscious soul that might go to heaven when she dies, I shall defend her by informing the court that your view of the law depends on a few words in the Bible, of which there is nobody on this earth who is capable of offering a definitive interpretation, as is proved by your juggling with Luke 23, 43, and your problems with Psalm 146,4.-So, in your eyes, participating in celebrations that honor pagan gods is not a direct contradiction of the 1st of the 10 commandments? Praying to Mary Magdalene/Crucifix is not a violation of the 2nd?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: I'm not the judge, but I would assume that anyone that removed the pagan teachings from their doctrine (i.e. Heaven/Hell afterlife, trinitarian godhead, and other such stuff) and spent some time studying the bible as it is, would quickly realize what the intent was. -What do you mean by “the bible as it is”? There are different translations and different interpretations of the words. You ARE judging: you are telling us that your version is right and other people's is wrong. Is the St James' version of the verse in Luke the work of Satan, then? And if someone prays to God or Christ on Easter Day, do God and Christ become pagan gods because it's actually Mumbo-Jumbo Day? (To set the personal record straight, I say let ‘em worship Mumbo-Jumbo, so long as their beliefs are beneficial to themselves and others - but we should keep this discussion within the framework of your own creed.) TONY: I am merely telling you what is in the bible. -No, you are telling me your interpretation of what is in the Bible. Here you have glossed over the parable in Luke 16, the verse in Luke 23.43, and the contradiction between Psalm 146 and your theory of the backup memory stick. We have disagreed elsewhere on Deuteronomy and other parts of the Bible, as do many scholars, and if we add discrepancies between translations, I still say no version can claim to be THE version. TONY: You, and everyone else, have the free will to make their own choices of what to do with the information, provided you understand the potential consequences of doing your own thing. That was Pascal's Wager.-Pascal's Wager was that if you lived a life of faith in God, you might go to heaven, if you didn't you might go to hell, and if there was no God, you would not have lost anything, so why not make the bet? He never said: bet on what Tony tells you is in the Bible and ignore other views, because if you don't, you'll be in trouble (though you won't go to heaven for a few billion years, or to hell because it doesn't exist). Dhw: [...]if you prosecute my beloved Mrs X for believing she has a conscious soul that might go to heaven when she dies, I shall defend her by informing the court that your view of the law depends on a few words in the Bible, of which there is nobody on this earth who is capable of offering a definitive interpretation [...] TONY: So, in your eyes, participating in celebrations that honor pagan gods is not a direct contradiction of the 1st of the 10 commandments? Praying to Mary Magdalene/Crucifix is not a violation of the 2nd?-I don't know why worshipping God and Christ at Easter counts as worshipping pagan gods, but yes, as phrased by you, these would be violations. That is not the point at issue here. We are discussing NDEs and your belief that they are an attempt by Satan to turn patients away from what you say is the Bible's teaching that there is no life after death until God puts a memory stick into the skeleton. I have challenged this interpretation, which you based on a couple of sentences in Ecclesiastes, a psalm which contradicts your own theory, and another psalm which was a false reference. I have offered you two passages in the Bible which suggest the opposite of what you claim, and I have pointed out that the tale of Jesus himself is a prime example of a conscious spirit surviving the death of the body. Your response is to grumble about Catholics praying to a crucifix! -On an overall level, I dispute almost all of your basic premises, but I am doing my best to stay within your own theistic framework to test some of those premises, as detailed above. I need to add, though, that I'm quite sure you would not espouse any cause you felt was not beneficial to yourself and others, and I do admire the steadfastness of your faith and am grateful for the trouble you take to explain it.
Dualism
by BBella , Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 18:26 (3313 days ago) @ dhw
> On an overall level, I dispute almost all of your basic premises, but I am doing my best to stay within your own theistic framework to test some of those premises, as detailed above. -Just want to add my appreciation of this discussion and dhw's questions, testing Tony's theistic belief's (most of which were my own for many years) and hearing Tony's answers to his probing. Hearing my own (past) views discussed from different points of view (including Davids and my own current view) is truly helping me to once again ponder these things. ->I need to add, though, that I'm quite sure you would not espouse any cause you felt was not beneficial to yourself and others, and I do admire the steadfastness of your faith and am grateful for the trouble you take to explain it.-I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you, David and Tony for always providing such interesting discussions!
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 19:33 (3313 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: I'm not the judge, but I would assume that anyone that removed the pagan teachings from their doctrine (i.e. Heaven/Hell afterlife, trinitarian godhead, and other such stuff) and spent some time studying the bible as it is, would quickly realize what the intent was. > > What do you mean by “the bible as it is”? There are different translations and different interpretations of the words. You ARE judging: you are telling us that your version is right and other people's is wrong. Is the St James' version of the verse in Luke the work of Satan, then? And if someone prays to God or Christ on Easter Day, do God and Christ become pagan gods because it's actually Mumbo-Jumbo Day? (To set the personal record straight, I say let ‘em worship Mumbo-Jumbo, so long as their beliefs are beneficial to themselves and others - but we should keep this discussion within the framework of your own creed.) > -Even in the many, many different translations there are numerous common elements. When those elements are understood as a cohesive whole instead of people trying to cherry pick commas to prove an otherwise scriptural doctrine, the meaning and intent is crystal clear. You, by focusing on that one passage completely ignore the books of Daniel, Isaiah (Read CH 65), Psalms (37:29, 72:16) Revelation 21, etc. The list is long and plentiful The point is, you can choose to understand that however you want, but if you are ignoring the greater majority of the bible in order to interpret one line the way you want, then you are not really being honest.- > TONY: I am merely telling you what is in the bible. > > No, you are telling me your interpretation of what is in the Bible. Here you have glossed over the parable in Luke 16, the verse in Luke 23.43, and the contradiction between Psalm 146 and your theory of the backup memory stick. We have disagreed elsewhere on Deuteronomy and other parts of the Bible, as do many scholars, and if we add discrepancies between translations, I still say no version can claim to be THE version. > -Negative. I am telling you what is in the bible. Any version you pick up, when taken as a whole, will tell you the same thing. - -> Dhw: [...]if you prosecute my beloved Mrs X for believing she has a conscious soul that might go to heaven when she dies, I shall defend her by informing the court that your view of the law depends on a few words in the Bible, of which there is nobody on this earth who is capable of offering a definitive interpretation [...] > TONY: So, in your eyes, participating in celebrations that honor pagan gods is not a direct contradiction of the 1st of the 10 commandments? Praying to Mary Magdalene/Crucifix is not a violation of the 2nd? > > I don't know why worshipping God and Christ at Easter counts as worshipping pagan gods, but yes, as phrased by you, these would be violations. That is not the point at issue here. We are discussing NDEs and your belief that they are an attempt by Satan to turn patients away from what you say is the Bible's teaching that there is no life after death until God puts a memory stick into the skeleton. I have challenged this interpretation, which you based on a couple of sentences in Ecclesiastes, a psalm which contradicts your own theory, and another psalm which was a false reference. I have offered you two passages in the Bible which suggest the opposite of what you claim, and I have pointed out that the tale of Jesus himself is a prime example of a conscious spirit surviving the death of the body. Your response is to grumble about Catholics praying to a crucifix! > -John 17:3- > On an overall level, I dispute almost all of your basic premises, but I am doing my best to stay within your own theistic framework to test some of those premises, as detailed above. I need to add, though, that I'm quite sure you would not espouse any cause you felt was not beneficial to yourself and others, and I do admire the steadfastness of your faith and am grateful for the trouble you take to explain it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: I'm not the judge, but I would assume that anyone that removed the pagan teachings from their doctrine (i.e. Heaven/Hell afterlife, trinitarian godhead, and other such stuff) and spent some time studying the bible as it is, would quickly realize what the intent was. Dhw: What do you mean by “the bible as it is”? There are different translations and different interpretations of the words. You ARE judging: you are telling us that your version is right and other people's is wrong. Is the St James' version of the verse in Luke the work of Satan, then? -TONY: Even in the many, many different translations there are numerous common elements. When those elements are understood as a cohesive whole instead of people trying to cherry pick commas to prove an otherwise scriptural doctrine, the meaning and intent is crystal clear. -Of course there are many common elements. The selection committees saw to that. And the main common element is that there is only one God - the Jewish God of the OT and the Christian God of the NT. But there are many controversial elements on which you and other biblical scholars often vehemently disagree, and in those individual cases the meaning and intent are obviously not crystal clear. You cannot hide from the details by pleading for generality. We ourselves have argued over blood, mixed-faith marriages, justification for war, heaven and hell. You have now attributed near-death experience of a conscious spirit to the work of Satan, and have offered biblical quotes in support of your argument. Among the quotes was Psalm 146, which appeared to contradict your belief in a memory stick containing all the information of the dead person. I also quoted the Bible as regards Jesus's neighbour on the cross, and it was you who quibbled over the comma and now refuse to tell me if this “crystal clear” version of God's word is the work of Satan. I cited the not insignificant example of Jesus, who apparently died but appeared as himself to the disciples. You have never responded to this. You go on to cite more references in support of your interpretation, and most of them do offer your vision of a paradise on earth for those who obey God. However, I have offered you Luke 16. 19-31 in which Jesus himself tells a story involving dead spirits talking from heaven and hell (which you say doesn't exist); there are more such direct examples in Matthew 17, 1-5; 1 Samuel 28, 14ff; Revelations 6, 9-10, all gleaned from a Christian website emphatically opposed to your beliefs (though I was not impressed by some of their arguments. That's the trouble - interpretation is all so subjective). -I am not taking sides, even on the issue of NDEs. I am challenging what seem to me to be suspect arguments. You say that if I ignore “the great majority of the bible in order to interpret one line the way you want, then you are not really being honest.” If I draw your attention to biblical passages or events or interpretations that appear to contradict your very specific beliefs, bearing in mind your claim that every word is inspired by God, I don't know why this should be a sign of dishonesty on my part. If you cannot find a convincing explanation, then simply say so. I greatly respect your opinions and your faith, but you say: “I am telling you what is in the bible. Any version you pick up, when taken as a whole, will tell you the same thing.” You cannot take the Bible “as a whole” when you are dealing with individual issues. The Bible contains many statements about these issues, and if you maintain they are all the absolute truth, either you can sort out the discrepancies, or there has to be a flaw in your beliefs.
Dualism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 26, 2015, 23:07 (3312 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You cannot take the Bible “as a whole” when you are dealing with individual issues. The Bible contains many statements about these issues, and if you maintain they are all the absolute truth, either you can sort out the discrepancies, or there has to be a flaw in your beliefs.-The different scholars of Bible writings have different opinions about sources of the material. How many authors wrote Genesis? More than one. If humans do the writing then there are errors in concepts and interpretation. There were human committees for both testaments to decide what is included and what is not. Not included means not inspired accurately by God? I'll stick to using science.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 26, 2015, 23:39 (3312 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: ...You have now attributed near-death experience of a conscious spirit to the work of Satan, and have offered biblical quotes in support of your argument. Among the quotes was Psalm 146, which appeared to contradict your belief in a memory stick containing all the information of the dead person. -Not just NDE's. All instances of communication with dead spirits. - >DHW: I also quoted the Bible as regards Jesus's neighbour on the cross, and it was you who quibbled over the comma and now refuse to tell me if this “crystal clear” version of God's word is the work of Satan. -You, as someone who has done translation work (unless I am mistaken) certainly know the difference a comma, or lack of one, can make. When translating, you have to take the context into account as well. Yes, as you said, the 'selection committees', particularly the council of Nicea and those that closely followed did influence things, as both politics and church doctrine did later. Within 2 centuries after Christ's death, the 'church' had become a political creature, and its various councils and decisions were made as much, if not more, based off of worldly political concerns than anything scriptural. This is a well known and documented fact, it is also the reason I do not trust some of the earlier translations of the Bibles which were influenced by church doctrine which was in turn influenced by politics. Translations since the dead sea scrolls were found are much more accurate. - >DWH: I cited the not insignificant example of Jesus, who apparently died but appeared as himself to the disciples. You have never responded to this. - Christ was DEAD for three days prior to his resurrection to a spiritual form. While he was dead, he was not aware of anything. When he was resurrected, he did indeed inhabit a spiritual form. He was also the first person to ascend to heaven. (John 3:13) If all the dead go to heaven or hell, then that scripture would be a lie.-->DHW: If I draw your attention to biblical passages or events or interpretations that appear to contradict your very specific beliefs, bearing in mind your claim that every word is inspired by God, I don't know why this should be a sign of dishonesty on my part...You cannot take the Bible “as a whole” when you are dealing with individual issues. The Bible contains many statements about these issues, and if you maintain they are all the absolute truth, either you can sort out the discrepancies, or there has to be a flaw in your beliefs.- Actually you can take the bible as a whole, even on specific issues, and it is the fact that people have NOT been doing this that causes so many problems. If you were to read a news paper and a fable one after the other, you would not say that the moral of the fable was any less potent because it wasn't couched in the context of a 100% literal news story. Yet, when you go quoting the bible, you often do just that. You take was is explicitly stated as a parable (fiction meant to teach a lesson) and try to read it like a news article. When taken as a whole, cross-referencing, and looking at the principles, those so-called discrepancies disappear.- And sometimes I don't answer you because my time to research something thoroughly is very limited at the moment.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
DHW: ...You have now attributed near-death experience of a conscious spirit to the work of Satan, and have offered biblical quotes in support of your argument. Among the quotes was Psalm 146, which appeared to contradict your belief in a memory stick containing all the information of the dead person. TONY: Not just NDE's. All instances of communication with dead spirits. -Psalm 146 still contradicts your belief in the memory stick. I gave you four biblical references to communication with dead spirits, including the parable in Luke (and I still find it odd that Jesus told such a story if he didn't believe in talking spirits, or heaven and hell). Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. Presumably, then, Matthew and the authors of Samuel and Revelations have been tricked by Satan - but then we can hardly say these texts are the Word of God, can we?-DHW: I also quoted the Bible as regards Jesus's neighbour on the cross, and it was you who quibbled over the comma and now refuse to tell me if this “crystal clear” version of God's word is the work of Satan. -TONY: You, as someone who has done translation work (unless I am mistaken) certainly know the difference a comma, or lack of one, can make. When translating, you have to take the context into account as well. Yes, as you said, the 'selection committees', particularly the council of Nicea and those that closely followed did influence things, as both politics and church doctrine did later. Within 2 centuries after Christ's death, the 'church' had become a political creature, and its various councils and decisions were made as much, if not more, based off of worldly political concerns than anything scriptural. This is a well known and documented fact, it is also the reason I do not trust some of the earlier translations of the Bibles which were influenced by church doctrine which was in turn influenced by politics. Translations since the dead sea scrolls were found are much more accurate.-I have indeed translated many books covering a vast range of subjects, and there is no doubt that a comma can change the meaning of a sentence. So why do you complain about “people trying to cherry pick commas to prove an otherwise scriptural doctrine, the meaning and intent is crystal clear”? I note that in my Watchtower translation of Samuel, the raised spirit is not referred to as Samuel, but as “Samuel”. Where did the translators get the inverted commas from? In Luke's account of Jesus's promise to his neighbour, as you pointed out, the word order and punctuation have been adjusted to completely change the meaning. I have asked you many times which version of the Bible is the Word of God. Now you are agreeing that some translations are not the Word of God. Thank you. Unless you are an expert in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, how can you even begin to judge the accuracy of any translation? Experts disagree anyway. Do you really think Jehovah's Witness translators are more objective and knowledgeable than any others? DWH: I cited the not insignificant example of Jesus, who apparently died but appeared as himself to the disciples. You have never responded to this. -TONY: Christ was DEAD for three days prior to his resurrection to a spiritual form. While he was dead, he was not aware of anything. When he was resurrected, he did indeed inhabit a spiritual form. He was also the first person to ascend to heaven. (John 3:13) If all the dead go to heaven or hell, then that scripture would be a lie.-Nobody, including you, knows what happened to Christ during the three days after his physical death. I'm not sure what you mean by “resurrection to a spiritual form”. You have told us that the spirit returns to God without consciousness, which it only regains when the body has been resurrected and the memory stick inserted. So please clarify: did Jesus return from the dead, appear to the disciples (once apparently walking through walls, since the doors had been locked), and ascend to heaven in his own physical, memory-stick-reinforced body, or as a conscious spirit? As always, I must repeat that I don't understand NDEs and have an open mind about their implications. What I am challenging is your assumption that the sometimes very moving stories of love and reunion (plus the acquisition of information they could not otherwise have known) are all part of Satan's evil plan to make people act AGAINST the very God they believe in and worship. You base this on texts which now even you have admitted are unreliable - apart from the JW translation, which apparently alone can claim to be the Word of God, though even then it can't avoid openness to different interpretations.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 27, 2015, 20:22 (3311 days ago) @ dhw
Let me answer your last statement first.->DHW:You base this on texts which now even you have admitted are unreliable - apart from the JW translation, which apparently alone can claim to be the Word of God, though even then it can't avoid openness to different interpretations.-That is not what I actually said, and in fact made no reference to the JW translation at all. I said translations that were made AFTER the dead sea scrolls were found, of which there are many. - > DHW: ...You have now attributed near-death experience of a conscious spirit to the work of Satan, and have offered biblical quotes in support of your argument. Among the quotes was Psalm 146, which appeared to contradict your belief in a memory stick containing all the information of the dead person. > TONY: Not just NDE's. All instances of communication with dead spirits. > > Psalm 146 still contradicts your belief in the memory stick. I gave you four biblical references to communication with dead spirits, including the parable in Luke (and I still find it odd that Jesus told such a story if he didn't believe in talking spirits, or heaven and hell). Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. Presumably, then, Matthew and the authors of Samuel and Revelations have been tricked by Satan - but then we can hardly say these texts are the Word of God, can we? >-Yes, and Saul was condemned for doing so because he directly violated a mandate from God. I don't have time at the moment to do a lot of research on this one, though, so I will have to revisit it later.- >DHW: I have indeed translated many books covering a vast range of subjects, and there is no doubt that a comma can change the meaning of a sentence. So why do you complain about “people trying to cherry pick commas to prove an otherwise scriptural doctrine, the meaning and intent is crystal clear”? I note that in my Watchtower translation of Samuel, the raised spirit is not referred to as Samuel, but as “Samuel”. Where did the translators get the inverted commas from? In Luke's account of Jesus's promise to his neighbour, as you pointed out, the word order and punctuation have been adjusted to completely change the meaning. I have asked you many times which version of the Bible is the Word of God. Now you are agreeing that some translations are not the Word of God. Thank you. Unless you are an expert in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, how can you even begin to judge the accuracy of any translation? Experts disagree anyway. Do you really think Jehovah's Witness translators are more objective and knowledgeable than any others? > -Other translators seem to think they are more objective and knowledgeable. However, that was not my point. To answer you question directly, it honestly doesn't matter which translation you use. If you study the bible, and allow the context of the bible to inform you views as opposed to other doctrines and traditions, then you can still arrive at the truth. - >DHW: Nobody, including you, knows what happened to Christ during the three days after his physical death. I'm not sure what you mean by “resurrection to a spiritual form”. You have told us that the spirit returns to God without consciousness, which it only regains when the body has been resurrected and the memory stick inserted. So please clarify: did Jesus return from the dead, appear to the disciples (once apparently walking through walls, since the doors had been locked), and ascend to heaven in his own physical, memory-stick-reinforced body, or as a conscious spirit?- Sometimes I hate the English language, too many words have multiple meanings. I hesitated to initially use the word 'spirit' when referring to the 'back-up'. I also hesitated to use 'spiritual form' when talking of Christ's resurrection because I KNEW you were going to do just this. When Christ was resurrected it was in a non-physical form. When you 'spirit' (memory stick) returns to God, that is also in a non-physical form. Are the two non-physical forms similar in composition? I do not know. - > >DHW: As always, I must repeat that I don't understand NDEs and have an open mind about their implications.-Repeat it all you like, but for some reason it does not feel as if your mind is actually all that open to the implications. - >DHW:hat I am challenging is your assumption that the sometimes very moving stories of love and reunion (plus the acquisition of information they could not otherwise have known) are all part of Satan's evil plan to make people act AGAINST the very God they believe in and worship. - But I thought you were "open mind about their implications."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
DHW:You base this on texts which now even you have admitted are unreliable - apart from the JW translation, which apparently alone can claim to be the Word of God... TONY: That is not what I actually said, and in fact made no reference to the JW translation at all. I said translations that were made AFTER the dead sea scrolls were found, of which there are many.-Agreed. I just happen to have a JW translation which contains precisely the adjustment you quoted to Luke 23,43. But of course I have no idea how many modern translations you have, or how reliable any of them are. Dhw: Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. Presumably, then, Matthew and the authors of Samuel and Revelations have been tricked by Satan - but then we can hardly say these texts are the Word of God, can we? TONY: Yes, and Saul was condemned for doing so because he directly violated a mandate from God. I don't have time at the moment to do a lot of research on this one, though, so I will have to revisit it later.-That is not the point. You have claimed, in relation to NDEs, that patients have been deceived by Satan, because the Bible tells us that the spirit remains unconscious until God inserts a memory stick into the resurrected body. In all the above examples, the spirits of the encountered dead people are clearly conscious. -DHW: Now you are agreeing that some translations are not the Word of God. Thank you. Unless you are an expert in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, how can you even begin to judge the accuracy of any translation? Experts disagree anyway. Do you really think Jehovah's Witness translators are more objective and knowledgeable than any others? TONY: Other translators seem to think they are more objective and knowledgeable. However, that was not my point. To answer you question directly, it honestly doesn't matter which translation you use. If you study the bible, and allow the context of the bible to inform you views as opposed to other doctrines and traditions, then you can still arrive at the truth. -One man's “doctrines and traditions” are another man's truth. You are now implying that the millions of monotheists who disagree with you on the individual subjects we have discussed have not studied the bible and its many different contexts. Let me add that I frequently correspond with authors, and have myself corresponded with translators of my own texts, because we are all fallible. Modern translators cannot even correspond with their authors, and there is no reason to suppose that the ancients were any less fallible than the moderns. Nobody knows the “truth”.-DHW:... please clarify: did Jesus return from the dead, appear to the disciples (once apparently walking through walls, since the doors had been locked), and ascend to heaven in his own physical, memory-stick-reinforced body, or as a conscious spirit? TONY: Sometimes I hate the English language, too many words have multiple meanings. I hesitated to initially use the word 'spirit' when referring to the 'back-up'. I also hesitated to use 'spiritual form' when talking of Christ's resurrection because I KNEW you were going to do just this. When Christ was resurrected it was in a non-physical form. When you 'spirit' (memory stick) returns to God, that is also in a non-physical form. Are the two non-physical forms similar in composition? I do not know. -I understand your frustration with language, and that's why I have to keep asking for clarification. As I understand you, there are now two forms of spirit: one unconscious - the spirit of life - and one containing all the information that gives the person his/her identity. But you say Christ's resurrection was as a spirit: i.e. a combination of the life spirit and the conscious-identity spirit. Not the body. This is precisely what NDE-ers experience: they and the people they meet are not bodies. Their conscious spirit appears to be independent of their body. According to you, the Bible says this is NOT what happens. Are the accounts of Christ's reappearance as a conscious spirit therefore the work of Satan? DHW: What I am challenging is your assumption that the sometimes very moving stories of love and reunion (plus the acquisition of information they could not otherwise have known) are all part of Satan's evil plan to make people act AGAINST the very God they believe in and worship. TONY: But I thought you were "open mind about their implications."-I am. I have said that I don't understand them, but you claim that the NDE-ers have been deceived, and so I am challenging your assumptions. Similarly, I am open-minded about the existence of God, and so I argue against theism and against atheism (depending on the view that is being put to me). An open mind challenges the assumptions of closed minds.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 28, 2015, 23:12 (3310 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I just happen to have a JW translation which contains precisely the adjustment you quoted to Luke 23,43. But of course I have no idea how many modern translations you have, or how reliable any of them are.-There is, believe it or not, a lot of debate over that. But here are the facts:-
- The punctuation did not exist in original Greek, and therefore you have to go by context.
- "I say to you today.." Was a Hebrew/Greek idiom to indicate the special importance of what was being said.
- When taken in context, and put against the back drop of the other events happening immediately before, and immediately after, this statement, the placement of the comma after the word today is the only place it logically makes sense.
- Of the oldest known manuscripts of this verse that contain ANY form of punctuation, the dot (similar to a comma) is placed AFTER the word today.
-Feel free to look all that up and correct me if you see that I am mistaken. - > Dhw: Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. > >DHW: That is not the point. You have claimed, in relation to NDEs, that patients have been deceived by Satan, because the Bible tells us that the spirit remains unconscious until God inserts a memory stick into the resurrected body. In all the above examples, the spirits of the encountered dead people are clearly conscious. -I will have to do more research and get back to you. You have picked 3 different scenarios here. The first, Saul, falls under what I was saying about Satan misleading people. The last, Revelations, is allegorical. One regarding Christ and Elijah, I need to do more research on. - >Tony: However, that was not my point. To answer you question directly, it honestly doesn't matter which translation you use. If you study the bible, and allow the context of the bible to inform you views as opposed to other doctrines and traditions, then you can still arrive at the truth. ->DHW: One man's “doctrines and traditions” are another man's truth. You are now implying that the millions of monotheists who disagree with you on the individual subjects we have discussed have not studied the bible and its many different contexts. Let me add that I frequently correspond with authors, and have myself corresponded with translators of my own texts, because we are all fallible. Modern translators cannot even correspond with their authors, and there is no reason to suppose that the ancients were any less fallible than the moderns. Nobody knows the “truth”.-DHW, surely even YOU would agree that when an addition/change can clearly be PROVEN to come from an outside source, with clear, substantiated documentation backing that up, that change is an adulteration of the original document. Numerous additions and changes that were made under the Roman Empires influence, for political reasons, are well documented and can/have been corrected in more recent translations by referencing texts that predate them. -->DHW:..As I understand you, there are now two forms of spirit: one unconscious - the spirit of life - and one containing all the information that gives the person his/her identity. But you say Christ's resurrection was as a spirit: i.e. a combination of the life spirit and the conscious-identity spirit...Are the accounts of Christ's reappearance as a conscious spirit therefore the work of Satan?-Perhaps to avoid future confusion we can refer to the unconscious 'spirit' as what it is, pure information, and reserve the word 'spirit' for the conscious creatures that live in that other plane of existence.-No, he was not. Neither were the angels that appeared throughout the bible. Angel/Demon are just labels to two sides of a conflict, much like Theist and Atheist. Theist and Atheist are both human, just on different sides of a conflict. Angels and Demons are both spirit creatures, just on different sides of a conflict. What the NDE's see are rightfully called 'Spirits". The question is not whether or not they see spirits, but whether or not the spirits they see are who they believe they see. -It is also worth noting that Satan was considered beautiful, and was obviously in some position of authority before he turned against God out of jealousy.- >DHW: I am. I have said that I don't understand them, but you claim that the NDE-ers have been deceived, and so I am challenging your assumptions. Similarly, I am open-minded about the existence of God, and so I argue against theism and against atheism (depending on the view that is being put to me). An open mind challenges the assumptions of closed minds.-Yes, but an open mind actually has to be open, not simply an argumentative closed mind. Challenging beliefs is all well and good, and something that all of us on here do on a regular basis. If we were all honest, though, all of us have a closed mind to some extent or another. We have all closed off certain parts of our thinking to other beliefs that are opposite to ours. For example, my mind is closed to the possibility of evolution by random chance. I may be open to other alternatives, but that one is scratched off my list permanently for the sheer ludicrousness of it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: There is, believe it or not, a lot of debate over that [Luke 23,43]. But here are the facts: •	The punctuation did not exist in original Greek, and therefore you have to go by context. •	"I say to you today.." Was a Hebrew/Greek idiom to indicate the special importance of what was being said. •	When taken in context, and put against the back drop of the other events happening immediately before, and immediately after, this statement, the placement of the comma after the word today is the only place it logically makes sense. •	Of the oldest known manuscripts of this verse that contain ANY form of punctuation, the dot (similar to a comma) is placed AFTER the word today. Feel free to look all that up and correct me if you see that I am mistaken.-Thank you as always for the immense trouble you take to answer my questions. I feel quite guilty at making such demands on your time. Yes, meaning depends on context, but the conventional punctuation makes perfect sense if the context is the common belief in the survival of consciousness after death, regardless of the Hebrew/Greek idiom. Three days leave ample time for there and back, after which the fully conscious “dead” Jesus appears to prove the point. I googled “St Luke modern translations”, and immediately found four that corresponded to the St James version, and none to yours. One was translated from Aramaic (Jesus's own language?), and the others were under biblestudytools, American Bible Society (Bible Gateway), and Catholic Online. Dhw: Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. [...] In all the above examples, the spirits of the encountered dead people are clearly conscious. TONY: The first, Saul, falls under what I was saying about Satan misleading people. The last, Revelations, is allegorical. One regarding Christ and Elijah, I need to do more research on.-The spirit of Samuel tells him what is going to happen as a result of his disobeying God, and it all comes true. Nothing misleading. In Revelations, what is meant to be true or allegorical is a matter of interpretation. -TONY: DHW, surely even YOU would agree that when an addition/change can clearly be PROVEN to come from an outside source, with clear, substantiated documentation backing that up, that change is an adulteration of the original document. -Yes, it happens all the time that reports are inaccurate, for whatever reasons. We don't even know how accurate the original biblical writings were, especially since many were written by authors who could not possibly have witnessed the events they were describing. Some modern translators may also have their own agenda.-DHW:...As I understand you, there are now two forms of spirit: one unconscious - the spirit of life - and one containing all the information that gives the person his/her identity. But you say Christ's resurrection was as a spirit: i.e. a combination of the life spirit and the conscious-identity spirit...Are the accounts of Christ's reappearance as a conscious spirit therefore the work of Satan? TONY: Perhaps to avoid future confusion we can refer to the unconscious 'spirit' as what it is, pure information, and reserve the word 'spirit' for the conscious creatures that live in that other plane of existence.-You have said that after death the unconscious spirit returns to God, but there is a back-up of all the information that constitutes its original identity, and this will be inserted into the body at the time of the resurrection. Now you are introducing an altogether different type of “spirit” - angels and demons: TONY: Angels and Demons are both spirit creatures, just on different sides of a conflict. What the NDE's see are rightfully called 'Spirits". The question is not whether or not they see spirits, but whether or not the spirits they see are who they believe they see.-According to you, Christ appeared to the disciples as a conscious spirit. What the disciples saw was what NDE patients often see: someone they can identify and converse with. Are you now saying Christ was converted into an angel, and the people NDE-ers see are demons? Or was Christ an optical illusion created by Satan to deceive the disciples? If the conscious spirit of Christ was the true Christ, then why can't the conscious spirit of Mrs Y be the true Mrs Y? TONY: ...an open mind actually has to be open, not simply an argumentative closed mind. Challenging beliefs is all well and good, and something that all of us on here do on a regular basis. [...]We have all closed off certain parts of our thinking to other beliefs that are opposite to ours...-I have never claimed to be open-minded about EVERYTHING. I have strong opinions about many things. But two of the subjects I am open-minded about are NDEs and the existence of God.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 29, 2015, 19:31 (3309 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Yes, meaning depends on context, but the conventional punctuation makes perfect sense if the context is the common belief in the survival of consciousness after death, regardless of the Hebrew/Greek idiom. .... One was translated from Aramaic (Jesus's own language?)-How do we know the Greek version of the Hebrew was correct? Aramaic was Jesus' language. The SJV has many errors as an example. Of course, I rely on current Hebrew scholars. > > dhw: I have never claimed to be open-minded about EVERYTHING. I have strong opinions about many things. But two of the subjects I am open-minded about are NDEs and the existence of God.-I thought so!
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 29, 2015, 06:17 (3310 days ago) @ dhw
I did some research on Matthew 17. While I commend you on pointing out something that doesn't make sense, as I have often said, you need to read a bit more. There are actually 3 accounts of this event, one in Mathew, Mark, and Luke. All three are substantially identical, but as is typical in the gospels, each add details or commentary that the others did not. Or, put a different way, they are all different perspectives on the same event. -Christ himself answers your question in Matthew 17:9. As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” So what they saw was a vision, more along the lines of the visual prophecies described elsewhere throughout the bible. In fact, the bible actually confirms this by saying "Peter, not realizing what he was saying.." offered hospitality. In short, the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: I did some research on Matthew 17. While I commend you on pointing out something that doesn't make sense, as I have often said, you need to read a bit more. There are actually 3 accounts of this event, one in Mathew, Mark, and Luke. All three are substantially identical, but as is typical in the gospels, each add details or commentary that the others did not. Or, put a different way, they are all different perspectives on the same event. Christ himself answers your question in Matthew 17:9. As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” So what they saw was a vision, more along the lines of the visual prophecies described elsewhere throughout the bible. In fact, the bible actually confirms this by saying "Peter, not realizing what he was saying.." offered hospitality. In short, the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.-Not only different perspectives on the same event, but also different implications: Luke 9, 30ff: “...two men were conversing with him, who were Moses and Elijah. These appeared with glory and began talking about his departure that he was destined to fulfil at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep; but when they got fully awake they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. And as these were being separated from him, Peter...not realizing what he was saying...” The emphasis on their being fully awake does not suggest an illusion, and there was no point in Peter offering them hospitality if they were going away. Apparently, they “did not report to anyone in those days any of the things they saw.” Not the things they thought they saw but didn't. Are you saying that Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah about his forthcoming death was an attempt by Satan to turn him and the disciples away from God? Seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? And of course, one has to ask how the heck Luke knew all this.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 29, 2015, 21:52 (3309 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: I did some research on Matthew 17. While I commend you on pointing out something that doesn't make sense, as I have often said, you need to read a bit more. There are actually 3 accounts of this event, one in Mathew, Mark, and Luke. All three are substantially identical, but as is typical in the gospels, each add details or commentary that the others did not. Or, put a different way, they are all different perspectives on the same event. > Christ himself answers your question in Matthew 17:9. As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” So what they saw was a vision, more along the lines of the visual prophecies described elsewhere throughout the bible. In fact, the bible actually confirms this by saying "Peter, not realizing what he was saying.." offered hospitality. In short, the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real. > >DHW: Not only different perspectives on the same event, but also different implications: Luke 9, 30ff: “...two men were conversing with him, who were Moses and Elijah. These appeared with glory and began talking about his departure that he was destined to fulfil at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep; but when they got fully awake they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. And as these were being separated from him, Peter...not realizing what he was saying...” > The emphasis on their being fully awake does not suggest an illusion, and there was no point in Peter offering them hospitality if they were going away. Apparently, they “did not report to anyone in those days any of the things they saw.” Not the things they thought they saw but didn't. Are you saying that Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah about his forthcoming death was an attempt by Satan to turn him and the disciples away from God? Seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? And of course, one has to ask how the heck Luke knew all this.-I can't help but think that sometimes you are deliberately misunderstanding what I have said, not to mention what was written. (Or are you simply playing devil's advocate?) "Visions", what you might consider a waking dreamlike form of communication, was used throughout the bible, and was apparently common enough at one point that the bible writers felt that their absence was worth noting. (1 Samuel 3:1, Psalm 89:19, Numbers 12:6, the entire book of Revelations, and more) Vision, DHW, not illusion, not a lie, not the dead come back to life for tea and a chat. The Greek word that Christ used to describe the event was "horama" which literally means:-Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horá?, "to see, spiritual and mentally") - a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (hora?).
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
TONY: I can't help but think that sometimes you are deliberately misunderstanding what I have said, not to mention what was written. (Or are you simply playing devil's advocate?) "Visions", what you might consider a waking dreamlike form of communication, was used throughout the bible, and was apparently common enough at one point that the bible writers felt that their absence was worth noting. (1 Samuel 3:1, Psalm 89:19, Numbers 12:6, the entire book of Revelations, and more) Vision, DHW, not illusion, not a lie, not the dead come back to life for tea and a chat. The Greek word that Christ used to describe the event was "horama" which literally means: Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horá?, "to see, spiritual and mentally") - a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (hora?).-Let me assure you there is nothing deliberate about the misunderstanding, though of course as an agnostic I am playing devil's advocate. Once again, the confusion is caused partly by language and partly by your convoluted theory of spirits, which I discussed in my longer post yesterday. To recap (ignoring your angels and demons): you have said that when people die, their unconscious spirit returns to God, but the information that constitutes their identity (which must include consciousness) is contained in a back-up which will not be activated until the Resurrection. This appears to contradict the experiences of NDE-ers who claim to have met the conscious spirits of dead people in precisely the way you have described - seeing spiritually and mentally. You say this is the work of Satan, deliberately deceiving the patients, because the dead remain dead. I have cited several instances in the Bible in which similar encounters take place, including that between the dead Jesus and his disciples. In the current case, you emphasized that “the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.” I mistakenly (my apologies) took this to mean that what you called the vision was an illusion, just as you claim NDE-ers have been hoodwinked by Satan. That's why I said it seemed pretty pointless. However, it is clear from your post that the communication made in these biblical “visions” is real. Peter, John and James did see Christ talking to Elijah and Moses, but not in the flesh. -Three questions for you, then, from the devil's advocate: 1) Did Christ really talk to the conscious spirits of Moses and Elijah or not? 2) Did the conscious spirit of Christ really chat with his disciples three days after his death or not? 3) To return to our starting point: why do you assume that the same kind of encounter is a Satan-inspired illusion when it occurs in NDEs, even though it has been pointed out to you that the patients often believe themselves to be closer to the God you yourself believe in? (Please don't accuse them all of being pagans!)
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, March 30, 2015, 14:43 (3309 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: you have said that when people die, their unconscious spirit returns to God, but the information that constitutes their identity (which must include consciousness) is contained in a back-up which will not be activated until the Resurrection. -This is your first misunderstanding. Information, even memories, memories of previous thoughts, feelings, opinions, loves, heartaches... these things are not conscious. They are information which consciousness acts upon. Much like the words in a book, which do not 'come alive' until there is a reader there to read them. - >DHW:This appears to contradict the experiences of NDE-ers who claim to have met the conscious spirits of dead people in precisely the way you have described - seeing spiritually and mentally. You say this is the work of Satan, deliberately deceiving the patients, because the dead remain dead. -Two separate points here. Let's not confuse them. -Point 1: The dead remain dead. They are conscious of nothing. Point 2: Satan is the father of the lie. The great deceiver. Rev 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Notice that it called demons "angels", because that is what they are. Just angels on the wrong side of the fight.)-->DHW:I have cited several instances in the Bible in which similar encounters take place, including that between the dead Jesus and his disciples. In the current case, you emphasized that “the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.” I mistakenly (my apologies) took this to mean that what you called the vision was an illusion, just as you claim NDE-ers have been hoodwinked by Satan. That's why I said it seemed pretty pointless. However, it is clear from your post that the communication made in these biblical “visions” is real. Peter, John and James did see Christ talking to Elijah and Moses, but not in the flesh. -Point1: Mark 12:27 "He (YHWH) is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken." Point2: Elijah and Moses were not there in the flesh, that is correct. It was a vision.- >>DHW: 1) Did Christ really talk to the conscious spirits of Moses and Elijah or not?-1) No, it was a vision, as per the clarification given by Christ himself. ->DHW: 2) Did the conscious spirit of Christ really chat with his disciples three days after his death or not? 2) Christ was resurrected. Romans 6:9 ->DHW: 3) To return to our starting point: why do you assume that the same kind of encounter is a Satan-inspired illusion when it occurs in NDEs, even though it has been pointed out to you that the patients often believe themselves to be closer to the God you yourself believe in? 3) People believe a great many things, my friend, but let me answer your question with a question. With so many beliefs that are diametrically opposed, how many can be true? Lies are designed to satisfy the emotions. They are feel goods. They are easy to believe because we WANT to believe them. It feels GOOD to think that your loved ones are waiting for you just after death. It feels GOOD to think that, with the right formula, you can talk to someone that you dearly miss. It feels GOOD to think that you can do whatever you want in this life with no consequence. -It is harder to accept that we are accountable. It is harder to accept responsibility. It is hard to accept that right now, a love one is dead because we long so much for life. We are not meant to die, and we rail against it with every fiber of our beings until we are so tired, so beaten, and so warn out that it seems like a welcome relief from the pain. -People want to believe what is soon, certain, and positive. Immediately going to heaven or becoming a spirit upon death. Immediate and eternal punishment for those that wronged us. Immediate freedom from pain, death, sickness. The truth is less palatable. When you die, you die. If/When you are resurrected, your perfection is not immediate, and your survival not guaranteed indefinitely. You will be tested again, and by your own actions your fate is decided. That is not what people WANT to believe, so they choose not to.-I will die. Personally, I do not feel I deserve any reward, resurrection, or any kindness or mercy at all. I've not been a good person in many ways, not matter how I tried. I hope for these things, and I have faith in God's love and mercy, but no expectation of it. I see the truth as beautiful. People getting a chance and succeeding or failing based purely on their own choice, made with full knowledge and eyes wide open.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
DHW: ...you have said that when people die, their unconscious spirit returns to God, but the information that constitutes their identity (which must include consciousness) is contained in a back-up which will not be activated until the Resurrection. TONY: This is your first misunderstanding. Information, even memories, memories of previous thoughts, feelings, opinions, loves, heartaches... these things are not conscious. They are information which consciousness acts upon. -Thank you. I remember now, you said consciousness is only activated when the back-up is inserted into the dead body. However, this has repercussions on your version of Christ's resurrection (see later).-DHW: You say this [NDE] is the work of Satan, deliberately deceiving the patients, because the dead remain dead. -TONY: Two separate points here. Let's not confuse them. Point 1: The dead remain dead. They are conscious of nothing. Point 2: Satan is the father of the lie. The great deceiver. -Yes, I understand what a baddie he is. It is you who make the assumption in Point 1, and in the context of NDEs link it to Point 2!-Dhw: it is clear from your post that the communication made in these biblical “visions” is real. Peter, John and James did see Christ talking to Elijah and Moses, but not in the flesh. -TONY: Point1: Mark 12:27 "He (YHWH) is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken." Point2: Elijah and Moses were not there in the flesh, that is correct. It was a vision.... as per the clarification given by Christ himself.-Visions, you have told us, entail seeing things mentally. That does not mean they are unreal. You have pointed out that they are “a waking dreamlike form of communication” frequently used by God himself. NDEs also say they perceive and communicate mentally, just as Christ apparently saw and communicated with the dead Elijah and Moses. DHW: Did the conscious spirit of Christ really chat with his disciples three days after his death or not? TONY: Christ was resurrected. Romans 6:9-Resurrected just means rose again (from the Latin resurgere, since you like derivations). Our question is in what form he rose again. You have stated categorically (27 March at 20.22) that “it was in a non-physical form”. That is what most of us would understand by the soul or spirit. But if, as above, the memory stick has to be inserted into the body before the dead person becomes conscious again, your non-physical Christ could not have been conscious. But he obviously was. Therefore, the non-physical form of a dead person can be conscious. DHW: To return to our starting point: why do you assume that the same kind of encounter is a Satan-inspired illusion when it occurs in NDEs, even though it has been pointed out to you that the patients often believe themselves to be closer to the God you yourself believe in? TONY: People believe a great many things, my friend, but let me answer your question with a question. With so many beliefs that are diametrically opposed, how many can be true? Lies are designed to satisfy the emotions. They are feel goods. They are easy to believe because we WANT to believe them. It feels GOOD etc.-Apart from what I find to be a very touching personal conclusion, the rest of your reply is a beautifully eloquent account of what and why people choose to believe or not to believe. Atheists would use the same argument about your “faith in God's love and mercy”. Instead of answering my question, you have simply added a second theory. So I'll rephrase the question: If the dead Christ's appearance to the disciples in a conscious non-physical form is acceptable to you, why should you assume that certain now God-loving patients, some with otherwise inaccessible information apparently gleaned from dead people in a conscious non-physical form, are (a) being misled by Satan, and/or (b) are misled by their own wishful thinking?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 31, 2015, 23:19 (3307 days ago) @ dhw
To get straight to the crux of your argument here, it seems that you are hung up on Christ's spiritual body, as opposed to our physical bodies, and it's relevance to NDE's. The answer to this dilemma is exceedingly simple, so simple in fact that I did not think it needed to be expounded upon. My mistake.-First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 00:38 (3307 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony:First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed?-I consider my physical body a vessel for my soul/consciousness. Angels have a soul/consciousness but no vessel? I've tried to follow the discussion. but it is confusing. In your way of thinking, are there souls in heaven at the present time? Do they represent folks who were alive on Earth?
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 01:40 (3307 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony:First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed? > >David: I consider my physical body a vessel for my soul/consciousness. Angels have a soul/consciousness but no vessel? I've tried to follow the discussion. but it is confusing. In your way of thinking, are there souls in heaven at the present time? Do they represent folks who were alive on Earth?-No and No. Soul, in Hebrew, literally meant the composite life form. Hence the reason it says both humans and animals ARE souls, not that they HAVE souls. It also states humans and animals both have the same fate when they die. So unless you think all dogs(and all other creatures) go to heaven, it follows that people do not either. They share the same fate. Death and decomposition. The soul dies. There is no immortal soul. -Let me try to clarify by asking a few simple question? Do humans and animals have the same form? Are they both conscious? -Angels HAVE a form, a vessel, but like animals, their form is different from humans. If their vessel is destroyed, they die. Yes, Angels can die. If their spiritual body is destroyed, they die. If they alter their form to a physical human form, and the physical body is destroyed, they die.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 01:51 (3307 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony:No and No. Soul, in Hebrew, literally meant the composite life form. Hence the reason it says both humans and animals ARE souls, not that they HAVE souls. It also states humans and animals both have the same fate when they die. So unless you think all dogs(and all other creatures) go to heaven, it follows that people do not either. They share the same fate. Death and decomposition. The soul dies. There is no immortal soul.-Thank you. In Reform Judaism, what I was taught was that we were living souls and we should trust in God to take care of us after death. An afterlife was implied. No heaven or hell. And yes I know that I am a living soul, and my soul is not the same as my dog's soul. They are different.
Dualism
TONY: To get straight to the crux of your argument here, it seems that you are hung up on Christ's spiritual body, as opposed to our physical bodies, and it's relevance to NDE's. The answer to this dilemma is exceedingly simple, so simple in fact that I did not think it needed to be expounded upon. My mistake.-First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed?-All of this may seem simple to you, and so you will have to forgive me for my stupidity, though clearly David has problems following it too. I understand perfectly when you say that when Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. That is the process NDE-ers also believe they experience. But what spiritual form is it? In your account above, you move from “When he was dead, he was dead” to “They still follow the same basic principles that we do.” This sequence makes no sense to me unless you are saying that Christ was an angel, which you define as a spirit creature. You say that spirit creatures have some form of body and brain, so if Christ was an angel, he did not have a human body. (If he was not an angel, what is the relevance of angels to our discussion?) However, in your response to David, you say: “If their spiritual body is destroyed, they die. If they alter their form to a physical human form, and the physical body is destroyed, they die.” On both counts, then, whether he had an angel body or a human body, Christ died, in which case, when he was dead, he was dead. And that should have been that.-So to simplify matters, just to make sure I am following you correctly, two more questions: 1) Was Christ an angel, a human being, or an angel who altered his form to a physical human form? 2) When he appeared to the disciples in a non-physical form, after his spiritual (angel) or human body had died, together with his brain or brain analog, exactly what was resurrected? David's response to you is highly relevant to the subjects of NDEs and dualism, but I'll await your answer before making any further comment.
Dualism: support by Neurosurgeon Penfield
by David Turell , Sunday, April 16, 2017, 01:32 (2561 days ago) @ dhw
Note his comments. He started as a materialist and from his surgical experience ended up a dualist:
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield/
"His surgical specialty was the mapping of seizure foci in the brain of awake (locally anesthetized) patients, using the patient’s experience and response to precise brain stimulation to locate and safely excise discrete regions of the cortex that were causing seizures. Penfield revolutionized neurosurgery (every day in the operating room I use instruments he designed) and he revolutionized our understanding of brain function and its relation to the mind.
"Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.
***
Penfield quote: "There is no area of gray matter, as far as my experience goes, in which local epileptic discharge brings to pass what could be called “mindaction”… there is no valid evidence that either epileptic discharge or electrical stimulation can activate the mind… If one stops to consider it, this is an arresting fact. The record of consciousness can be set in motion, complicated though it is, by the electrode or by epileptic discharge. An illusion of interpretation can be produced in the same way. But none of the actions we attribute to the mind has been initiated by electrode stimulation or epileptic discharge. If there were a mechanism in the brain that could do what the mind does, one might expect that the mechanism would betray its presence in a convincing manner by some better evidence of epileptic or electrode activations."
"Penfield noted that intellectual function — abstract thought — could only be switched off by brain stimulation or a seizure, but it could never be switched on in like manner. The brain was necessary for abstract thought, normally, but it was not sufficient for it. Abstract thought was something other than merely a process of the brain.
***
"Seizures always involve either complete unconsciousness or specific activation of a non-abstract neurological function — flashes of light, smells, jerking of muscles, specific memories, strong emotions — but seizures never evoke discrete abstract thought. This is odd, given that the bulk of brain tissue from which seizures arise is classified as association areas that are thought to sub-serve abstract thought. Why don’t epilepsy patients have “calculus seizures” or “moral ethics” seizures, in which they involuntarily take second derivatives or contemplate mercy? The answer is obvious — the brain does not generate abstract thought. The brain is normally necessary for abstract thought, but not sufficient for it.
"Furthermore, Penfield noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done to them, but not by them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person” perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. There was always a “mind” that was independent of cortical stimulation:
Penfield quote: "The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action. It is noteworthy that two streams of consciousness are flowing, the one driven by input from the environment, the other by an electrode delivering sixty pulses per second to the cortex. The fact that there should be no confusion in the conscious state suggests that, although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not."
"Penfield finished his career as a passionate dualist. His materialist naiveté did not survive his actual scientific work and his experiences as a clinical neurosurgeon. My own experience as a neurosurgeon has led me to the same conclusion.
" Remarkably, scholastic philosophers who worked in the Aristotelian tradition presaged Penfield’s observations centuries ago. In the classical Aristotelian-Thomist understanding, the mind is several powers of the soul, which is the subsistent form of the body. “Subsistent” means that the soul informs the body, so to speak, as any form is composed to matter, but that it can exist independently of matter. The reason it can exist independently of matter is that the intellectual powers of the soul — the ability to contemplate universals and engage in abstract thought — is necessarily an immaterial power. Universals — concepts that are not particular things — by their nature cannot be in particular things, and thus cannot be in matter, even in brain matter."
"Thus, the mind, as Penfield understood, can be influenced by matter, but is, in its abstract functions, not generated by matter."
Comment: this is the best evidence of dualism I've ever seen. Based on the experiences of two neurosurgeons, I don't think it can be refuted.
Dualism
by David Turell , Friday, March 20, 2015, 00:34 (3319 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Closeness to God need not denote being in heaven. David will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are lots of NDEs who simply meet dead relatives. No specific mention of heaven, although very often there is great tranquility.-Many do describe Heaven, but you are correct. One of my patients, the day before he died, saw dead friends sailing by his bedroom window on water flowing by. They (NDE'rs) always see dead. Story related by his wife.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 22, 2015, 00:23 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: Closeness to God need not denote being in heaven. David will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are lots of NDEs who simply meet dead relatives. No specific mention of heaven, although very often there is great tranquility. > >David: Many do describe Heaven, but you are correct. One of my patients, the day before he died, saw dead friends sailing by his bedroom window on water flowing by. They (NDE'rs) always see dead. Story related by his wife.-Now consider this:-If Heaven and Hell are real, why do they see dead people floating around outside windows? if Heaven and Hell are NOT real, why do they report visiting heaven and seeing their relatives there? If the dead are conscious, then are they in heaven, hell, or here? If the dead are NOT conscious, then who was it that they saw?- Now, working from a biblical standpoint, let's apply some logic. If the dead ARE conscious and in either heaven or hell, then there would be no ghosts floating around for your NDEr's to see, in which case the NDEr's who reported it are either lying or have been had. -If the dead are conscious but there is no heaven or hell, then the NDEr's who reported visiting heaven are either lying or have been had. -If the dead are not conscious, then both groups (those that reported heavenly dead ones and those that reported earthly dead ones) are either lying or have been had. -If we accept the bibles postulates that: (a) The dead are conscious of nothing (b) That there are other spirit creatures in existence (angels and demons) (c) That there is a struggle going on among those creatures concerning God's right to rule. (d) That the struggle included which side humans would choose to be on. -Then what we have is the following scenario:-There are no conscious dead human spirits on earth, in heaven, or in hell. That spirit creatures are using a form of propaganda/deception to garner support for their side of the battle.-This is the only scenario that both (a) Explains why NDEr's see anything at all, (b) why they see different things, (c) does not require them ALL to be liars.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 22, 2015, 00:53 (3317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: If Heaven and Hell are real, why do they see dead people floating around outside windows?-My patients and the stories I have read always describe dead people they knew. Never live persons. Since you and I have discussed that people are living souls, incased in a body that can die, my approach is different. In my view the souls go to an afterlife, no physical body involved. That container is dead and buried. In the Jewish religion Heaven and Hell are concepts of no importance, as I have indicated. In the afterlife I assume a soul may have a familiar appearance to the observer, an outer aura. The communication experienced is always telepathic according to the NDE'rs.- > Tony: if Heaven and Hell are NOT real, why do they report visiting heaven and seeing their relatives there?-This is your issue not mine. I don't care about the heaven/hell concept.- > Tony: If the dead are conscious, then are they in heaven, hell, or here? > If the dead are NOT conscious, then who was it that they saw?-I've explained my concept. It is souls, not bodies. > > > Tony: If the dead are not conscious, then both groups (those that reported heavenly dead ones and those that reported earthly dead ones) are either lying or have been had. -I've explained why I don't accept this approach. > > Tony: If we accept the bibles postulates that: > (a) The dead are conscious of nothing > (b) That there are other spirit creatures in existence (angels and demons) > (c) That there is a struggle going on among those creatures concerning God's right to rule. > (d) That the struggle included which side humans would choose to be on.-My religion doesn't think the way you do. I don't care about angels and demons, for as far as I am concerned they are of no issue. > > Tony: Then what we have is the following scenario: > > There are no conscious dead human spirits on earth, in heaven, or in hell. That spirit creatures are using a form of propaganda/deception to garner support for their side of the battle. > > This is the only scenario that both (a) Explains why NDEr's see anything at all, (b) why they see different things, (c) does not require them ALL to be liars.-I appreciate your explaining your beliefs about this. We have been taught totally differently.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 22, 2015, 02:33 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: If Heaven and Hell are real, why do they see dead people floating around outside windows? > > My patients and the stories I have read always describe dead people they knew. Never live persons. Since you and I have discussed that people are living souls, incased in a body that can die, my approach is different. In my view the souls go to an afterlife, no physical body involved. That container is dead and buried. In the Jewish religion Heaven and Hell are concepts of no importance, as I have indicated. In the afterlife I assume a soul may have a familiar appearance to the observer, an outer aura. The communication experienced is always telepathic according to the NDE'rs. > > > > Tony: if Heaven and Hell are NOT real, why do they report visiting heaven and seeing their relatives there? > > David: This is your issue not mine. I don't care about the heaven/hell concept. > > > > Tony: If the dead are conscious, then are they in heaven, hell, or here? > > If the dead are NOT conscious, then who was it that they saw? > >David: I've explained my concept. It is souls, not bodies. -As I have said before, I do not believe in Heaven or Hell the way it has been popularized. I merely posted these points to try and cover the bases. Also, I think we got wires crossed somewhere. Humans ARE souls, they do not possess souls. I do not believe in an "immortal soul". This concept, along with the traditional heaven, hell, and triune God all originated in Babylonian teachings.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 22, 2015, 04:53 (3317 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> >David: I've explained my concept. It is souls, not bodies. > > Tony: As I have said before, I do not believe in Heaven or Hell the way it has been popularized. I merely posted these points to try and cover the bases. Also, I think we got wires crossed somewhere. Humans ARE souls, they do not possess souls. I do not believe in an "immortal soul". This concept, along with the traditional heaven, hell, and triune God all originated in Babylonian teachings.-To repeat: I agree with you. Humans are living souls. However, to be clear, our physical bodies are the containers of those souls. As for immortal souls, I think our souls survive our bodies. How long or where is a issue I cannot understand.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 22, 2015, 11:55 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
Ezekial 18:4, 20 ..The soul* who sins is the one who will die.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 15, 2015, 21:28 (3323 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: To David: in your response to Tony on the subject of NDEs (which chimes in with much of my own), you say that I giggle at the idea of the soul expressing the appearance of the dead person. I don't. (See above.) I take NDEs very seriously, and I would only giggle at the idea of an afterlife in which the dead person does NOT retain his/her identity. There has to be recognition. I don't have an explanation for NDEs, and am quite open-minded on the subject.-I said you giggle at my constant use of quantum theory as the basis of reality and its various aspects and processes. Otherwise your thoughts are fine.
Dualism
by David Turell , Friday, March 13, 2015, 23:43 (3325 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I was answering your comment that “bacteria do not receive information”. Now what are you saying? That bacteria are not alive? Of course bacteria receive information. But our subject is consciousness, and I was helpfully trying to clarify your muddling use of the word!-I don't remember the context of your quote of mine. Same old idea: Bacteria are given and run on information so that they appear sentient ,but the responses are automatic. > > dhw: I don't see how that [ quantum mechanics] leads to the conclusion that consciousness is independent of the neurons, and that the brain receives consciousness but does not produce it.-I'm proposing ,but have no idea if it is possible, that like a quantum computer the brain could be a quantum receiver for consciousness and receives quantum mechanism tools to make a consciousness appear from a basic brain neuron network. > > DAVID: I start with the belief that the inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. It had to exist from the beginning as the universe was created.[/i] > > dhw: I wouldn't presume that any such pattern will be discovered. Nor would I presume that the future will show us how divine consciousness has always existed (theism), or how life and consciousness evolved from inorganic materials (atheism). Both sides start with a belief, and proceed to draw logical conclusions from a premise that has no basis other than pure speculation.-And you sit on your fence, with no answer at all. I like answers. Maybe that is our difference. > > dhw: It's a privilege, though, to throw ideas at one another, and I am grateful for all these exchanges.-Agreed absolutely. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > dhw: May I then assume you believe that your consciousness emerges from the brain and eventually dies with the brain, unlike David's, which is a quantum pattern of energy that the brain receives from God and that goes back to God when we die?-You've got me correctly.
Dualism
dhw: I don't see how that [ quantum mechanics] leads to the conclusion that consciousness is independent of the neurons, and that the brain receives consciousness but does not produce it.-DAVID: I'm proposing ,but have no idea if it is possible, that like a quantum computer the brain could be a quantum receiver for consciousness and receives quantum mechanism tools to make a consciousness appear from a basic brain neuron network.-It's wonderful how the word “quantum” gives a scientific gloss to all the obfuscation. We now have God giving the brain a blob of his consciousness plus the means of making the brain able to transform the blob of consciousness into consciousness. I'm not surprised, dear David, that you have no idea if it's possible. -DAVID: I start with the belief that the inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. It had to exist from the beginning as the universe was created. dhw: I wouldn't presume that any such pattern will be discovered. Nor would I presume that the future will show us how divine consciousness has always existed (theism), or how life and consciousness evolved from inorganic materials (atheism). Both sides start with a belief, and proceed to draw logical conclusions from a premise that has no basis other than pure speculation.-DAVID: And you sit on your fence, with no answer at all. I like answers. Maybe that is our difference. -Maybe. Or maybe I'm just harder to convince than you are.-dhw: It's a privilege, though, to throw ideas at one another, and I am grateful for all these exchanges. DAVID: Agreed absolutely.-At least that's one thing we agree on!
Dualism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 15, 2015, 00:24 (3324 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It's wonderful how the word “quantum” gives a scientific gloss to all the obfuscation. We now have God giving the brain a blob of his consciousness plus the means of making the brain able to transform the blob of consciousness into consciousness. I'm not surprised, dear David, that you have no idea if it's possible.-Many authors have proposed the idea that quantum mechanics in the brain produce consciousness. Our reality is based on the quantum particles, like it or not. I fully believe that is how God did it, with quanta.
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 14, 2015, 00:29 (3325 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: During NDE's and OBE's the body is not completely dead. It still provides energy and an 'anchor' of sorts, if you will. More importantly, if NDE's or OBE's are remembered then apparently the brains functions have not entirely ceased. Either that, or there is some form of buffer between the consciousness and the brain.-It is clear that consciousness survives during a non-functional brain period. There is no way to otherwise explain NDE's. Your buffer idea is interesting. Resuscitation does keep the body alive and the spark present until the circulatory system resumes and the brain revives.-> > Tony: Consider the human heart, for a moment, or even the entire body below the neck. You can remove someones heart, or their entire body, and the brain will continue to function for a short time after the removal has occurred.-About 10-15 seconds to non-functional brain, with brain death in 4 minutes in adults, 10-15 minutes in young children.-> Tony: That means that while the brain does have dependency upon the functions of the heart, it still retains a degree of autonomy.-Not much. The brain is very fragile compared to kidneys which can be harvested within an hour and transplanted hours later if kept very cold-> Tony: I think consciousness works the same way. It IS dependent upon energy, information, and the mechanics of the body, but it is able to function autonomously for a limited duration. -Agreed.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 14, 2015, 03:34 (3325 days ago) @ David Turell
That is one reason why I refrained from trying to put explicit times. For example, what about the case of a person who died under hypothermic conditions? For all intents and purposes dead, but still some infinitesimal degree of spark remains. The second reason I refrained from putting times is that time, when free of physical constraints, does not seem to run according to our laws of physics from accounts given of NDE/OBE's.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 14, 2015, 04:40 (3325 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: That is one reason why I refrained from trying to put explicit times. For example, what about the case of a person who died under hypothermic conditions? For all intents and purposes dead, but still some infinitesimal degree of spark remains. The second reason I refrained from putting times is that time, when free of physical constraints, does not seem to run according to our laws of physics from accounts given of NDE/OBE's.-Hypothermia is a very special situation. Look up the Pam Reynolds hypothermic surgery for a brain aneurysm. An amazing story, but a very unusual situation. Not a resuscitation, but a planned hypothermic surgery, but in an induced anesthetic hypothermic coma she knew what was happening. Remember as a cardiologist I've done a number of resuscitations. We follow specific guidelines because we know the time limits are so stringent. The leading researcher on this issue is Sam Parnia whose book "Erasing Death", 2013, is the leading publication on this developing field. I recommend it highly.
Dualism
by BBella , Saturday, March 14, 2015, 06:01 (3325 days ago) @ David Turell
Any ideas of how so many of those with NDE's come back to relate information they could not possibly know, like doctor's doing specific things, information about relatives or something a family member was doing during the NDE, etc?
Dualism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 14, 2015, 14:23 (3325 days ago) @ BBella
BBella: Any ideas of how so many of those with NDE's come back to relate information they could not possibly know, like doctor's doing specific things, information about relatives or something a family member was doing during the NDE, etc?-My guess is now hundreds or more have been recorded. In my recent book. Chapter Seven, I have listed eleven that are carefully studied for veracity. Since the NDE's only involve the dead, when persons are met during the episode, one of the striking findings is the NDE'er finding out about a death they could not have known in advance of their episode. This commonly happens in nursing homes and hospices. There are websites filled with stories.
Dualism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 12, 2015, 04:00 (3327 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: But a receiver receives; it doesn't produce. The production comes from elsewhere. What you are saying makes the brain passive, and a passive “consciousness” would put humans in precisely the situation you want to impose on bacteria: namely, that they receive instructions and do not initiate them.-But what if what the brain receives is the ability to develop a consciousness as pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness, which is certainly more than the sum of neurons firing. You look at this too simplistically. Bacteria do not receive information. It is onboard in their DNA. I've made that quote clear. > > dhw; So what is the universal consciousness transmitting to your receiver brain? Clearly not thought, if you are thinking your own thoughts. If you mean the universal consciousness has given you the means to think your own thoughts, but that means is not the brain (which is only a receiver), what is it? A blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will (because you think your own thoughts)? What then is “you”, if your God has given “you” a blob to shape?.... in the hope that eventually something might make sense.-Read my 'possible' explanation above. Something gives us consciousness, and I believe the receiver idea may have validity. Receiving it gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness. > > dhw: As for using part of the UC until you pass on, this sounds as if you lose your particular blob when you die - which is the exact opposite of the NDE. Could you perhaps be a little more explicit? -I've been explicit above. When we dies our consciousness joins the UI as in NDE's. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > TONY: These conversations kind of make my head hurt because we start swinging all over the map, partly because no one really sets up any definitions and sticks with them throughout the conversation. > > The problem of consciousness makes most heads hurt! The framework you've given us is very stimulating, although as a non-technical ignoramus, I'm never at ease with computer analogies. I need to give it some more thought, but perhaps you could start me on my way by explaining what your “external user” and “third party independent interpreter” are analogous to in the two sentences below: > > TONY: To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. [...] Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless.-What Tony is saying is that your computer is your servant, at your command and can produce nothing until you input a request for action. It requires you to act.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 12, 2015, 05:02 (3327 days ago) @ David Turell
TONY: To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. [...] Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless. > >David: What Tony is saying is that your computer is your servant, at your command and can produce nothing until you input a request for action. It requires you to act.-A minor edit here. I am saying that the computer only performs routine maintenance without direct inputs or requests for action. It keeps the hardware running, the lights flashing, and the fans blowing, but it doesn't perform anything about the bare essential without external input.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
dhw: But a receiver receives; it doesn't produce. The production comes from elsewhere. What you are saying makes the brain passive, and a passive “consciousness” would put humans in precisely the situation you want to impose on bacteria: namely, that they receive instructions and do not initiate them. DAVID: But what if what the brain receives is the ability to develop a consciousness as pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness, which is certainly more than the sum of neurons firing. You look at this too simplistically. Bacteria do not receive information. It is onboard in their DNA. I've made that quote clear.-This is the usual muddling use of “information”. I presume what you mean here is that God doesn't give bacteria the information necessary for them to be conscious. You have made your opinion about bacteria clear, but you graciously acknowledge that there's a 50% chance you are wrong. See below for your “pattern of quantum energy”, but please reread the following first:-dhw; So what is the universal consciousness transmitting to your receiver brain? Clearly not thought, if you are thinking your own thoughts. If you mean the universal consciousness has given you the means to think your own thoughts, but that means is not the brain (which is only a receiver), what is it? A blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will (because you think your own thoughts)? What then is “you”, if your God has given “you” a blob to shape?.... in the hope that eventually something might make sense.-DAVID: Read my 'possible' explanation above. Something gives us consciousness, and I believe the receiver idea may have validity. Receiving it gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness.-I have read it. And instead of a “blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will”, you have much more grandly called it “a pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness”. Your last sentence tells us that receiving consciousness gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness. Well, yes, but the brain constantly producing consciousness instead of receiving it would give us the same ability. And what is this “us” that develops the blob, or pattern of quantum energy? If by “pattern” you mean an already formed identity, then it's God who determines how we develop. Or if there is no pattern, what DOES determine the way the blob is used? I agree that something gives us consciousness, but how do you know it's NOT the sum of neurons firing? You even suggested it was, when you wrote that “the extreme complexity of our brain [...] results in a much more complex form of consciousness.” Or has someone actually discovered a complex pattern of quantum energy in the human brain (and a less complex one in a chimp's brain)? As for your belief that the receiver idea may have validity, that merely tells us you think dualism may be true. Sorry, I can't find an explanation here. But as always I am struggling as much as you. I can't make sense of consciousness. Hence this discussion. -dhw: As for using part of the UC until you pass on, this sounds as if you lose your particular blob when you die - which is the exact opposite of the NDE. Could you perhaps be a little more explicit? DAVID: I've been explicit above. When we die our consciousness joins the UI as in NDE's.-What does “join the UI” mean? NDE patients retain their identity, and often join people they know, who are also recognizable as individuals. They don't all report union with any sort of God.
Dualism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 12, 2015, 23:47 (3326 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is the usual muddling use of “information”. I presume what you mean here is that God doesn't give bacteria the information necessary for them to be conscious. You have made your opinion about bacteria clear....-Not muddling. Life runs on information. You cannot escape that.-> > And instead of a “blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will”, you have much more grandly called it “a pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness”. Your last sentence tells us that receiving consciousness gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness.-I arrive at this quantum thought about the brain/consciousness, because of the evidence that the scientist's actions in 'second choice' experiments show that his/her consciousness can go back in time or forward in time to affect quantum particle properties. Secondly, cell functions are being shown more and more to have quantum level activity and certainly neurons can work that way.-> dhw: I agree that something gives us consciousness, but how do you know it's NOT the sum of neurons firing? You even suggested it was, when you wrote that “the extreme complexity of our brain [...] results in a much more complex form of consciousness.” Or has someone actually discovered a complex pattern of quantum energy in the human brain (and a less complex one in a chimp's brain)?-I presume that difference (human/chimp) will be shown in the future. I start with the belief that the inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. It had to exist from the beginning as the universe was created.-> dhw: As for your belief that the receiver idea may have validity, that merely tells us you think dualism may be true. Sorry, I can't find an explanation here. But as always I am struggling as much as you. I can't make sense of consciousness. Hence this discussion.-Agreed. Of course it is a struggle. We have no idea how it exists but we know it does. > > dhw: What does “join the UI” mean? NDE patients retain their identity, and often join people they know, who are also recognizable as individuals. They don't all report union with any sort of God.-They do met God in some NDE's and feel at one with Him and with the whole universe. The at-one-with-it/Him is very prominent in the descriptions.
Dualism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 07:18 (3328 days ago) @ dhw
These conversations kind of make my head hurt because we start swinging all over the map, partly because no one really sets up any definitions and sticks with them throughout the conversation. -I do believe that consciousness is separate from the brain in one sense, but I also believe that it is dependent upon the brain. To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. Moreover, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The energy that makes the machinery work, the machinery, and the information contained within the machinery do not equal the experience and information that is generated from the machinery. Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless. -In another thread, we agreed that the machinery without energy is just a corpse. We also agreed that the machinery without information not only could not exist, but also could not function even if supplied with ample energy. NDE's, OBE's and other 6th sense type phenomena all attest that this analogy is good. So to recap:-
- All life is comprised of 4 components: Energy, Information, Mechanics, and Consciousness.
- Consciousness is greater than and separate from, but dependent upon, the preceding three fundamental elements.
- Removal of any of the three fundamental elements compromises the ability of Consciousness to function.
- The existence of any of the three fundamentals individually or taken together does not explain consciousness because while removing one of the three fundamental elements compromises consciousness, it has been shown to function in a short term limited capacity without them.
- This model makes no assumptions about a universal consciousness because it would have to be, by necessity, independent of the physical form.
- Science can not explain the spark of energy that produces life or kickstarts consciousness.
- Science can not explain what happens to that energy after death.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Dualism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 14:09 (3328 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: So to recap: >
- All life is comprised of 4 components: Energy, Information, Mechanics, and Consciousness. >
- Consciousness is greater than and separate from, but dependent upon, the preceding three fundamental elements. >
- Removal of any of the three fundamental elements compromises the ability of Consciousness to function. >
- The existence of any of the three fundamentals individually or taken together does not explain consciousness because while removing one of the three fundamental elements compromises consciousness, it has been shown to function in a short term limited capacity without them. >
- This model makes no assumptions about a universal consciousness because it would have to be, by necessity, independent of the physical form. >
- Science can not explain the spark of energy that produces life or kickstarts consciousness. >
- Science can not explain what happens to that energy after death. >
-Thanks for the great clarity. My illusion to the complexity of the receiver is seen in the history of radio: first AM and then FM, but neither set could receive the other signal until they were combined in one radio with dual receivers.