I AM AS GOD AS YOU wrote:

This would be all of the "god of abe" fans,  the xains, the "paulines", etc. They are the enemy to love, as to understand, as to heal, and demands  understanding our own enemy or demons with in. Jesus did his 40 days alone, and Buddha meditated a long while nearly starving, to this 'self awaking", realization of what we all are. A story so simple and humbling, that has been perverted by the innate fears and ignorance of human kind.

Some say with good reason that Buddha Jesus "saves", and that Saul Paul's christianity destroys and blinds. Idol worship is "wrong thinking", the very definition of hell and mental .

You are not far from the truth (as I see it). Indeed, the Bible teaches on many levels what you are aiming at here. And yes, it is a message that is more often than not one that is missed. It is human to externalise and over-simplify advanced concepts. A major failing of believers is that they mimic what they understand to be holiness, without understanding that it comes from within not without. They are as the stars of the sky (to play upon NT imagery), 'having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof' (2 Tim 3:5). True salvation lies within. And yes, you are as God as I. Right on, brother!

Quote:

RRS is love.

Hmmm, 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. If it's love then it's a tough love. Keep working at it!

'And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.'

Most of the atheist comment above is that there are no miracles because there is no evidence.

My first post here, so being shy I will ask atheists smarter than I to respond to the documented and independently scrutinised  "miracle" healings used in the Catholic church as part of teh canonization process.  As I understand it there is evidence - the test for recognising the miracle is that the healing in responce to prayer be immediate, complete, contrary to medical science and unexplained - tested by a medical panel which includes non-Catholic, sometimes even atheist doctors as well as teh persons own physician.

Just two of the many examples, Dr.  Manuel Nevado from cancerous chronic radiodermatitis Nov '92 www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html) and Ron Pytel etc - examples abound.

 

What matters is not so much the specifics of each case but rather the process of validation to which they are subjected, which as good as it gets. The process followed is clearly designed to withstand the natural attacks of sceptics - testimony to its robustness is that it does withstand the criticism.

 

sala kahle - peace

 

"If true salvation lies within Dada, why worship God?"    .... and how, and what, when all is ONE?  Umm, worship "life and love" .... I'm good with that, but again, how?

All the evidence says that it is. Despite hocus pocus claims from preachers and urban legends about people who have been to heaven and come back, there's no evidence that life goes on after death. Consciousness is dependent on physical processes. When the brain dies and the body decays, there is no longer an organized physical process, so the only logical conclusion is that there is no consciousness.

But what about near death experiences? Couldn't they be proof of an afterlife? Let's examine the evidence. All the stories are just that – stories. Anecdotal evidence, as we've seen, is extremely weak, and should only be considered when stronger corroborating evidence exists. Were the people who experienced NDEs in good mental and physical condition? Obviously not, as near death is a pretty bad situation, both physically and mentally. We know that even minute changes in the brain can trigger wildly erratic perceptions and behaviors. Dying is considerably more than a minute change in the brain. On the surface, the evidence for NDE's as proof of an afterlife seems fragile at best.

We're still not done, though. Is there better evidence that NDE's are simply physical, and that the perceptions of heaven and hell are illusions? It turns out that there is quite a lot. Before discussing NDEs directly, we need to be clear on a few terms.

If you've ever watched the movie, The Princess Bride, you will remember Miracle Max's famous words about death: “Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change.” The scientific descriptions are not as witty, but they're not radically different. There is a big difference between clinical death and brain death. Clinical death usually results from cardiac arrest. When the heart stops pumping, neurons no longer receive oxygen. Without new oxygen, they continue to fire for a short while, sometimes with odd side effects. It would only be a slight stretch to say that a clinically dead person is mostly dead.

Brain death, on the other hand, is all dead. Clinical death can be reversed within a certain time frame. We've all heard stories, and seen depictions on medical dramas. The heart can be started chemically, electrically, and manually, depending on the situation. Assuming that there is still some neural activity, starting a clinically dead person's heart will bring them “back to life.” Not so with brain death. Once the brain dies, the person is fully dead, and will not come back.

What, then, can we say about people who are clinically dead? For one thing, they are the only people who have ever had NDE's and lived to tell about them. For another, we can make some observations about what happens when the brain begins to die. If these observations form a parsimonious explanation for NDE's, we will have a compelling reason to believe they are not supernatural, and do not give proof of an afterlife.*

As the brain becomes oxygen depleted, neural networks begin to break down. Infants and small children have small neural networks. As they age, they form larger and larger networks as they process more and more information. An adult can temporarily break down access to fully formed networks by using drugs, or possibly meditative practice (although the latter is the subject of considerable debate). In fact, it's ironic that in the vernacular, many people say they have “transcendent” experiences while on mind altering drugs. The reality is that they are actually moving to a lower level of consciousness!

The sense of “loss of self” is a commonly reported experience in NDEs, and it has a well understood cause. Though the technical explanation sounds quite daunting to non-scientists, the cause is quite simple. In some cases, extreme overproduction of serotonin can inhibit the ability of neurons to pump potassium out of neural channels, effectively de-electrolyzing the neurons. In others, drugs can perform a function known as transmitter masking, essentially inhibiting the ability of transmitters to function properly by substituting an imposter chemical (such as an opiate) for the “proper” chemical. The end result is that synaptogenesis (the process of forming synapses) becomes temporarily “flooded.” In other words, new synapses are formed and then overturned so quickly that the brain becomes unable to process them effectively.

Critics will often object at this point in a conversation. After all, scientists have not explained every aspect of NDEs. In fact, most scientists are perfectly willing to admit that there are some very puzzling things about them, and the explanations are not always apparent. Hopefully, you've gotten good at spotting the fallacy. Someone who wants to believe in NDEs will say, “Since science doesn't have an answer, it must be proof of the afterlife.” This is a fallacy of ignorance, and is not valid logic. Still, many will argue that there are common threads. People from different religions have the same kinds of experiences. Kevin Nelson, a neurophysiologist at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, has this to say: "People say that because there's a common thread running through them all there must be a spiritual element," he says. "I look at that common thread and I see a biological process." (New Scientist, October 17, 2006) Nelson believes that he can explain the entire experience in purely scientific terms. He might be able to, but then again, he might miss something. This is not as relevant as it may seem. The important point is that good critical thinking demands that we not make up answers.

In fact, there is a common misconception about NDEs. It's not necessary to be at death's door to experience one. Quoting from the New Scientist article:

Nelson says that that's because despite the name, NDE has little to do with actually being close to death. He argues that the experience stems from an acute bout of "REM intrusion" - a glitch in the brain's circuitry that, in times of extreme stress, may flip it into a mixed state of awareness where it is both in REM sleep and partially awake at the same time. "The concept that our brain is either 100 per cent awake or 100 per cent in REM sleep is absolutely erroneous," says Mark Mahowald, a neurologist at the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center in Minneapolis. "We can have pieces of one state intruding into another, and that's when things get interesting."

REM intrusion is a common feature of narcolepsy - a neurological disorder characterised by uncontrollable bouts of sleep that can cause elaborate hallucinations and, sometimes, out-of-body experiences. But REM intrusion can affect anyone, and frequently does. Recent estimates suggest that up to 40 per cent of people have experienced "sleep paralysis", a form of REM intrusion in which you awaken with part of your brain still in REM sleep and your body paralysed. Often the result is a terrifying feeling of being unable to move, accompanied by visual or auditory hallucinations and pressure on the chest. Sleep paralysis has been offered as a rational explanation for many apparently supernatural phenomena, including witch attacks, visitations by the dead, and more recently alien abductions.

Scientists are experimenting with the phenomenon of out of body sight, too. Olaf Blanke, a cognitive neurologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has caused subjects to see their legs, disembodied, from a floating perspective, simply by applying an electrical stimulus to the angular gyrus, a part of the brain involved with processing sensory information. (New Scientist)

There's yet another example of transcendental experiences that we should look at. Epileptics often report NDE-like perceptions after having particularly intense seizures. Seizures which effect the limbic system are well known for causing religious or transcendent experiences. In a way, this is an opposite cause for a similar effect. When a person has a seizure, their brain is firing too many neurons at once. Just like a computer, our brain seldom uses all of it's capacity at once. The myth that we only use 10% of our brains comes from a simple misunderstanding of this concept. When a computer is idle, or is only running a few processes, it uses a small percentage of its total processing power. Our brains function essentially the same way. Also, just like a computer, when we over tax our brains, the results are not always pleasant. How this relates to clinical death is simple. When the heart weakens, the body must compensate by increasing blood pressure drastically, keeping precious oxygen flowing to the brain. The increase in pressure wreaks havoc on the brain. Though it is still alive, it is far from normal functioning.

There is much speculation about the connection between epilepsy and religion. A nun at a Carmelite monestary in California recently discovered that the visions and transcendental raptures she'd been experiencing for years were actually epilepsy. Careful review of the private lives of many religious figures has prompted the question, were many of the prophets and religious visionaries of the past epileptics? In the end, we will probably never know about those who have long since passed. New research is coming in all the time, however, and as the connection becomes more and more concrete, it's becoming harder and harder to dismiss the evidence that NDEs, as well as mystical experiences not associated with dying, are simply misfiring neurons playing a game with our perception.

We can look at this another way. Dismiss for a moment all the possible explanations that scientists have come up with. In a recent survey, researchers found that among people who had had NDEs, a full 60 percent had sleep problems involving REM intrusion. Only 24 percent of people who had not had NDEs had similar problems. There is clearly a physical connection between REM intrusion and NDEs. Which explanation makes more sense? That there is an afterlife, and the apparent connection to sleep problems is coincidence, or that the connection is evidence of what really causes them? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12274186/)

So, in the end, we have to concede that though there might be compelling emotional reasons to want to believe in life after death, there's simply not enough compelling logical reasons. In fact, if we apply our objectivity test by substituting another trivial question, we see clearly that without the emotional tug on our reason, we would dismiss the question out of hand. There is simply no reason to believe it.

First of all, even if God did not display self-discipline or self-sacrifice, I'd still be called to do so.  It ain't all about me.  I am my brother's keeper.  Life is not an individual journey, it is a collective experience.

Salvation is not an individual promise, it is a promise made to us collectively.

From the beginning, God has exercised self-discipline for the benfit of mankind.  At the Fall, he didn't just whach Adam and Eve and start all over again, but promised them redemption.  He spared Isaac, He led Israel out of the desert, He spared Lot and would have spared Sodom oand Gomorrah, He rescued Noah, He sustained David.  All this despite Israel's rejection of covenants, all of this despite Man's failure to uphold his end of the covenants he made with God.  Not that there weren't severe repercussions on Israel for its apostasies, but in the end, God never abandoned His people.  He had given His Word and never abandoned that promise.

"Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from me.  Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done."  Again, there is a covenant to be fulfilled and God will not be swayed from fulfilling it.

Jesus never stopped being God, nor did he ever stop being man.  There was no need for an Incarnation for salvation, let alone for God to take upon Himself the punishment for our sins.  By doing so he has set an example.  There is no excuse for complaining about the difficulty of the human condition; there is no excuse for bemoaning suffering.  God has undertaken to become human, He has experienced suffering in His own flesh.  The experience of Christ is no less than the experience in which I have confidence. He is but the firstfruits of salvation.  A share in that same salvation is our hope, and "he who has hope lives differently."

jcgadfly wrote:

You've been called of God to use something that the Bible shows your God doesn't have (self-discipline that benefits society) and to do what your God didn't do (self sacrifice for the well-being of others)?

I assume you mean that the crucifixion of Jesus/God was a self-sacrificial act that benefited mankind. I have to ask then - At what point in the Crucifixion did Jesus stop being God?" If he stopped being god, why venerate him? If he didn't, what did he sacrifice?

I think, JC, that we must both suffer from ADD.  We are notorious for our ability to derail threads.  LOL!  And just when this one seemed to be getting back on track.  But, I do so enjoy our discussions, so here goes....

First of all, even if God did not display self-discipline or self-sacrifice, I'd still be called to do so.  It ain't all about me.  I am my brother's keeper.  Life is not an individual journey, it is a collective experience.  Salvation is not an individual promise, it is a promise made to us collectively.

From the beginning, God has exercised self-discipline for the benfit of mankind.  At the Fall, he didn't just whach Adam and Eve and start all over again, but promised them redemption.  He spared Isaac, He led Israel out of the desert, He spared Lot and would have spared Sodom oand Gomorrah, He rescued Noah, He sustained David.  All this despite Israel's rejection of covenants, all of this despite Man's failure to uphold his end of the covenants he made with God.  Not that there weren't severe repercussions on Israel for its apostasies, but in the end, God never abandoned His people.  He had given His Word and never abandoned that promise.

"Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from me.  Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done."  Again, there is a covenant to be fulfilled and God will not be swayed from fulfilling it.

Jesus never stopped being God, nor did he ever stop being man.  There was no need for an Incarnation for salvation, let alone for God to take upon Himself the punishment for our sins.  By doing so he has set an example.  There is no excuse for complaining about the difficulty of the human condition; there is no excuse for bemoaning suffering.  God has undertaken to become human, He has experienced suffering in His own flesh.  The experience of Christ is no less than the experience in which I have confidence. He is but the firstfruits of salvation.  A share in that same salvation is our hope, and "he who has hope lives differently."

 

 

From the beginning, God has exercised self-discipline for the benfit of mankind.

Vastet wrote:

I'm going to assume DadaMungo was incapable of responding to my response now.

I had already covered the inadequacy of my anecdotal reference, and I admitted it readily as such. The rest of your response simply didn't warrant any further comment, IMO.

Is there something you would like me to comment further upon?

If there is a God, even nearing the description of the Judo/Christian tradition, then we are certainly all far short of understanding Him.

Yep. If there is a God, even nearing the description of the Judo/Christian tradition, then we are certainly all far short of understanding Him. Do I claim my understanding is correct? By no means.

Again you play the skeptic card about the factual reality of John and Jesus, but those are questions which have not, to my knowledge, been conclusively demonstrated. So I could ask the inverse of your questions: how do you know that they are not true? Of course, I have to admit that some of the stuff that goes on there just doesn't happen every day, and a measure of skepticism is fully warranted. No argument there.

Vastet wrote:

I'm going to assume DadaMungo was incapable of responding to my response now.

I had already covered the inadequacy of my anecdotal reference, and I admitted it readily as such. The rest of your response simply didn't warrant any further comment, IMO.

Is there something you would like me to comment further upon?

Neither a vacuum cleaner, nor a bunny rabbit calls me to self-discipline for the good of society; or to self-sacrifice for the well-being of others.  

jcgadfly wrote:

akakiwibear wrote:

Most of the atheist comment above is that there are no miracles because there is no evidence.

My first post here, so being shy I will ask atheists smarter than I to respond to the documented and independently scrutinised  "miracle" healings used in the Catholic church as part of teh canonization process.  As I understand it there is evidence - the test for recognising the miracle is that the healing in responce to prayer be immediate, complete, contrary to medical science and unexplained - tested by a medical panel which includes non-Catholic, sometimes even atheist doctors as well as teh persons own physician.

Just two of the many examples, Dr.  Manuel Nevado from cancerous chronic radiodermatitis Nov '92 www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html) and Ron Pytel etc - examples abound.

 

What matters is not so much the specifics of each case but rather the process of validation to which they are subjected, which as good as it gets. The process followed is clearly designed to withstand the natural attacks of sceptics - testimony to its robustness is that it does withstand the criticism.

 

sala kahle - peace

 

It's not really that stringent as, to my knowledge, there is no pre- or post- miracle testing. It's not that hard to claim a complete healing for someone who never had the disease or if that person was under a physician's care before the miracle occurred.

It reminds me of what I've seen and heard from Christians in my experience. It goes along the lines of, "The docs told me I had cancer - so I prayed and asked the church to pray too. I went into the hospital for surgery that next week and started chemotherapy and radiation treatments after that. Now the cancer's gone. Praise Jesus I'm healed!"

IIRC, a prominent example of the church's methods related to Mother Teresa. I think it had something to do with a woman who'd supposedly prayed with a likeness of the nun, and claimed it cured her cancer. All the while, she's going through regular western cancer treatments as well.

I'll also reiterate what I think is the core problem with trying to prove miracles is that a miracle isn't a positive definition. It's only a miracle because it's not explained, meaning that it's synonymous with not knowing how something works, which means anything could be a miracle if you don't look for answers. That's assuming the phenomena is even present for someone to scrutinize. How many miracles come to us as vague hearsay?

DadaMungo wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I'm going to assume DadaMungo was incapable of responding to my response now.

I had already covered the inadequacy of my anecdotal reference, and I admitted it readily as such. The rest of your response simply didn't warrant any further comment, IMO.

Is there something you would like me to comment further upon?

Actually, yes.

We've already told you how atheists explain miracles. Why do theists go through mental gymnastics when the prayers don't work?

Saw a great example with my wife.

They've been praying for my pastor's wife who needs more breast cancer surgery.

I asked why the prayer hasn't kicked in she replied, "God's not Santa Claus"

I quoted James 5:16 and John 15:7 and she came back with:

1. God can work through medicine.

2. God can say no.

3. Healing doesn't only happen in this life.

I didn't want to get into "God gave her the cancer" yet.

Why do theists dance so hard to let God off the hook?

smartypants wrote:

I'm only going to take #3 because I have a problem with "memory is a shady thing." That's akin to saying your father is either stupid or crazy, in my opinion, and doesn't address the question. Furthermore, I had a very similar experience that did NOT involve a trauma that might have clouded my retrospective memory. In fact, nothing happened at all.

I was driving myself and some friends home from a weekend in the country, going somewhat over the speed limit as most of us do when the roads are dry and clear of traffic. Descending this long, curving, downhill stretch of highway, the thought popped into my head "I'd better slow down on this curve or I could lose control of the car" (my mom's). Not ten seconds later, we reach the bottom of the hill, and there's a cop car sitting there just waiting to certainly give me a speeding ticket had I not hit the brakes. We also happened to have pot on us (I wasn't stoned), which could have led to a much, much worse evening for us if things had gone awry with the cop for some reason.

Certainly it could've been divine intervention, but my belief now is that there is a great deal about the powers of the human mind that we don't even slightly understand. There's also the fact that Time is both a mysterious notion in terms of how it really operates, and also that our perception of it is hemmed in by the common sense that it's strictly linear, unidirectional, and unchanging. I find it equally as plausible that my mind is capable of a style of perception science hasn't (yet) explained as that some other-worldly being that science can't (ever) explain was speaking to me.

If it's true that the mind has these type of latent perceptual abilities, and it's also true that (some) religious people are more prone to receiving them, it may just be that belief in religion, as a side-effect, allows the mind to be open enough for certain pieces of information to get in. I still don't think that's necessarily proof of anything in particular.

Interesting story.

 

FWIW, I don't think God helped you not get caught breaking the law on two counts. God might've told you to slow down for your safety, but not to avoid a ticket. The bible makes it clear that God wants us to submit to our governing authorities and obey man's laws as well as God's laws.