Post by eye2i2hear on May 3, 2007 19:30:31 GMT -5
Aye, ye olde Voltaire moment: "If you wish to discourse with me, first define your terms."
key term here: "afterlife"
Marc, imo, you've relayed a phenomena (and an awesome one at that!). I offer that there are perhaps several possibilities for explaining it. I call it a stretch to label it "afterlife".
So that gets us back to the crux: how is "afterlife" to be defined?
I use it rather strictly, as I to date have found little verifiable evidence personally. And yes, I'm a skeptic still here. I accept generally your offering of evidence ("before the court")
, Marc. For me, its simply always seemed amazing that it boils down to "he said that she said that he said it happened" (particularly to get us all the way back to BC to AD miracles = "the gospel truth").
So as to "afterlife" the word, I use it regarding the "Bible thumping" aka theist definition(s) (noting we got to this discussion via athesim vs theism). More precisely I'd use it as a synonym for the more commonly used "eternal life". Thus where "God" spoke so clearly "eternal truths"-- including "the afterlife"-- to chosen ones that they could write it down for the rest of us "children" (deaf...'er... blind ones). The biz of how to get it and what it is, etc. For some then its "streets paved with gold", for some its X-number of virgins, where for others its "heaven (literally) on earth" (after of course the "rest of us" are burned/burning-eternally in fire-- as some of the not blind "see" it; of course still others "hear" it saying we all get "in"), etc. Not to leave out (now that I'm not as "blind") some saying its all metaphor (whatever "all" means).
More precisely, the example you give is not truly "afterlife" in this, or the more strictest, sense. Perhaps others would be so kind as to share their perspective on it (here before the court)?
Meanwhile, indeed, this one sited is not (was not then) "eternally" dead, as the rest of the evidence establishes (duh, they're still here)
. I personally have no problem with the possibility of our "consciousness" lingering, expanding, or drifting in another ("higher") dimension (or experiencing expanded natural sensations). Just don't ask me to believe any other man about it as one that's heard the "loving Father God" tell him for me. Been there, done that.
A rather interesting aside is touched on in the May 7th edition of Newsweek article titled: To Treat the Dead -
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about heart attacks—and death itself. that I just perused yesterday. Rather than further hijack this thread I'll post it in a thread of its own just in case the site is temporary as a news article online, but here's the relevant snippet from it:
When I read the article I remember reflecting about how when a person loses one sense, the others become more sensitive (ie close your eyes and your hearing becomes more keen/sensitive ie "louder"), and thus wondering how the "death" lose of the "typical" senses might open even amazing sensitivity --including some form(s) of telepathy even (or other unexperienced and undiscovered biological means)? [perhaps akin to what may another day be discovered: cell memory, or our "spirit" in our cells via DNA "recording" and "record"]
Side-bar: I find it amusing that you seem to have twice implied I (or someone else here) has said Revelationists (Divine religionists) are "blind". Like that concept is something someone here came up with? "eyes to hear, ears to see", Habakkuk? (or as The Book says it, since I'm "blind" I'm seeing things here... hear...)
key term here: "afterlife"
Marc, imo, you've relayed a phenomena (and an awesome one at that!). I offer that there are perhaps several possibilities for explaining it. I call it a stretch to label it "afterlife".
So that gets us back to the crux: how is "afterlife" to be defined?
I use it rather strictly, as I to date have found little verifiable evidence personally. And yes, I'm a skeptic still here. I accept generally your offering of evidence ("before the court")
, Marc. For me, its simply always seemed amazing that it boils down to "he said that she said that he said it happened" (particularly to get us all the way back to BC to AD miracles = "the gospel truth").So as to "afterlife" the word, I use it regarding the "Bible thumping" aka theist definition(s) (noting we got to this discussion via athesim vs theism). More precisely I'd use it as a synonym for the more commonly used "eternal life". Thus where "God" spoke so clearly "eternal truths"-- including "the afterlife"-- to chosen ones that they could write it down for the rest of us "children" (deaf...'er... blind ones). The biz of how to get it and what it is, etc. For some then its "streets paved with gold", for some its X-number of virgins, where for others its "heaven (literally) on earth" (after of course the "rest of us" are burned/burning-eternally in fire-- as some of the not blind "see" it; of course still others "hear" it saying we all get "in"), etc. Not to leave out (now that I'm not as "blind") some saying its all metaphor (whatever "all" means).
More precisely, the example you give is not truly "afterlife" in this, or the more strictest, sense. Perhaps others would be so kind as to share their perspective on it (here before the court)?
Meanwhile, indeed, this one sited is not (was not then) "eternally" dead, as the rest of the evidence establishes (duh, they're still here)
. I personally have no problem with the possibility of our "consciousness" lingering, expanding, or drifting in another ("higher") dimension (or experiencing expanded natural sensations). Just don't ask me to believe any other man about it as one that's heard the "loving Father God" tell him for me. Been there, done that.A rather interesting aside is touched on in the May 7th edition of Newsweek article titled: To Treat the Dead -
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about heart attacks—and death itself. that I just perused yesterday. Rather than further hijack this thread I'll post it in a thread of its own just in case the site is temporary as a news article online, but here's the relevant snippet from it:
[T]he conventional answer was that [the "clinically dead"] patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.
When I read the article I remember reflecting about how when a person loses one sense, the others become more sensitive (ie close your eyes and your hearing becomes more keen/sensitive ie "louder"), and thus wondering how the "death" lose of the "typical" senses might open even amazing sensitivity --including some form(s) of telepathy even (or other unexperienced and undiscovered biological means)? [perhaps akin to what may another day be discovered: cell memory, or our "spirit" in our cells via DNA "recording" and "record"]
Side-bar: I find it amusing that you seem to have twice implied I (or someone else here) has said Revelationists (Divine religionists) are "blind". Like that concept is something someone here came up with? "eyes to hear, ears to see", Habakkuk?
(or as The Book says it, since I'm "blind" I'm seeing things here... hear...) 
*[where really they are Federal Reserve "notes" aka "reminders", akin to how folks used to say they had a "bank note" (or "car note" or "house note" which meant today's "loan"]
ok, we won't go there; sing another verse of America The Beautiful instead...) 
...there's the problemo~