Religious

[Light]

Originally Posted by Actor

Every subject of an NDE was suffering from a condition where the brain was not fully functional. That fact alone should raise red flags all over.

That is true and that is a prerequisite for most NDE's. Our connection to God or universal energy is NOT through our physical brain. If it were we would all be communicating with the other side. Our connection to God/the universal energy is through consciousness and the physical brain gets in the way of that. By having the brain inoperable such as in trauma, consciousness can reconnect to its source, thus you have an NDE.

On a much smaller scale, this is what happens in meditation. You don't get dramatic results like an NDE but by quieting the mind, you allow your consciousness to let another dimension that IT is connected to, to come through you. It's not a profound thing. Its subtle and almost unnoticeable until you start to see how it has changed you.

Originally Posted by Actor

Is it possible for consciousness to survive when the brain dies? If so then that implies that the brain is not necessary for consciousness.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Actor

But that raises the question of why behavior can be so dramatically altered by damage to the brain?

That statement assumes something that is false. We are not who we think we are. We are not our definition of ourselves. Look at Reagan. When he got Alzheimer's, he didn't even know that he was once president anymore. Look at your favorite TV or movie stars from the 60's and 70"s. I cannot even recognize them today even when they tell me who they are. They are no longer the same person physically. That goes for mental changes and when the brain is damaged, for sure the person will change. Because our definition of ourselves is an illusion.

Soul, spirit or consciousness (same thing,different words), is not concerned with the physical which changes its definition of self with time. I am a baby, now a kid, now a teenager, now an adult, now an old man. Well who are you really? You are none of them. They are all illusions and the proof of that is all those "yous" ,disappeared.

For example, if I put a drop of water on a table, that water drop now has an identity. It is separate from its source and has its own unique shape which is its own personality. If it could think it would create its own identity to itself of who it thinks it is. If it had an ego it would think, I am a drop and I am this or that and better or worse that this or that. However when that water drop returns to its source via evaporation, it will once again join with its source and its ego of who it thought it was when it was separate from its source will be inconsequential because that was a proven illusion. It is now a gas and rejoined with its oneness that it came from. We will also pass back into the oneness that we came from.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I thought the point was quite obvious. After watching it again I still think so.

This "idea of consciousness surviving after death" brings up the question brings up the question of what is the function of the brain? In a previous post I brought up the case of Phineas Gage who had a rod driven through his skull, taking out part of his brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage



I brought up this incident in March of last year. Boxcar's explanation of Mr. Gage's personality change was that Mr. Gage had a bad hair day.

Digression: This statement by boxcar is unbelievable. The best this so-called-Christian from Swampland can do is to trivialize Mr. Gage's tragic accident by calling it a bad hair day. Unbelievable! End of digression.

Boxcar never answered my question "what is the function of the human brain?" Post #17926.

But enough about boxie.


There is a nexus between NDEs, Mr. Gage's tragedy, the "idea of consciousness surviving after death" and Mr. Harris's video. The evidence is overwhelming that the brain is a necessary element for thought. We can map the brain and know that certain mental functions are carried out by certain parts of the brain.

Can you cite any case of an NDE where the subjects brain was fully functional during the experience? You cannot! (If you think you can, speak up.) Every subject of an NDE was suffering from a condition where the brain was not fully functional. That fact alone should raise red flags all over. Yet believers are so eager to believe that they are willing to accept claims without checking them out.

Is it possible for consciousness to survive when the brain dies? If so then that implies that the brain is not necessary for consciousness. But that raises the question of why behavior can be so dramatically altered by damage to the brain?

If it was obvious I would have not asked you the point. What was obvious to me is that Mr. Harris did not support your assertion that the science is closed. To the contrary he said science is no opposed to the concept consciousness existing after death. But and it is a very big but as currently there is a lot of evidence against it. I said I agree. Thus, what is obvious to me is the question is not definitely closed.

You ask why behavior can be so dramatically altered by damage to the brain. Simple. It is the difference between undamaged and damaged hardware running the software. If the hardware is damaged (corrupted) the software will not work as it is intended.

[Show Me the Wire]

Why don't you quote verse 32 for us out of your version of the bible?

Ok boxcar I posted verse 32 out of my corrupted version of the Bible. Now quote your Bible's verse 32 from Acts 16 to enlighten me.

No, I believe your LITERAL interpretation of the John 6 passage is beyond absurd.

Don't you think this type of response, especially from you, is disingenuous and hypocritical since you literally believe Genesis in that God made all creation in 7 calendar days and made clay into flesh making the earth only 4 -10 ? thousands years old?

[Show Me the Wire]

Also, my hermeneutic is "infallible" as I interpret the same way
Jesus, the prophets and the apostles interpreted the scriptures.

Yes, boxcar I saw the quotation marks. Why would you even use the word "infallible" in your claim about your hermeneutics, especially adding to your infallibility claim that you interpret Scripture like Jesus? Even more you add more strength to your claim you interpret as the prophets and the apostles. I tell you why, because you equate your interpretations with the Incarnate word? Your words are quoted above: I interpret the same way Jesus.


Yes, boxcar you claimed infallibility, even with your usage of quotation marks, in your interpretations, as evidenced by the totality of your claim.

No boxcar, I do not lie, I only expose your false claims.

[Show Me the Wire]

If boxcar interpreted Scripture like Jesus, he would have answered my my simple question about being saved, with a simple yes.

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.[a] “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” Luke 10:25-28 [emphasis added]

There goes the claim of interpreting Scripture like Jesus, down the drain into the garbage disposal.

However, I am very confident, since I am a Bible illiterate, boxcar, will teach me that the lawyer was under the Law. Christians are not under the law and we are saved by faith, which I believe.

Hmm, maybe the penitent thief didn't have to drag himself off the cross to suck on Jesus blood, since as a Jew he may have been under the law, just like the lawyer who asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If boxcar interpreted Scripture like Jesus, he would have answered my my simple question about being saved, with a simple yes.

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.[a] “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” Luke 10:25-28 [emphasis added]

There goes the claim of interpreting Scripture like Jesus, down the drain into the garbage disposal.

However, I am very confident, since I am a Bible illiterate, boxcar, will teach me that the lawyer was under the Law. Christians are not under the law and we are saved by faith, which I believe.

Hmm, maybe the penitent thief didn't have to drag himself off the cross to suck on Jesus blood, since as a Jew he may have been under the law, just like the lawyer who asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life?

Why are pestering me with your nonsense during this very interesting DNC convention?

Did I not say that faith always works through love? Love is always present where true faith is.

Too bad, though, that the lawyer didn't have the kind of love required in scripture.

Re the thief: He could not have made it into heaven, according, to your interpretation of John 6. After all, those present tense verbs of "eat" and "drink" were spoken under the Covenant of Law!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If it was obvious I would have not asked you the point. What was obvious to me is that Mr. Harris did not support your assertion that the science is closed. To the contrary he said science is no opposed to the concept consciousness existing after death. But and it is a very big but as currently there is a lot of evidence against it. I said I agree. Thus, what is obvious to me is the question is not definitely closed.

I don't think I ever said the question was definitely closed. It's definitely open but at a level far below the proposition that the South won the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You ask why behavior can be so dramatically altered by damage to the brain. Simple. It is the difference between undamaged and damaged hardware running the software. If the hardware is damaged (corrupted) the software will not work as it is intended.

Right. But in my experience most believers will not accept that. The idea that the brain is hardware running software is anathema to them. That's why boxcar refuses to answer my question.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

For example, if I put a drop of water on a table, that water drop now has an identity. It is separate from its source and has its own unique shape which is its own personality. If it could think it would create its own identity to itself of who it thinks it is. If it had an ego it would think, I am a drop and I am this or that and better or worse that this or that. However when that water drop returns to its source via evaporation, it will once again join with its source and its ego of who it thought it was when it was separate from its source will be inconsequential because that was a proven illusion. It is now a gas and rejoined with its oneness that it came from. We will also pass back into the oneness that we came from.

Equivocation!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why are pestering me with your nonsense during this very interesting DNC convention?

Did I not say that faith always works through love? Love is always present where true faith is.

Too bad, though, that the lawyer didn't have the kind of love required in scripture.

Re the thief: He could not have made it into heaven, according, to your interpretation of John 6. After all, those present tense verbs of "eat" and "drink" were spoken under the Covenant of Law!

Yes boxcar you did say faith works through love. However, that is not what I asked. I asked: Do you need to love God to be saved? I did not ask how faith works.

Well enjoy the DNC convention.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't think I ever said the question was definitely closed. It's definitely open but at a level far below the proposition that the South won the Civil War.

Right. But in my experience most believers will not accept that. The idea that the brain is hardware running software is anathema to them. That's why boxcar refuses to answer my question.

True. You never said science the question was definitely closed. I believe you stated there is no evidence to support the concept of an after-life. That is when the subject of NDE's came up as possible scientific evidence. I proffered two studies to overcome the objection of hallucinations as the cause of reported NDEs. Thus, the issue of credibility arose regarding the studies.

I guess that is why I asked you what point you were making with the Harris video. As I, don't recall Mr. Harris addressing credibility issues about the two studies.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes boxcar you did say faith works through love. However, that is not what I asked. I asked: Do you need to love God to be saved? I did not ask how faith works.

But love has always fulfilled the Law of Moses. Christ didn't teach anything new. The problem comes from depraved hearts that cannot love God or neighbor because unregenerate hearts are at enmity with God. Therefore, the solution to this problem is with the unconditional New Covenant promise that God would provide a new heart -- a heart that would not hate him -- one that would not be hostile toward him, etc.

Well enjoy the DNC convention.

Thank you. I'm nearly empathizing with the Crazy Bernes.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

True. You never said science the question was definitely closed. I believe you stated there is no evidence to support the concept of an after-life. That is when the subject of NDE's came up as possible scientific evidence. I proffered two studies to overcome the objection of hallucinations as the cause of reported NDEs. Thus, the issue of credibility arose regarding the studies.

I guess that is why I asked you what point you were making with the Harris video. As I, don't recall Mr. Harris addressing credibility issues about the two studies.

I think I've made the case that NDEs do not represent scientific evidence. Of course you are free to believe that they do.

[Greyfox]

A couple of months ago hcap told boxcar and me that we didn't know beans about Islam.

Would hcap explain why we keep receiving reports such as the one below on almost a daily basis?
Why aren't the "moderates" stopping them?
Or perhaps are moderate Muslims not so moderate at heart?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-church.html

Islamist knifemen chanting 'Allahu Akbar' behead French priest, 84, and leave nun fighting for her life after storming Mass - before police shoot them dead

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4FWerzFqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

A couple of months ago hcap told boxcar and me that we didn't know beans about Islam.

Would hcap explain why we keep receiving reports such as the one below on almost a daily basis?
Why aren't the "moderates" stopping them?
Or perhaps are moderate Muslims not so moderate at heart?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-church.html

Islamist knifemen chanting 'Allahu Akbar' behead French priest, 84, and leave nun fighting for her life after storming Mass - before police shoot them dead

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4FWerzFqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

These were exactly my sentiments which I posted on another thread a week or two ago. These "moderates" need to step up and actively demonstrate their solidarity with the West. They need to come of their tortoise shell. Their continued failure to do so makes them part of the problem! The world won't be able to help but think that they're really not the West's friends.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

A couple of months ago hcap told boxcar and me that we didn't know beans about Islam.

Would hcap explain why we keep receiving reports such as the one below on almost a daily basis?
Why aren't the "moderates" stopping them?
Or perhaps are moderate Muslims not so moderate at heart?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-church.html

Islamist knifemen chanting 'Allahu Akbar' behead French priest, 84, and leave nun fighting for her life after storming Mass - before police shoot them dead

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4FWerzFqi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I'm not interested in arguing about this issue (don't have time) but am more interested in finding out what you believe. It sounds like you are saying that you believe most of the over 1 billion Muslims are somewhat extremist and wish to do harm to non Muslims? Is this correct? That it isn't just a few bad apples?