Near-death experience explained? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-10-2010, 04:31 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
So, Snopes doesn't claim it's an untrue story, only that the current story has been shortened from the original.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 04:53 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:29 AM
sadly, most of these stories are probably only true for the fleeting consciousness, and will be followed by the silence you heard before you were born.

Quote:
Trouble in Paradise
Why are Americans so credulous about heaven?
By Johann Hari
Posted Sunday, April 4, 2010, at 9:14 AM ET

John Lennon urged us: "Imagine there's no heaven/ It's easy if you try/ No hell below us/ Above us only sky ..." Yet Americans aren't turning to Lennonism any faster than Leninism. Today, 81 percent say they believe in heaven—an increase of 10 percent since a decade ago. Of those, 71 percent say it is "an actual place." Indeed, 43 percent believe their pets—cats, rats, and snakes—are headed into the hereafter with them to be stroked for eternity. America's branch of heaven is crammed full, even as the European and Asian wings are long since dissolved by the brisk winds of reason and skepticism.

So why can't Americans get over the Pearly Gates? In Heaven, Newsweek's religion correspondent, Lisa Miller, has written a fascinating millenniums-long history of the idea of heaven, spliced with some surprisingly mediocre reporting on present-day believers. At its core is a (very politely administered) slap to the American consensus. The heaven you think you're headed to—a reunion with your lost relatives in the light—is a very recent invention, only a little older than Goldman Sachs. Most of the believers in heaven across most of history would find it unrecognizable.

Heaven is constantly shifting shape because it is a history of subconscious human longings. Show me your heaven, and I'll show you what's lacking in your life. The desert-dwellers who wrote the Bible and the Quran lived in thirst—so their heavens were forever running with rivers and fountains and springs. African-American slaves believed they were headed for a heaven where "the first would be last, and the last would be first"—so they would be the free men dominating white slaves. Today's Islamist suicide-bombers live in a society starved of sex, so their heaven is a 72-virgin gang-bang. Emily Dickinson wrote: " 'Heaven'—is what I cannot Reach!/ The Apple on the Tree—/ Provided it do hopeless—hang—/ That—"Heaven" is—to Me!"

We know precisely when this story of projecting our lack into the sky began: 165 B.C., patented by the ancient Jews. Until then, heaven—shamayim—was the home of God and his angels. Occasionally God descended from it to give orders and indulge in a little light smiting, but there was a strict no-dead-people door policy. Humans didn't get in, and they didn't expect to. The best you could hope for after death was for your bones to be buried with your people in a shared tomb and for your story to carry on through your descendants. It was a realistic, humanistic approach to death. You go, but your people live on.

So how did the idea of heaven—as a perfect place where God lives and where you end up if you live right—rupture this reality? The different components of it had been floating around "in the atmosphere of Jerusalem, looking for a home," as Miller puts it, for a while. The Greeks had believed there was an eternal soul that ascended when you die. The Zoroastrians believed you would be judged in the end-time for your actions on earth. The Jews believed in an almighty Yahweh.

But it took a big bloody bang to fuse them together. In the run up to heaven's invention, the Jews were engaged in a long civil war over whether to open up to the Greeks and their commerce or to remain sealed away, insular and pure. With no winner in sight, King Antiochus got fed up. He invaded and tried to wipe out the Jewish religion entirely, replacing it with worship of Zeus. The Jews saw all that was most sacred to them shattered: They were ordered to sacrifice swine before a statue of Zeus that now dominated their Holy Temple. The Jews who refused were hacked down in the streets.

Many young men fled into the hills of Palestine to stage a guerrilla assault—now remembered as the Hanukkah story. The old Jewish tale about how you continue after you die was itself dying: Your bones couldn't be gathered by your ancestors anymore with so many Jews scattered and on the run. So suddenly death took on a new terror. Was this it? Were all these lives ending forever, for nothing? One of the young fighters—known to history only as Daniel—announced that the martyred Jews would receive a great reward. "Many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," he wrote and launched us on the road to the best-selling 1990s trash 90 Minutes in Heaven. Daniel's idea was wildly successful. Within a century, most Jews believed in heaven, and the idea has never died.

But while the key components of heaven were in place, it was not the kumbaya holiday camp it has become today. It was a place where you and God and the angels sat—but Jesus warned "there is no marriage in Heaven." You didn't join your relatives. It was you and God and eternal prayer. It was paradise, but not as we know it.

Even some atheists regard heaven as one of the least harmful religious ideas: a soothing blanket to press onto the brow of the bereaved. But, in fact, its primary function for centuries was as a tool of control and intimidation. The Vatican, for example, declared it had a monopoly on St. Peter's VIP list—and only those who obeyed the church authorities' every command and paid them vast sums for Get-Out-of-Hell-Free cards would get themselves and their children into it. The afterlife was a means of tyrannizing people in this life.

This use of heaven as a bludgeon long outlasted the Protestant Reformation. Miller points out that in Puritan New England, heaven was not primarily a comfort but rather a way to impose discipline in this life. It still gets used that way. For example, Mormons order women within their ranks who try to argue for full equality to recant—and if they don't, they are told they will be sent to a separate afterlife from their families for eternity.

Worse still, the promise of heaven is used every day as an incentive for people to commit atrocities. I have seen this in practice: I've interviewed wannabe suicide-bombers from London to Gaza to Syria, and they all launched into reveries about the orgy they will embark on in the clouds. Similarly, I was once sent—as my own personal purgatory—undercover on the Christian Coalition Solidarity tour of Israel. As we stood at Megido, the site described in the Book of Revelation as the launchpad for the Apocalypse, they bragged that hundreds of thousands of Arabs would soon be slaughtered there while George Bush and his friends are raptured to heaven as a reward for leading the Arabs to their deaths. Heaven can be an inducement to horror.

When she is tracking the history of these ideas, Miller is highly competent (if rarely more). But she also interweaves a travelogue across America, during which she interviews believers in heaven—and here the book becomes insufferable. She describes herself as a "professional skeptic," but she is, in fact, professionally credulous. Instead of trying to tease out what these fantasies of an afterlife reveal about her interviewees, she quizzes everyone about their heaven as if she is planning to write a Lonely Planet guide to the area, demanding more and more intricate details. She only just stops short of demanding to know what the carpeting will be like. But she never asks the most basic questions: Where's your evidence? Where are you getting these ideas from?

She gives plenty of proof that the idea of heaven can be comforting, or beautiful—but that doesn't make it true. The difference between wishful thinking and fact-seeking is something most 6-year-olds can grasp, yet Miller—and, it seems, the heaven-believing majority—refuse it here. Yes, I would like to see my dead friends and relatives again. I also would like there to be world peace, a million dollars in my checking account, and for Matt Damon to ask me to marry him. If I took my longing as proof they were going to happen, you'd think I was deranged.

"Rationalist questions are not helpful," announces one of her interviewees—a professor at Harvard, no less. This seems to be Miller's view too. She stresses that to believe in heaven you have to make "a leap of faith"—but in what other field in life do we abandon all need for evidence? Why do it in one so crucial to your whole sense of existence? And if you are going to "leap" beyond proof, why leap to the Christian heaven? Why not convince yourself you are going to live after death in Narnia, or Middle Earth, for which there is as much evidence? She doesn't explain: Her arguments dissolve into a feel-good New Age drizzle.

True, Miller does cast a quick eye over the only "evidence" that believers in heaven offer—the testimonies of people who have had near-death experiences. According to the medical journal the Lancet, between 9 percent and 18 percent of people who have been near death report entering a tunnel, seeing a bright light, and so on. Dinesh D'Souza, in his preposterous book Life After Death, presents this as "proof" for heaven. But, in fact, there are clear scientific explanations. As the brain shuts down, it is the peripheral vision that goes first, giving the impression of a tunnel. The center of your vision is what remains, giving the impression of a bright light.

Indeed, as Miller concedes: "Virtually all the features of [a near-death experience]—the sense of moving through a tunnel, an 'out of body' feeling, spiritual awe, visual hallucinations, and intense memories—can be reproduced with a stiff dose of ketamine, a horse tranquilizer frequently used as a party drug." Is a stoner teenager in a K-hole in contact with God and on a day-trip to heaven? Should the religious be dropping horse dope on Sundays?
But Miller soon runs scared from the skeptical implications of this, offering the false balance of finding one very odd scientist who says that these experiences could point beyond life—without any proof at all.

Miller also only scratches the great conceptual hole at the heart of heaven: After a while, wouldn't it be excruciatingly dull? When you live in the desert, a spring seems like paradise. But when you have had the spring for a thousand years, won't you be sick of it? Heaven is, in George Orwell's words, an attempt to "produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary." Take away the contrast, and heaven becomes hell.

And yet, and yet … of course I understand why so many people want to believe in heaven, even now. It is a way—however futilely—of trying to escape the awful emptiness of death. As Phillip Larkin put it: "Not to be here,/ Not to be anywhere,/ And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true."

Yes, there is pain in seeing this, but there is also a liberation in seeing beyond the childhood myths of our species. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, written in Babylon 4,000 years ago, the eponymous hero travels into the gardens of the gods in an attempt to discover the secret of eternal life. His guide tells him the secret—there is no secret. This is it. This is all we're going to get. This life. This time. Once. "Enjoy your life," the goddess Siduri tells him. "Love the child who holds you by the hand, and give your wife pleasure in your embrace." It's Lennon's dream, four millenniums ahead of schedule: Above us, only sky. Gilgamesh returns to the world and lives more intensely and truly and deeply than before, knowing there is no celestial after-party and no forever. After all this time, can't we finally follow Gilgamesh?

Print


__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 04:53 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:29 AM
...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 05:09 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
sadly, most of these stories are probably only true for the fleeting consciousness..





The fleeting consciousness argument is the weakest, of all explanations.

If you would take the time to really read the 2 stories I posted, you would see an avalanche of information that disproves the neurological science minded or other man made feeble attempts of explanations.

But you would really have to open your mind to do that.

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 05:16 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
The fleeting consciousness argument is the weakest, of all explanations.

If you would take the time to really read the 2 stories I posted, you would see an avalanche of information that disproves the neurological science minded or other man made feeble attempts of explanations.

But you would really have to open your mind to do that.



to open your mind, you'd see how culturally specific it all is and how it has more to do with where and how we live, rather than where we're going when we die.



and when i really read those stories, i see a lot of people out to prove something they already believe exists, and i see a whole lot of sentimentalism.

all understandable, but hardly empirical proof of anything.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 06:16 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:29 AM
I'm fairly certain it is going to be nigh impossible to ever prove that NDEs are definitively real, while it is certainly easier, due to the (good) reality that science delves into the material, rather than the metaphysical. It is just easier and more logical to attribute NDEs to a misfiring brain process.

Nonetheless, as someone who does not dismiss the metaphysical outright, I don't find the scientific explanation to be wholly satisfying, mainly because quite many of us are...

1) able to tell the difference between reality and a dream
2) the rather singular focus of the NDE, which, even if the details differ substantially, are on the seeming death of the individual and the spiritual afterlife that follows (rather than, say, a particularly vivid "experience" similar to the often Earth-based and/or flat out nonsensical dreams we have on a regular basis).

And the fact that people who have experienced NDEs are often profoundly affected afterwards make it harder for me to dismiss it entirely as a "brain fart."

Again, to take a more metaphysical tack here, the varied experiences of "God" and the afterlife, to me, would make me argue that God might be a tremendously varied and personal entity, which, rather than insisting on a monolithic belief and worship system, is as open to variation as there are individuals alive. Authoritarian conformity, as reflected in many of the world's religions and historical leaders, after all, seems more like that of a trait of man.

Just some food for thought.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 06:26 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
So, Snopes doesn't claim it's an untrue story, only that the current story has been shortened from the original.

<>
Convenient that the writer of the original story was mormon and the kid's 'visions' were of mormon theology. And the vocabulary that the toddler supposedly developed? That story has bullshit written all over it
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 06:40 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
to open your mind, you'd see how culturally specific it all is and how it has more to do with where and how we live, rather than where we're going when we die.



all understandable, but hardly empirical proof of anything.
First, the Spirit World is is larger than our universe times 1000. That's why it's so different to so many different people.

Here we are only able to think in the finite, so that we could develop faith.

Where you land in the Spirit World depends on what you did while on earth:

Did you have:

-Unconditional Love
-Charity
-Meekness
-Faith
-Hope
-Belief in God etc.

Eventually one can progress back to God depending on their purity, and willingness to learn. Anything they missed on earth will be taught in the next life.

Man made religions have dumbed this all down, over simplified things, deleted things and have tried to scare mankind into submission, which is not God's Plan-for us His children.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 12:40 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post

Nonetheless, as someone who does not dismiss the metaphysical outright, I don't find the scientific explanation to be wholly satisfying, mainly because quite many of us are...

1) able to tell the difference between reality and a dream
2) the rather singular focus of the NDE, which, even if the details differ substantially, are on the seeming death of the individual and the spiritual afterlife that follows (rather than, say, a particularly vivid "experience" similar to the often Earth-based and/or flat out nonsensical dreams we have on a regular basis).

And the fact that people who have experienced NDEs are often profoundly affected afterwards make it harder for me to dismiss it entirely as a "brain fart."

Again, to take a more metaphysical tack here, the varied experiences of "God" and the afterlife, to me, would make me argue that God might be a tremendously varied and personal entity, which, rather than insisting on a monolithic belief and worship system, is as open to variation as there are individuals alive. Authoritarian conformity, as reflected in many of the world's religions and historical leaders, after all, seems more like that of a trait of man.

Just some food for thought.
Very well stated, I would also like to add:

God is perfect and has a perfect infinite love for each of His children.
He knows us better than we know ourselves, He knows us so well ea of the hairs on our head are numbered.

The way He manifests Himself to different people in the hereafter depends on a great many things, namely:

-what they can comprehend and are ready to accept about Him.
-what God feels is pertinent for them to know at their particular stage of their spiritual development
-how much desire they have to be like He is.

There are a great many other things that I've learned from sane rational people of all Faiths who passed and came back.

They way they explain it, is that this life is more of a dream, and the hereafter is where reality exists.

The attributes that get people closer to God and in even a more personal, intimate relationship with Him are not:

-Stature in your community
-Your job title
-The size of your income
-The public recognition that you have here
-The kind of car you have here
-The square footage of your home here

these all mean nothing, and are a detriment to many.

Simply put: Hugh Hefner could find himself living in a cardboard box in the next life, while Fred Sanford could probably find himself living in a mansion that Christ prepared for him.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 12:57 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
That story has bullshit written all over it
So:

Let us get this straight:

Lloyd Glen and his wife made this up out of whole cloth about their 3 yr old boy, and all the facts the 3 yr old scored perfectly on are to be ignored.

Mormon Theology has no correlation with other Faiths- and you like to cuss: got it.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 04:15 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
So:

Let us get this straight:

Lloyd Glen and his wife made this up out of whole cloth about their 3 yr old boy, and all the facts the 3 yr old scored perfectly on are to be ignored.

Mormon Theology has no correlation with other Faiths- and you like to cuss: got it.

<>
I'm saying Lloyd made it up, yes, so the 'facts' that the 3 year old got right are irrelevant because his dad made it up. And if you read the original version of the story, its pure mormon. Makes me laugh that the edited version is found on a catholic website

 
shit
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 08:19 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I'm saying Lloyd made it up, yes, so the 'facts' that the 3 year old got right are irrelevant because his dad made it up. And if you read the original version of the story, its pure mormon. Makes me laugh that the edited version is found on a catholic website

 
shit
Wow, so all of Lloyd's congregation have been duped, his wife is in on the duplicity /conspiracy with him. Everyone is complicit that know the Glen family personally, and not one person has came forward and said this family is nuts-except you.

It's like the balloon boy story-but in this case: every one has the story down pat!

Also: the local fire dept., EMTs, Medical Drs, Child Psychologists and LDS Clergy are all in on the conspiracy-and the 3 yr old boy is now at least 19 yrs old and he hasn't refuted his 'whacked out' parents.

Wow, just wow.

Lastly, if you understood the universality of LDS Theology, on how it encapsulates many tenets and truths of other Faiths you would see how an abridged version of the original story could appear on a Catholic website.

We gotcha.


<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 08:31 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Wow, so all of Lloyd's congregation have been duped, his wife is in on the duplicity /conspiracy with him. Everyone is complicit that know the Lloyd family personally, and not one person has came forward and said this family is nuts-except you.


Also: the local fire dept., EMTs, Medical Drs, Child Psychologists and LDS Clergy are all in on the conspiracy.

Wow, just wow.

Ok- We gotcha.


<>
Did you actually read the original story? Why would the fire deptartment, EMTs, Drs, etc need to be in on it??? Where did the boy give information that would have to be verified by any of them? I'm not doubting that there was really an accident, just that his parents are bullshitting everyone about what happened afterward. There are no facts in the story. Just that angels told the boy to tell everyone they have to go to temple and baptize the dead. Why would anyone in his congregation call them on it? Its what they want to hear. You're constructing this faux elaborate framework around the story to convince yourself that it must be true, when in reality, it can be explained as simply as a husband and wife lying to try and legitimize their beliefs

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It's like the balloon boy story-but in this case: every one has the story down pat!
So whats the story that everyone is in on? Who all needs to be in on it? His Dad and his Mom. Thats it. Its not as complicated as you seem to like to think
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 08:53 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Did you actually read the original story? Why would the fire deptartment, EMTs, Drs, etc need to be in on it??? Where did the boy give information that would have to be verified by any of them? I'm not doubting that there was really an accident, just that his parents are bullshitting everyone about what happened afterward. There are no facts in the story. Just that angels told the boy to tell everyone they have to go to temple and baptize the dead. Why would anyone in his congregation call them on it? Its what they want to hear. You're constructing this faux elaborate framework around the story to convince yourself that it must be true, when in reality, it can be explained as simply as a husband and wife lying to try and legitimize their beliefs
Calling someone who you don't know personally "a liar" is very telling and theorizing on what their motives are about speaks volumes of one's character.

Yes, and I did read both stories. The kid never mentioned Baptism for the Dead, only Temples and people being in a sort of Spirit Prison, (cages) similar to a Catholic's understanding of Purgatory-but no babies go there according to LDS Doctrine. Spirit Prison is a temporary form of Hell talked about in the NT:

1 Peter 3: 18-19
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; "


This is one the little boy saw.

Also: The kid knew about the ambulance in one, and first responders vehicles in another and both stories don't negate the veracity of each other.

Even Snopes doesn't say this story is bogus, only that it can't be substantiated, you took a lower road than them and called the parents liars.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 09:10 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Calling someone who you don't know personally "a liar" is very telling and theorizing on what their motives are about speaks volumes of one's character.
Ha! So we're going to turn it around on me now in lieu of actual facts? Please, dont feed me that shit. I'm an extremely trustworthy person, just not especially prone to being duped by others with an agenda. If anything, I'd say the better person would call out those who are willfully manipulating others than to sit back and watch it happen. So how about you refrain from passing judgment on my character. You dont know me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post

Also: The kid knew about the ambulance in one, and first responders vehicles in another and both stories don't negate the veracity of each other.
No, the kids mother knew about the ambulance

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
This is one the little boy saw.
or the one his parents know all about and incorporated into the story
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com