This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?
People discuss lots of things, politics, sports, anything
But when they discuss religious opinions, most of the time, they get all angry and try to win even with fight.
why is that? why that can't be a normal subject?
and more important, How can we prevent this?
Closing Statement from Farokh Shahabi Nezhad
Tnx everyone for their replies. I enjoyed learning from different aspect for this problem.
I can only conclude this : Don't argue with someone unless they are open minded and ready to be changed and challenged.
Justin Elkin
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
"Four monks decided to meditate silently without speaking for two weeks. By nightfall
on the first day, the candle began to flicker and then went out. The first monk said,
"Oh, no! The candle is out." The second monk said, "Aren't we not suppose to talk?"
The third monk said, "Why must you two break the silence?" The fourth monk laughed
and said, "Ha! I'm the only one who didn't speak."
Frequently, those who try to stop the fight become participants. The fourth monk character is the most interesting. He is the bystander who just passes the judgment and is proud of himself that "he is not like the others". Ironically, he is a participant too :-) Luke 18:9-14 comes to mind.
Nandi Chendori Love
I can't help but to agree with you on this. My little children picked up on this as they observed and were disappointed and expressed it as well. If it happened God saw it as well.
Best
Nandi
Dino Harrell
Pause for effect, then walk away. Or stay to argue which way a fork should be held, or that chopsticks are better - whichever your culture dictates is the One True Way.
peter ezzell
time to take a walk.....
Jim Smithson 10+
If any discussion begins with recognition that any spiritual perception is incomplete, then a discussion is possible. Then difference can be properly seen in the context that the reflections in two different little mirrors may not be different Gods, but rather reflections of different parts of the same God. God is one, but the one is infinitely complex.
A pretty good rule of thumb is that the more confident the tone of the speaker on religion, the less he knows about God and the more he knows about how to use the tool of religion..
Nandi Chendori Love
John Starling
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I think, people need to spend more time thinking of "who they are" as humans and be careful associating their identity with things, people, soccer teams, bands, brand names, gods, etc. This is how I interpret the religious commandment forbidding to worship idols instead of "I AM WHO I AM".
I like the quote from the film "Lorax":
The Lorax: Which way does a tree fall?
The Once-ler: Uh, down?
The Lorax: A tree falls the way it leans. Be careful which way you lean.
peter ezzell
So why should it be an insult to ask anyone making any kind of claim, especially within the supernatural realm to step up and demonstrate, rather than simply assert, that what they claim has merit, something more than just a meme embedded in the minds of a billion people by tradition.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Atheists have their own beliefs which are not to be touched. E.g. there is a widespread belief among atheists that all assertions need to have evidence. This is not true in general. E.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," does not need evidence and has none. I tried to question this belief in an atheist forum. I got insults and ridicule in reply and was banned as a "troublemaker". Core beliefs of atheists are not open to questioning.
All people get touchy when their core beliefs are questioned. Scientists and atheists are no exception.
peter ezzell
Wilbert Hunt
We both have this dubious honor in common, having been "banned" from an atheist forum. In my case, twice.
For all their supposed reverence of rationality, they behave irrationally, elevating their atheistic beliefs to the stature of a religion--the very institution they claim to repudiate and scorn.
You could tell, after reading a few of the posts, that most were reticent--and fearful--to deviate from the teachings of their respective guru or mentor, or to question the canons of their faith, lest they invite the ire of the group.
I haven't felt as much pathos for religionist as I felt for these seemingly lost souls, afraid of their own thoughts, and the unreliability of their own minds, as they struggle to place a certain prescribed atheistic overlay the full length of their day-to-day existence.
In short, they were as bound to their beliefs as any religionist.
Colleen Steen 500+
You write about a certin group of people....
"they behave irrationally"... "most were reticent and fearful"...you felt "pathos" for "these seemingly lost souls afraid of their own thoughts, and the unreliability of their own minds, as they struggle."
Do you honestly think/feel this kind of labeling contributes to furthering a conversation? It appears that you effectively demonstrate why religious debates often turn into a fight.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Consider a few analogies. Snakes can bite people for reasons that may not be obvious to us. What do we do about it? Get frustrated that snakes don't behave like people or the way we think they should behave? Declare snakes "evil" and kill them? Or, perhaps, study their behavior, find out under what circumstances snakes bite people and behave in a way that they don't bite us?
All living creatures fear unfamiliar things which they cannot predict and often react with aggression. Same happens when people encounter behavior or beliefs that they cannot understand, explain, or predict. Why would we expect people to behave differently from any other living creature?
Why shouldn't religion follow rules of science? Why shouldn't cats observe table manners? The obvious answer is "cats are not people, human rules do not apply to cats".
Wilbert Hunt
Take the God Particle (the Higgs Boson), for example, claims were made as to the Standard Model, but the "demonstrated" truth of such claims are still being examined, and which required the construction of the Large Hadron Collider for the claims to be examined and substantiated.
"So why should it be an insult to ask anyone making any kind of claim, especially within the supernatural realm to step up and demonstrate, rather than simply assert, that what they claim has merit."
I've seen ghosts. How do I "demonstrate" that without the assistance of the ghost? I travel outside my body. How do I demonstrate that, unless I take you with me? And there are other claims too numerous to recount, and just as hard to replicate in ways that natural science is required to demonstrate its claims.
Should my claims be dismissed simply because "proof" exists differently in the supernatural realm than the natural, and harder to observe.
Granted, you should exhibit skepticism when claims extend beyond your normal range, but we're faced with such claims daily, sometimes from those who subscribe to one conspiracy theory or the other, and we accept them, if we're predisposed, or we reject them, if we're not.
You suggested it yourself when you use the term, "supernatural." These so-called "supernatural" things usually exist outside the "natural world," and can't always be neatly replicated as with natural events.
All I ask is this: When I and others make supernatural claims, that you reserve judgment as to our sanity, and our veracity.
Even some "natural events" puzzle science. Is light a wave or a particle, or both, for example? Does the observer change the behavior of that which is observed? And, then, there's quantum theory: "A theory in physics based on the principle that matter and energy have the properties of both particles and waves."
Paola Cibrario
So is it possible that ghosts exist in your world, but that they don't in mine?
Paola Cibrario
No matter what side of the issue you are on, there is no way to produce absolute proof for either position.
So on one hand the religious zealots bang on the scripture that is on the table and the atheists just bang on the table.
Those of us that have had direct experience just hear the noise of their banging.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
To clarify the point, lack of religious prejudice does not guarantee the lack of prejudice. All atheists are different, just as are all religious people (that's, perhaps, the only generalization I can make). It is a mistake to label other people as "fundamentalists" or "creationists" or "lacking a moral compass" or "bigots" just by their faith or lack thereof.
What fascinates me in these debates is how we start with views opposing hypocrisy, bigotry, dogma and end up doing exact same thing that we are opposed to. Didn't this happen to Christianity? When people go too far avoiding these vices, they approach them from the other side.
It's like moderation - "excessive moderation" is self-refuting.
Jim Smithson 10+
You provoke a very interesting question: What is a person if you strip away all of their identities, or as you put it, their "brands?"
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you.html
This question intrigued humanity for ages. The concept of "self" is extremely fascinating. It always leads to circular reasoning and defies logic. It cannot be answered by science. I think, this "self-awareness" question is why religions exist with all the references to "I AM WHO I AM" and a host of other circular concepts.
Wilbert Hunt
Unconditional being or unconditional existence.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Humility is a virtue in many religions and atheists would benefit from it too. I think, it is arrogant to believe that my beliefs are superior to anyone else's and force everyone else to believe the same way or ridicule them for their beliefs. This is MY arrogant belief which I would like to force on everyone. It is ridiculous that people don't understand this :-).
This wonderful talk gives a great picture of what we "really know".
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible.html
Jesus Zuazo
Your question is very good focused because it seems that religions must guide us for peaceful ways and its hard to understand people fighting about religion...
... but nuancing your question... why human being ends all kind of debates (sports, politics, economics...) angry and into a big fight?
Warren Peace
Wilbert Hunt
"I would never expect a single human to apprise me of the sum total of all possible human experiences; Why then would I expect a single "NDE" human to summarize all NDEs for me ?"
I agree: It would be imprudent, as experiences here in the world we see, and in the worlds we don't see are infinitely diverse, and unpredictable.
Nevertheless, NDE's are becoming fairly commonplace--as are accounts of them--now that medical science has advanced sufficiently to revive those who might have passed on before these advances.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=near+death+experiences&sprefix=near+death%2Caps%2C227
"On the other hand,nor should I discount any honest persons experience for the sole reason that it is unique or estranged to my own experiences."
That, too, is prudent. Given my own life experiences which are bizarre enough, I'm loathe to dismiss any claims, without first exposing them to exhaustive scrutiny.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Wilbert Hunt
I have seen the Niagara Falls of what some would call the supernatural, and the supernatural equivalent of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and the Colossus of Rhodes--all the Seven Ancient Wonders of our Supernatural existence and more.
One thing I've learned from my many excursions into the Astral World (so named by occultists and mystics), the only Absolute is the Abode of God--all other loci, and truth, are open to the individual and collective creative power, and energy, of consciousness, including the realm in which we're currently residing.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Although most non theists I know, don't claim to know gods or goddesses don't exist. But suggest they have a reasonable case that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of Zeus, Maduk, Yahweh, Allah, Isis or any other theistic or more generic deistic interpretation. Seems reasonable they don't have a belief in these gods, but good to be open to new evidence.
Others are more certain.
I do find it funny that with 6 billion living slightly to completely different religious supernatural belief systems today and many others held by those who have fallen, the odds are your particular religious or spiritual view is wrong completely or in part.
Your experience sound wonderful and powerful. I might have a different working hypothesis as an explanation but its a wonderful part of the human experience. Perhaps for some, these or possibly related experiences may be out of control and they find it difficult to function in society.
But even dreams are pretty cool. Just familiar and frequent so we tend to take them for granted.
If an experience is enriching and hurts no one, perhaps the interpretation is not such a big deal.
I guess I haven't had all the experiences such as yours, but do meditate and enjoy the different consciousness states I experience. I have also had amazing visions and hallucinations and one OOBE but discount some due to my state of mind at the time.
Whether it is just going on in our brains, or we actually travel or contact other realms outside our mind, its pretty cool.
Wilbert Hunt
With rumination, one quickly realizes that "consciousness" is the Alpha and Omega of existence. Without it, nothing exists. With it, all possibilities present themselves.
Meditation, the act of going within, opens us to those possibilities, as it concentrates consciousness, and the vast energy stored within it.
"I have also had amazing visions and hallucinations and one OOBE but discount some due to my state of mind at the time."
As humans, we have all the potential of the divine, and, as such, are unlimited in all our ways, and capable of knowing all there is to know, and being all we choose to be.
"Whether it is just going on in our brains, or we actually travel or contact other realms outside our mind, its pretty cool."
Oh, the stories I could tell, and the wonders I have experienced, but, alas, few will believe or accept my tale, either because they're predisposed to disbelieving, or because it's too amazing to ponder.
You're right: "it's pretty cool," by any standard of coolness.
Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+
Colleen Steen 500+
You have hit on an important factor regarding religious debates turning into a big fight.
Obey, you write..."Probably difficult to have a meaningful conversation when one party believes they have the absolute truth about everything..."
Farokh, you write..."details are very frustration specially when they can't accept to change their beliefs".
I observe that the biggest struggles are when one person not only thinks s/he has all the answers, but ALSO tries get the other person to accept it as THEIR belief as well.
Obey, as you say...no meaningfull conversation can evolve when one person thinks they have all the answers. They communicate as if THEIR truth has to be everybodys truth....and they are on a mission to convince us that they are "right". Nothing can come from that behavior except struggle. Trying to change the other person's belief because they think/feel they are "right" contributes to struggle. When one person in a conversation begins to struggle (fight) , it is common for the other person to struggle and fight to maintain their own perspective, and that is when the conversation beaks down.
We CAN accept a belief as another person's belief without embracing it as our own belief. We CAN be open to thoughts, feelings, perceptions, ideas and opinions of others, without trying to pressure another person to believe as we do. To do that, one has to let go of the idea that our truth, or answer, is the one and only "right" information.
Everything is information....sometimes learned....sometimes proven....sometimes speculation....sometimes beliefs for which there is no proof. Each and every one of us will take the information from our experiences, including what we have been taught by parents, society,etc., and use that information as we choose. We KNOW individuals have different experiences. We KNOW there is information passed down through families, societies, religion, cultures, etc. I experience the differences as interesting:>)
Wilbert Hunt
"Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?""
Of course, you'll see it the way that you see it, and that's your perogative, but these discussions are playing out the question, can we have religious discussions, some of which include a notion of an afterlife, NDEs and OOBEs (which suggest such), the existence of a God, or what have you, and do so respectfully?
If you take the time to re-read some of the comments, you'll find that yes we can sometimes, but not all the time.
No thread was "hijacked," as you've accused, and I say that respectfully.
Wilbert Hunt
I agree: There are as many "truths" as there are people on the planet. I think that it's the proselytizing, the almost relentless attempt to make others believe as you believe that creates the tension, especially when it's coupled with derision, or a denouncing of one's stated position.
I believe that I can respect what you and others believe while at the same time still holding that my position is the "one and only 'right' information."
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Good advice.
During an actual discussion or debate it is rare for someone to admit or accept another point of view makes more sense. Kind of like losing face. Sometimes we argue not to be wrong, to win the argument rather than to test and examine ideas.
But then on private reflection afterwards some things might stick and make more sense. Perhaps you can only delude yourself so long when in your heart, or unconscious you find a view counter to the one you espouse seems more correct, even if you argue against it.
There was a stage before I fully renounced my previous religion that I was arguing for the religion, while privately having my own doubts. I'm a bit embarrassed it took me so long to realise I was completely mistaken.
According to some speakers at my old church Henry Kissinger is the anti Christ and the second coming is already late. I guess some Christians have been waiting for the second coming for 2000 years, and expecting it in their lifetime.
It is tempting sometimes to jump in and feel you have been there done that and perhaps frustrated others can not see what you saw years ago. Hurry up and catch up - its obvious. To be dismissive of peoples own realisations will or wont happen in their own time.
One humbling realisation I had was my views over the years have changed a lot. Revolutionary say 10 years ago and refined over the last few,. I like to think they have improved and broadened. IF I was having a discussion with myself from a few years ago I might find the views of my old self some what simplistic. And perhaps in a few years I will look back at my current views, that I put forward in discussions earnestly, and think how naive I was.
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm interested in examining/exploring ideas. To me, the life experience is a wonderful exploration, so I wouldn't deny myself more information by thinking/feeling that I have all the answers. Often times, as soon as people think they have the answers, they stop exploring. I'm going to be open to new information as I take my last breath in this earth school:>)
With that in mind, I see no reason for your embarrassment Obey. You know, when I was young, I used to think that by a certain age, things in life would sort of be in order. I got to that age, and realized that is wasn't how I had planned! Ok....next stage will be in order. OOPS....when I got to the next stage/age, it wasn't as planned either....on and on. At different stages in the beginning, I often asked myself....."why didn't I know that BEFORE".....how embarrassing that I did not figure that out sooner!!! LOL
In my 40s/50s, I finally realized that it was the journey, and all I'm experiencing and learning along the way that is important. I no longer try to project into the future. I live one moment at a time. That is not to say that I do not PLAN for the future. It simply means that I realize that life is what happens when we're making other plans...LOL!
I enjoy your comments Obey.....it "feels" like you are genuinely exploring life, and I admire that practice:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
carolyn mcauley 20+
Jerry Edmonds
RICHARD STACY
Wilbert Hunt
Perhaps for you, but not for everyone. Many have died--clinically, that is--and have returned to share that experience. Dannion Brinkley comes to mind, one who has written extensively about his after-death experience, and then there's neurosurgeon and neuroscientist Dr. Eben Alexander, and his book, "Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife (2012) in which he asserts that his out of body and near death experience (NDE) while in a meningitis-induced coma in 2008 proves that consciousness is independent of the brain, that death is an illusion, and that an eternity of perfect splendor awaits us beyond the grave — complete with angels, clouds, and departed relatives, but also including butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress. According to him, the current understanding of the mind 'now lies broken at our feet'— for 'What happened to me destroyed it, and I intend to spend the rest of my life investigating the true nature of consciousness and making the fact that we are more, much more, than our physical brains as clear as I can, both to my fellow scientists and to people at large.'”
"I refrain from proselytizing."
That's a reasonable position. Similarly, what you believe is your business. And this brings us full circle to the discussion underway on this blog: I'm not here to convince you of anything. I have my proof, which is, for me, incontrovertible proof--a proof that buttresses my knowledge of an afterlife, but won't necessarily offer you sufficient proof to nudge you from a position of saying you don't know, to one of full knowing.
The problem emerges when one side or the other attacks the other for not believing as they believe. This is the experience I've often encountered when sharing my life story and experiences, rather than the courtesy of a hearing without being subjected to ridicule.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Butterflies and beautiful girls.
Perhaps what you might expect when unconscious or near death.
His interpretation could be correct. NDE are profound.
I understand how attractive this vision is and why many would use this to reinforce their hopes and beliefs. Personally I look for something more compelling as proof of life after death. I class it as unknown, but most likely the end of our conscious existence.based on everything we know with reasonable confidence.
Wilbert Hunt
When taken out of context and serialized, anything can sound "remarkably ... like a dream or hallucination."
NDEs are similar to OOBEs. Let me assure you, the various worlds, dimensions, and realties are mind-blowing, and feature everything imaginable and unimaginable.
"His interpretation could be correct. NDE are profound."
As are OOBEs. Fortunately, you can experience the latter without the downside of NDEs. Much of what I know and have experienced I don't reveal, because to reveal them would strain credulity, such is the nature of my Out-of-Body Explorations, and the various entities and lifeforms I've encountered.
"I understand how attractive this vision is and why many would use this to reinforce their hopes and beliefs."
Attractive to be sure, but I, and many like me, don't need it to reinforce "hopes and beliefs." Our daily lives are reinforcement enough, if such was required, which it isn't.
"Personally I look for something more compelling as proof of life after death."
And that's your choice, and your decision. Although, I fear, without a similar experience as that of Dr. Alexander, that "compelling proof" will remain as elusive as science's inability to fathom the existence of an afterlife, and fully plumb the mysteries surrounding consciousness.
"I class it as unknown, but most likely the end of our conscious existence.based on everything we know with reasonable confidence."
Your "reasonable confidence" is misplaced, since what we know is profoundly limited and doesn't account for life's simplest experience, and reality--the sourcing of Life in body, and Mind in brain.
I harken back to this perennial limitation of science, fully knowing that science will never crack this simplest puzzle--for all its ubiquity--of human existence and the prevalence of intelligent lifeforms, albeit with man as nature's crowning achievement.
For me each day is as supernatural as it is natural.
Shawki Shawki
Colleen Steen 500+
I've had an NDE/OBE, researched hundreds of cases of NDE/OBEs, and while there are many similarities, there are also differences.
For example, I did not experience "angels, clouds... butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress", nor was my experience in any way connected to religion.
So, I agree with you Shawki, that I would never expect a simgle human to apprise me of that experience, nor would I expect a single human to summarize all NDE/OBEs:>)
It seems like this conversation got hyjacked to NDE/OBEs rather than the topic question....
"Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?"
My NDE/OBE experience was not at all about religion, and there are many other cases that are not dominated by religion, so in my humble perception, the topic of NDE/OBE has nothing to do with the topic question as presented.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not sure I need to personally have an NDE or OOBE to know enough to have a valid opinion. 'Knowing what we know about the brain, the mind and neurological processes I don't think it unreasonable to assume NDE etc is not a slam dunk argument for life after death.
Actually I had an OOBE once.. Perhaps I really did travel out of my body. I don't know. I tend to think it was just something going on in my brain, particularly given my state of mind at the time.
I heard of another Doctor who one day saw demons and angels erupting from the floor. He took himself to hospital and told them he was most likely having a stroke impacting a specific part of his brain. He was correct. Now maybe the stroke helped him see something real we normally can not see. But maybe it was just a hallucination.
All these experiences, from seeing a god or goddess to demonic possession causing epilepsy, to alien abductions, I don't discount people have experiences, just a bit skeptical of some of the interpretation.
I guess we agree people do have hallucinations and other amazing experiences and in some cases these are just natural albeit not to common brain misfirings.
Others are more mundane or common. When you watch tv and lose awareness of your surroundings you are actually in a light trance. If I spin like a dervish I might have visions. If you llock a human in absolute dark and silence within minutes we start imagining/seeing/hearimg things. When you meditate or pray, same parts of everyones brain are active.
How do you draw the line between stuff going on in our mind and correctly interpreting experiences as something supernatural touching some realm outside of our mental constructs?
Wilbert Hunt
The only "slam dunk argument" that will resonate for the masses is the survival of death itself.
I don't presume the polemic skills to change minds with the persuasive power of words, or that my experiences will shift one's beliefs if those beliefs have hardened into denial, or a refutation of things termed supernatural.
All I have is my anecdotal experience, and even that I proffer with extreme care, cognizant of the general resistance to paranormal events for which my life has seen many during a lifetime of living straddled two worlds--the one we see, and the one we don't.
"I'm not sure I need to personally have an NDE or OOBE to know enough to have a valid opinion."
An "opinion" certainly, but an informed "opinion" would require a greater involvment, or, at the very least, knowing the subject experientially to a degree that would inform a position, the difference between learning a skill from a book, and actually learning it as an apprentice with real-world practice.
"I tend to think it was just something going on in my brain, particularly given my state of mind at the time."
Consciousness is powerful, and a "state of mind" can trigger the creation of all kind of phenomenon, or connect us with realities we're unaccustomed to seeing.
"I don't discount people have experiences, just a bit skeptical of some of the interpretation."
On one blog, I detailed for you an extraterrestrial encounter, one which ultimated with the prediction of an earthquake, three months in advance of it, giving the precise date, and time.
"How do you draw the line between stuff going on in our mind and correctly interpreting experiences as something supernatural touching some realm outside of our mental constructs?"
Consciousness is super-creative, and creates realities. There is no realm outside of us.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
One saw words and sounds as sparks coming from peoples mouths. Another thought the people around him turned in lizards, and another saw blue and red crystals in the air.
I had some of the most vivid visions in my life recovering from surgery.
Did the medication or psycho active substances open our senses to see something we normally can not? Or did the chemicals in our brain cause hallucinations?
When you damage or play around with the brain you can trigger weird experiences. Now when your brain is starved of oxygen or your body is near total shut down due to some trauma or illness it is perhaps not that surprising people have incredible experiences.
Again, they could be propelled into another magical realm. Actually it may be real, but not the afterlife. It could be a supernatural holding place before an afterlife or total oblivion.
Or it could be our poor brains going through some shut down process with hallucinations.
It is hard to test but I can think of some evidence that would make it more likely people are having a real supernatural experience. But have yet to see anything like this.
I guess it can be kind of insulting to hear a view like mine towards some profound experience with much attached meaning and interpretation. Again, I don't discount the experiences. And I hope not to offend.
Wilbert Hunt
Brain and mind, and body and life are two of the illusions to which we're bound. Simply put, we believe that we're subject to the body--physicality--for sight, touch, taste, hearing, and the operation of the mind from which consciousness emanates.
We're not. But as long as this belief constitutes our reality, damage to the body can precipitate the death of the body, just as any chemical alteration of the brain can have a huge impact on thought, and therefore on the consciousness that seems to require a brain for its existence.
This seeming coupling of body and brain with Life and Mind accounts for the seeming cooperation that we see between them, a cooperation that ceases once we're free of the body, especially during sleep, an OOBE, or a NDE.
"Now when your brain is starved of oxygen or your body is near total shut down due to some trauma or illness it is perhaps not that surprising people have incredible experiences."
Indeed, as the astral body and consciousness are now free of physical limitations, and physical interpretations of experiences--free to create, and co-create whatever realities meet their fancy.
"Or it could be our poor brains going through some shut down process with hallucinations."
As I've stated, once the brain is out of the equation, the mind and consciousness can conjure up an infinite number of possible experiences, and do so without the physical limitations that once attended such creations.
We're not our bodies, but we're made to believe that we are. This illusion serves a purpose. Without it, our connection to the physical world wouldn't be as strong--and neither would we experience it with the same level of gravity and urgency.
Those living would be like me, neither here nor there, but a resident in both worlds, knowing the past and future with equal ease, and assurance.
Wilbert Hunt
Not at all: I'm not offended. I understand how incredulous my statements are, and that they'll more likely be disbelieved than belived.
This world is really no different than other worlds we don't see. In all worlds and realities we're creating our experiences. This world is no exception.
What's different, or seem to be, is that we don't usually see the connection between thoughts and the reality that these thoughts create. I can. For me, thought and action, cause and effect can be immediate, just as it is in other realities that we term non-physical--so immediate that they may be considered one.
We can create Hell here as well as there. We can create Heaven here as well as there. And we usually do.
When we're co-creating, here and there, our realties aren't too dissimilar and we can converse one with the other on a common plane of understanding and experience, but we're not just limited to those understandings and experiences, but can spiral out from these centers of commonality and entertain our own private world, or own peculiar reality.
"Again, they could be propelled into another magical realm. Actually it may be real, but not the afterlife. It could be a supernatural holding place before an afterlife or total oblivion."
Here and there, your belief controls the quality and the quantity of your life. Here and there, like attracts like--fear attracts fear and love attracts love. Here and there, you get what you believe you will get. Here and there, truth is what you say it is, and you or your experience is what you say it is.
What amazes me most, is that few ever inquire about what it is that I have learned from being a denizen of this world and the next; they're usually intent on attacking and disabusing me of the notion of the supernatural.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
It's probably good to hear points of view and experiences different from our own.
Funnily enough there is some intersection of our views. While we diverge on others.
By the way I am curious about your experiences and insights but don't want to pry.
Wilbert Hunt
I enjoy respectful exchanges, where both sides share their take on things rather than resort to preachments, or didaticism.
Serendipitously, I discovered this morning an e-mail in my mailbox from CoastZone, happily devoted to "Accounts of NDEs." I present a portion of it here for your perusal and that of future readers of this blog:
"Referring to those who experience NDEs as 'returnees,' he related an early case that he heard when he was stationed in the National Guard. The returnee said his NDE occurred after a drug overdose, and he was told 'it was not his time.' During his 'life review' he was shown that he was throwing away the gifts that God had given him. Once revived, 'that man...got up and walked away cold turkey from drug addiction,'-- the NDE absolutely turned his life around, he said.
"Price has heard of four different ways people exit the body during an NDE-- the tunnel of light happens in only about 40% of the cases. The medical idea that a brain deprived of oxygen explains the tunnel effect, doesn't account for why during the NDE, people report a joyous reunion, a life review, and instruction, and then when they come back they're a different person, he contended. Suicide, Price has learned from the accounts, is not a good escape option. Though people aren't punished for it, they are still aware of all the problems they had in their life, as well as the grief they caused their loved ones. When people were resuscitated from their suicide attempt, they came back with the knowledge that they had to deal with their problems, he said.
"Regarding hellish NDEs, Price shared a man's NDE account of being attacked by the claws of a T-Rex type creature. He would be healed only to be torn apart over and over again. When the man yelled 'help me Lord,' he woke up back in the hospital, and was subsequently able to turn his life around. Price also cited the case of Howard Storm's hellish near-death-experience, and how help finally came when he called
Wilbert Hunt
RICHARD STACY
John Starling
Respect is the answer. The difficult part of this, often left aside or incorrectly assumed, is a healthy appreciation of the other's perspective.
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
The world around me is a big big endless masquerade of people who have masks and blieve each other's !
Wilbert Hunt
That's a good start. At least we know that your ensuing conclusions, which aren't the result of a worldwide study, or a poll, can be dismissed out of the gate, as they only represent the feelings, the thoughts, the observations, and the ideas of only one--and that one heavily biased.
"[M]ost religious persons in the world are really 'closet agnostics' but afraid to even admit it to themselves."
Are you a "closet agnostic"? If so, that would explain how you arrived at your conclusion. That "closet" of which you speak, must be one of the largest in the history of mankind for it to hide the supposed truth of one's agnosticism from one's self as well as the entire world.
If they're "afraid to even admit it to themselves," why should they, if that admission would severely impact the harmony they're now experiencing, and the tranquility. In the end it won't matter who's right: We all die. Sometimes "ignorance is bliss," but you'd have these supposed benighted souls to live with the truth as you have determined it, despite how it might upend their reality.
"Misery loves company" it seems. You seem to say: "Why should these believers in an afterlife, and a Heaven, get to live out their deluded lives in peace, and not live with the sure knowledge of what is--there is no Heaven?"
"[A]nd thus risk losing their seat on the 'heaven bus'."
The Pope says that Heaven isn't a locale, or a destination, but a state of mind. By that reasoning, you don't have to die to experience Heaven, you merely have to alter your state of mind, from one that's Hell Bent, to one that's Heavenly Bestowed.
Frank Barry
Now you've won the coveted HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
However, a good Scottish Lawyer could find another argument,
Each essential fact must be corroborated by two independent pieces of evidence.
One piece alone cannot corroborate an essential fact, it must be corroborated by
a second independent source.
Every day.
I handicap horse-races, to determine the winner, and find the two best independent
pieces of evidence taken from past performance data, can determine the winner.
It becomes logical to bet that horse.
Frank Barry
One approval out of two tries isn't bad...
An analogy --
I went to many Federal, City, and University Libraries in several states.
Checking out and reading books concerning life and health Insurance.
NO negative books nor privately published accounts of the insurance industry were found.
All the books were published by a single publisher for the insurance industry itself.
Including most sales and training literature for at least the major insurance corporations.
I suppose, religions are much the same.
Their control of information may be why religious debate can be so volatile,
===
Our Federal Government works the same.
Emmett J. Hoops
Vidyardhi Nanduri
A bird takes a shelter under a Tree and Unable look beyond. Another Searches for the Spirit. This Syndrome is addressed as DVA-SUPARNA in ancient philosophical Texts The Common Element is Unity of Thought and Mind to Conscious spiritual Enlightenment Index- Cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Knowledge Base -crate Centers of Excellence..
Wisdom is to addres the issues through Spirituality- conferences..Cosmology World Peace
Frank Barry
I find it exciting when someone expresses ideas whereof I have no knowledge.
The truth is, I shy away from the enlightenment of spirit. But, I just don't know.
I will research DVA-SUPARNA for my personal enlightenment and benefit.
Thank you.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I suggest there are forms of enlightenment that don't involve mysticism, magic, the supernatural.
The spirit may be a useful metaphor for our finite consciousness and being, rather than something magical and eternal.
Each to their own I guess as long as they don't harm others.
Seth Tichenor
A complaint I’ve heard about religion is that it must be understood as a set of literal guidelines for human belief. The criticism presumes that religions require their followers to blindly hold to dogma as a strict set of one to one of facts in order to be consistent. Since these religions are usually held within an antiquated and stifling cosmology, they end up being culturally destructive, intellectually stultifying, and spiritually desultory because they achieve little beyond chasing after their own shadows and delusions.
It’s under this pallor that religion is often criticized. I recognize how this sort of criticism comes about, but I think religion (as a whole, anyway) is different from this.
For one thing, I think the failure of some religions isn’t an indictment of religion wholly so much an example of religious morbidity. Religions live by struggling perpetually to continue speaking meaningfully in a changing world, a struggle they often fail at. But these struggles are not condemnations of religion so much as natural challenges faced by religion simply being itself. Fundamentalism is more religion’s sick face than its true face.
Even more than this though, I see religion as a way of being conscious of the universe in it’s totality. It comes from the radically narrative and lyrical character of our mind’s arrangement and production of meaning, and is inescapable. In fact, provided we are able to think about religion in a functional and fruitful way, I see very little reason why we should ever want to do away with it. Our religious consciousness is a basic part of what we are, existentially speaking, as thinking and caring beings. The inescapability of religion (and more specifically religious consciousness) is precisely why we must look to understand religion in all its trappings; something to do deeply & well.
Mary M. 100+
Your words remind me of what Jesus himself some 2000 years ago said on his sermon on the mt of olives "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need" (Matthew 5:3). We all have a spiritual need. But many fail to pay attention to it. I don't think we have a religious need.
The religions created by men....the wanting to control the masses through laws and rules and mystique, have caused nothing but division and war.
They use spirituality and religion interchangeably.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Dogmatic religious beliefs are somewhat different to more holistic views.
As a skeptic I find beliefs with lots of specifics such as who to kill and what to eat harder to justify than a Deistic approach. But see no proof for any deity and am suspect of the interpretations attached to many of our human experiences.
You know they still kill people they claim are witches in Africa and Papua New Guinea when someone gets sick etc.
Ignorance, intuition, superstition, spirituality, neurological experiences and the follies of the human mind etc without evidence can lead to lots of interesting beliefs and questionable actions. Others are more benign, especially if you grow up in a culture that is more developed in terms of human rights, scientific education, separation of church and state, not indoctrinating children in religious type beliefs etc.
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
Surely there is a way.
You can accept all what they say peacefully !
You even can postpone it to another world ! They will let you kindly !
See, it's the nature of the most of the religions to say after a while "Do so or you are blasphemer" etc.
It's about faith. They can accept they are wrong about some ideas, like cooking or driving, but faith cannot accept any doubt. It is no kind of "maybe you are right, too."
Faith is a dangerous thing. In the best case it is like "Let all those blinds go to hell. I'm safe."
Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+
Frank Barry
That last sentence was the best part.
You to have won the HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
A quite vigorous ending, much appreciated.
Thank you.
===
I must get this off my chest... sorry.
Solicitation into religion has changed from the inquisition era,
where you were asked to participate or else be tortured.
In today's world, A soap-box, a tent, a Radio Program, a TV show,
all collect funds from anyone who will listen to their spiel.
It applies equally to religions and politics.
It kind of makes one wonder about the Media. The big Con.
When there are only 2 political choices who pay for advertising.
Who else can be elected Dictator? Not the independent.
Voters are such easy marks for the Con Men...
Ok, I'm done..
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
Don't be like that !
I, and Farokh (The guy who started the conversation) live in Iran. It is really worse !
We have one and only one political choice, imagine, I can vote or I am allowed to just shut up !
And this party supports the religion, so I have to have their religion or I am a God damn blasphemer and they help me kindly to send me to the fire of the hell !
If a religion improves, it says: "Be my slave or you become my slave's slave !" You can believe in a religion or they will take anything from you by their "holy" power.
But if does not, like in Iran, it's just like Middle Ages in 21th century ! Soon we'll start burning witches !
And believe me, it is a really good feeling to have medias to fool you, instead of having medias that have assumed you fools ... They not even try something smart to make me believe them ! They are insulting my understanding !
Frank Barry
Wow !!!, Dang !!!, and a few more words of surprise.
I can see why the venom runs so strongly from your pen....
Frustration is hard to bear. But like the slaves of ancient times,
told in the holy books. You may have to leave where you live,
like the nomads or gypsies, and try to get to a country that will
treat you as a valued human being.
There is just no other answer.
Stay and be crucified, or leave for greener pastures.
William Whitehead
the primary difference between these two purposes is the central motivation. for one, there is truth. for the other, there is the well-being of the self. that, i believe, is the root cause of the volatile, illogical, unforgiving advertisement and pseudo-martyrdom that you see in christian groups (and in many religious groups, for that matter) and their practitioners. they were never interested in contemplating the possibility of "the truth" being separate from their own doctrines, because their doctrines do not allow it. they have been taught that if they question the rules of their religion, they will be made into a social outcast, rejected by their loved ones and piers, and be sentenced to an eternity of unimaginable torture and suffering by their creator. it isn't far-fetched that they react in such a way; it is only self-preservation.
i try to remove myself from my fate in the afterlife. i do not deserve heaven, so i assume that i will go to hell, or whatever alternative you prefer. it is, in fact, what i truly deserve, and i should make peace with it. my concern is not my well-being; it is simply the truth of all things.
Edward Hu
ankita poonia
ankita poonia
Wilbert Hunt
Rather than given a polite hearing, I'm summarily dismissed, and my claims derided. I'm certain that I'm not the only one who sits on the sideline while others have their say, because to speak is to invite a thousand barbed comments.
How will we ever learn, or have our worldview expanded, if we're intolerant of the views and experiences of others simply because they aren't, or haven't been, our experiences?
How will we ever discuss all the anecdotal events of our life, if first we must pass them through the prism that is science, before they will even be considered as valid, and worthy of discussion?
For all its value, let's not make science the next religion, the canons of which we dare not violate for fear that we'll trample the sacredness of the scientific method, and empiricism, simply because science has no explanation for all phenomenon.
Not wishing to commit scientific heresy, such attitudes can stifle, and stymie scientific inquiry, compelling some in the scientific community to adhere to a line of reasoning, or theories--at least openly and among their peers--which they may have serious objections to, or profound reservations,
Narayanan Embar
Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+
Shawki Shawki
A true debate should a process of purifying ones belief by bringing the experiences of a fellow human(S) to the table for consideration. In this scenario all participators in the event should leave the table wiser than when they arrived.. .
Wilbert Hunt
I agree: It would be imprudent, as experiences here in the world we see, and in the worlds we don't see are infinitely diverse, and unpredictable.
Nevertheless, NDE's are becoming fairly commonplace--as are accounts of them--now that medical science has advanced sufficiently to revive those who might have passed on before these advances.
"On the other hand,nor should I discount any honest persons experience for the sole reason that it is unique or estranged to my own experiences."
That, too, is prudent. Given my own life experiences which are bizarre enough, I'm loathe to dismiss any claims, without first exposing them to exhaustive scrutiny.