What really happens in the end?

[Sophtware]

What does everyone think happens after we die?
Is there really such a thing as heaven/hell?
Or is it just a ploy to keep peace amongst people.?

I know i am opening a pandora's box of ideas and comments.
so post away i am interested in what you all have to say?

After all has anyone ever talked to GOD? or the DEVIL?

How do we know either exists?

[spud]

There's to much wrong in the world for there to be a god, or we must have pissed him of when we killed his son.

Death is a natural progression in evolution, if we lived forever would we evolve any.

Spud

[Sam Finch]

This is my theory. First of all go to sleep for a bit and have a lovely dream, now in that dream make sure exactly half an hours worth of stuff happens, (so to you the dream seems to last half an hour) I can't remember the figures but I'm pretty sure that dream lasts for less than a minute in real time.

no although we don't have much data to go on we can extrapolate this to see that when you loose conciousness time seems to last longer. ie you can fit more time into a second of real time. So if we say that the less concious you are the more thought time you can get into a second.


now if we imagine that when you die you loose conciousness in a finite period of time, so the nearer you are to death the more though time you get, now just about any reasnoble way of modelling this will show that you get an infinite amount of thought time when you die. so to you you never die.


Now If we accept this, we can throw the idea of god into this whole equation.

Imagine a devout believer dies, when he dies there is no doubt in his mind that god exists, heaven exists and, because he has been good all his life he will go there, what do you think his final dream will be? he will dream he goes to heaven, he will dream an image of what he believes god is. In other words to him he goes to heaven.

Now imagine the same guy dies exept he has been evil in his life. Somewhere deep down he feels guilty about his life, and that guilt will eat him in his last dream, he will bring himself into his own vision of hell, wracked with guilt he will torture himself.

We can probably imagine similar situations for a non believer, or less devout believer. however you would have to talk to a psychologist to guess what would actually happen.

in the same way you would probably have to talk to some sleep experts to confirm the original theory. There is also the question of deep sleep and R.E.M. sleep. R.E.M. sleep is where dreams happen, i'm not sure what happens in deep sleep, all I know is that you don't remember it when you wake up.

anyway, that's what I reckon.

[Gen-X]

Well... that solves it....

From now on if ever I am hovering near deaths door I am going to dream of Big Breasted Blonde Nymphomaniacs

:D :D :D

[Sophtware]

What i think happens is ..when you die...thats it..you die and thats all. You dont remember anything nothing not your family, freinds, wife, husband, all events in your life is forgetten. Besides if it wasnt that way..would you want to be dead and still aware of your past life and know there's nothing you can do about getting back to it?But to agree with sam..i beleive also that whatever happens to you when you die is all in what you believe when you were alive. But then again how can that be if you are dead? cause your brain died also. so if whatever happens to you after you die knowing that you believed all your life that you deserved to go to heaven is there a higher being that takes care of what YOU think is right?

Like the everlong search for the meaning of life..when i think of what the meaning of life is and cant figure it out...i just think too myself the meaning of life is not to worry about the meaning of life.

I am interested in everyone's opinion on this subject.

Originally posted by Gen-X
Big Breasted Blonde Nymphomaniacs
:D :D :D

hehehehe
you never said they were female :p

[dvst8]

Sam
I like your theory. Just a couple questions:

We'll assume you have to alive for you mind to process conscious/sub conscious thought.

When you dream (unconcsious), your brain takes a finite amount of real time (i.e. 1 second) and can seemingly produce a large amount of imaginary time (i.e. 1/2 hour).

I do not understand your argument for extending the imaginary time to infinity. The brain still has a finite amount of unconsicous AND alive time, before it expires. So it would seem plausible for the brain to imagine a LONG period of time as it is about to die, but how do you get to infinity?

dvst8

[HarryW]

Sam proposed that the less concious you are the more time you experience. What this means in mathematical terms is that as the level of conciousness tends to zero, the length of time you experience in a given actual time tends to infinity.

[ShIzO]

when you die, it is usually your heart that gave up on you, but you brain is still working for 5 minutes or so, and then your brain cells start to die due to lack of oxygen.

so when you think about it, even if people see you dead - laying there on the floor, you're really still alive for next 5 minutes, you hear stuff and smell things.

i don't know if it is true, because nobody ever went back...
it is just my theory

[Guv]

M. Ali was not the greatest. Sam is.

For most of my life I have acknowledged being an atheist, ever since I read somewhere that "cowardly agnostic" is the definition of an atheist. I realized that the definition was an exact fit, and have since then called myself an atheistic.

Sam, your idea about the hereafter is delightful. I do not believe it, but it is the most imaginative idea on the subject that I have ever read.

Keep up the good work.

[Gen-X]

When I said "breasts" I meant the home-grown REAL variety...

I don't consider "Man-Boobies" to be breasts ;)

[HarryW]

I think any guy who grows his own breasts at home has to be more than a little odd ;)

[Guv]

Honeybee
Interesting to have somebody from an Eastern religion making comments.


Others
While I am an atheist, I have always been interested in theology. I am not inviting evangelists to convert me, but I would be interested in any Threads/Posts on religious beliefs, especially nonchristian or non-Mainstream Christian theology.

Many years ago, somebody told me that a Zoroastrian sect or some other Persian religion believed you could be punished in the herafter for being good. As I understand it, they believe that Ahura Mazda (god of light & good) and Ahiriman (?spelling: god of darkness & evil) are in a constant struggle for control of the universe. The outcome of this battle is not known. By their behavior, humans are expected to side with one or the other of these dieties. I am not sure if human efforts have any effect on the final outcome of the battle (It would be a nice touch if the battle were to be determined by how many good/bad guys there are). At any rate, if you side with Ahura Mazda & he loses, you will be punished for not being on the winning side.

If the above is for real, it is probably the only religion which does not promise believers a reward now or later.

Does anybody know about the above? I will be disapointed if I was given bad data many years ago. This is one of my favorite theologies.

[HarryW]

My favourite religion: There's a Christian sect in Jamaica (think it's jamaica) who worship Jesus by smoking spliffs ;)

Something to do with fire or something.

[Sophtware]

Am probably going to be flammed from hell and back but oh well:
I believe there is a god..of somekind and i also believe you dont need to go to a specified place to worship whatever god is. in your home or wherever is good enough.
Besides did jesus chrits have his own church to preach in?

[Gen-X]

honeybee

Well I think we can put that theory to rest. If it only takes 4 minutes for a soul to leave a body at death and find someone new then what about all these people who have been dead for 15 minutes and resussitated???

Sophtware

Like I said... you go where you "THINK" you will go... Because of your belief you have already booked your tickets and have your destination all planned out ;)

[Sam Finch]

Gen-x

I think the Hindu definition of death is when the soul departs the body, which differs slightly from the clinical definition, so you can be clinicly dead for as long as you like as long as your soul doesn't leave your body, which it clearly doesn't if you wake up. (or maybe it returns for some reason)


Sophtware

I agree one of the main reasons I disagree with all formalised religion is that I think ones relationship with god is a very personal thing,and I don't think it helps to sit in a big building with a bloke at the front reading passages from a book that was written thousands of years ago and you need a degree in theology to understand.

[Edited by Sam Finch on 08-10-2000 at 08:28 PM]

[parksie]

I used to be a Christian but suddenly became more cynical and decided to be an atheist a few years ago. It was mainly for the reasons Sam gave, and also because of the fact that it seems somehow strange to believe in something of which we have no proof.

[Gen-X]

Parksie...

So you changed your view when you lost faith (ie No longer believed WITHOUT evidence)

I find this interesting... It indicates that those who do believe via faith continue to do so for as long as they can maintain the ability to ignore things and belief because they "choose" to... and that when a point comes when they actually see and accept evidence they "lose faith" and stop believing.

In my opinion this is the crux of the problem with religion in that it survives purely on the act of "faith" and by making it a virtue to accept something without any possible or feasible reason to do so.


If I wanted to brainwash people into doing what I wanted then I would set it up exactly the same as a religion in making it bad to do anything other than what I wanted... make it a sin to question, to seek evidence, or to do anything but blindly believe. I would then make a nemesis that I can blame for everything that is wrong and place all true indications of validation beyond the reach of everyone so that I could never be proved wrong.


The fact that Christianity itself uses all of these principles is to me glaringly obvious as to its intentions... Of course those already "brainwashed" don't see it that way because they have been trained (or allowed themselves to be trained ala hypnotism) not to see it.

But that is just me clarifying why I have the opinions I do, and providing some background information on how I see things :)

[parksie]

It was when I turned 12 and started showing intelligence. I do try and be open-minded, I just have difficulty with things like this. I mean these religious cults. WHY THE F**K DO THEY KILL THEMSELVES IN A HUGE FIRE FOR SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST!!!!! Sorry for being stupid, but something that overrides the inbuilt human will to live must be dangerous in the extreme.

[Guv]

Parksie reminded me of something Ayn Rand said many years ago. Quotes not used below because I do not remember her exact words. By the way, Parksie, they are not being stupid because they believe what you cannot accept. They are not killing themselves for nothing. They probably believe that they are saving their immortal souls.

Ayn Rand said: Whenever you are told that some principle or plan is more important than your plans, your ambitions, or your life then the person telling you is unspeakably evil.

You should not be required to risk your life for "The war to end all wars" or to "make the world safe for democracy." You should not required to give up your goals or money "for the good of the (communist) party" or "for the greater good of a greater number of others."

If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all important then is is easy to justify burning witches, the inquisition, the crusades, et cetera. After all, if you can save somebody's soul, a human life or a human ambition is a small price to pay. In fact, many human lives and the ambitions/efforts of many are a small price to pay.

I have heard pro-life types called hypocritical for killing doctors who perform abortions. They are not hypocrites. They are being quite logical. They believe that abortion is murder. If you saw a serial killer about to slaughter some innocent people, would you consider it wrong to waste him?

If a heretic is endangering somebody's immortal soul, is is surely right to kill him.

Ayn Rand also said that a war which could not be fought with a volunteer or mercenary army (as opposed to a drafted one) should not be fought. A country which cannot defend itself with a volunteer army does not deserve to be defended.

It is interesting to note that the two world wars in the 20th century probably could have been fought with volunteer armies. They had overwhelming popular support. With voluteers, the armed forces might have been forced to accept many not capable of combat. Those could be assigned to the many noncombat jobs required to run a war. Neither the Korean nor the Vietnam war could have been fought with a volunteer army.

[Apocalypse Dude]

When we die this is what really happens, we get taken to a mouge, put in a freezer, have our clothes taken off, examined, dress up, have make up put on our face, then put into a coffin, then we decay and get eaten up be lots of yucky insects and organisms..

George Constanza dad had breasts..the man zere.

[Sophtware]

That example about the serial killer and the pro-lifers are different things.Of course if i saw some person trying to kill a woman or someone that couldnt defend themselves i would attack the attacker...but the abotion thing is different, Who made the people that blow up abortion clinics with doctors in them judge,jury and executionor?
Also what business is it of yours (not pointing to you directly guv) to butt into a womans decision to have the abortion? you didnt get her pregnant..thats her choice if she wants to have a abortion or not ..not yours.


Am not saying that abortion is right or wrong..am just saying if people would mind there own business and use common sense life would be alot better...

Like the old saying goes..."Two wrongs dont make a right"



See ya

[Guv]

Sophtware
I am not Pro-life. I believe a woman has the right to make up her own mind. Unfortunately, sarcasm/irony is sometimes missed when written rather than spoken.

I do not believe that the Pro-Lifers have the right to waste Doctors. I only said that they are being consistent in their point of view. Abortion is murder (their belief, not mine), ergo they are justified in killing the doctor.

[dvst8]

Gen-X

make it a sin to question, to seek evidence, or to do anything but blindly believe. I would then make a nemesis that I can blame for everything that is wrong and place all true indications of validation beyond the reach of everyone so that I could never be proved wrong.


i think this is the most concise and honest definition of Christianity i've ever heard.

kudos.

dvst8

[rino_2]

My belief and many others is that after we die we travel to another dimension (The Astral World) - Astral is an ancient Greek word meaning “Starry”. The astral is an exact copy of the world we live now only the true laws of physics don't apply.

Its possible to travel to the Astral before death. I'm trying all the time and I'm having mixed success. Have you ever heard of an OBE (Out of Body Experience) - It’s the same as Astral Projecting. Projecting your body into the astral world. When in the astral, your body can't be possessed by ghosts because you don't fully leave your body and are connected to it by a silver cord.

Right now I pretty sure that many of you are saying I'm just another mad man? - No I'm not. If you want to know more buy a book on the subject i.e. "Astral Dynamics" by Robert Bruce. Failing that you can visit many websites i.e. http://home.tower.net.au/~rsb/ http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.Ballabene/english/engindex.htm

Another thing that I could mention is NDEs (Near Death Experiences). In an NDE people often report floating above their bodies looking down at the dead physical body. Of course they live to tell the tail because the doctors bring them back. To learn more about NDES visit this site: http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/nde.html

"Its fantastic, exploring our inner beings"

[parksie]

Yes, I do have difficulty accepting things like that, but that's only because I think that the way that Christianity is introduced to children is wrong. It seems to have a habit of saying: "This is what happened", rather than "This is what we believe. What do you think?". It's the fact that there is little or no freedom of interpretation.

[rino_2]

Oh parksie you're so right. I completely agree with you! I remember when I was in school taking RE classes the teachers said, "this is what happened..." and not "Christians believe...” I have always been really annoyed at the way they explain things, they try making you believe rather than letting you make up your own mind!

I think its only natural that you have difficulty believing what I have said above but please believe me. Visit the links and read up on the subject, its very compelling! Please click here to read about an experience that I had with an OBE: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.Ballabene/english/letters3/lett272.htm - My name is Richard

[parksie]

Actually, it's a subject that I have been interested in for a while. It's a very intriguing state, which I believe exists because since we have proof that the human brain is capable of extraordinary things, it must, at some point, perform said things. I'm a little spoken advocate of ESP, too. (Such as the bond between siblings, or stronger, twins).

[rino_2]

Even more proof that there is life after death is that the consciousness isn’t a part of the brain but actually an external being (Rather like a VB program that requires APIs - hehe). Scientist are proving that the brain cells in the brain can not think for them selves so the consciousness can’t be a part of the brain. What do you think about this?

[Edited by rino_2 on 08-11-2000 at 07:04 PM]

[parksie]

An interesting theory, which could be usable, but the problem stems from: where is this consciousness if it isn't in the brain? I think a few experiments have been done on something like this, and they had some quite spooky results. (I'm not sure of the exact details). If they're right, though, it'll be one hell of a good point for religion of some kind. Technology might be able to make use of it: instead of parallel processing, parallel consciousness, with more than one consciousness linked together in one body.

[rino_2]

Some believe that everybody's consciousness is one and we are all connected.

[parksie]

If so, then it would be an explanation for intuition in many forms. Although, if exploited, it would sound the death knell of many forms of security. Good point to keep in mind, though, is that if humanity actually stopped bickering and joined together, we'd become a better civilisation, and would have no need for security.

[Guv]

Let us not Post nonsense as if it is fact. There is not one shred of evidence that the consciousness is anywhere but in the physical brain.

If not in the brain, where is it? Is it magic which works due to regular doses of fairy dust? Is it in your big toe or the 13th dimension? Is it in the mind of some dreamer who is dreaming our reality? Does it surround us like an aura?

There is no good evidence for astral projection or OBE. I remember dreams in which I seem to be viewing myself from an external site, like an astral projection. When I wake up I know it was a dream. My best guess is that something similar happens to others and they remember it as being real.

Some people have vivid hallucinations which they insist are real experiences. Unfortunately for them, they are not cunning enough to make up fancy jargon like OBE, astral projection, channeling, et cetera. Perhaps if paranoids used a buzz-phrase like PEP (Phantom Enemy Phenomena), we would not call them psycotic, merely more perceptive than the rest of us.

[rino_2]

Guv you are talking complete rubbish! The only reason I mentioned the consciousness not being a part of the brain is because there is evidence! Brain cells which the brain is made up of can’t think for themselves but only follow instructions (a bit like a computer). So the consciousness must be a separate entity because we can think for ourselves.

The ancient Chinese said it all along but only now are scientists coming to terms with the possibility. As for where the consciousness is, I have no idea. But if you think about it, it makes great sense! If people die they should be able to remember when they were living in the physical dimension, if they can remember it proves that the consciousness is not a part of the human brain. – Open up your mind Guv

As for there being no evidence of OBE, scientists have done experiments. They put a person in a room and an object in another. That person had to have an OBE to travel to the other room and see the object. Then when the person comes back they can say exactly what they saw. By the way, I know its true because I’ve had one!!! There’s no better evidence then that! Why don’t you try telling somebody like Robert Bruce that it isn’t real, he has only got 25 years of experience!!! Now stop talking like you know what you’re saying because you really don’t!

[HarryW]

Can we all be a little tolerant of other people's ideas please?

Guv, in saying "Let us not Post nonsense as if it is fact" you are being hypocritical by saying it is nonsense, and that what you say is fact. I am not saying that it is or isn't right, just that you shouldn't just say "That's total crap, shut up".

Also, could we not make this into another anti-Christian war please? This is not the thread for it, go shout somewhere else.

One last thing: Gen-X, Honeybee SPECIFICALLY said
Please don't analyse this like you guys did with the Bible stuff.


And what do you do? You go and bloody analyse it and tell him he's wrong! Give him a break! Now who's being disrespectful of someone elses wishes? (a la your 'Don't you DARE pray for me' theme)


To get back to the point of this thread, my personal feeling is something like Gen-X said a while back, you go where you believe you will go. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a belief though, just a feeling.

[parksie]

I'm not Anti-Christian, in fact I'm very open-minded. However, I just feel that it is important for people to make their own choices and believe what they want to, rather than what someone else does.

[HarryW]

I absolutely agree with that. People should be allowed to develop their own beliefs, and not have any particular beliefs forced on them.

[rino_2]

I agree with both HarryW and parksie. Well said.

[Guv]

While this forum might be less rigorous that the other VB forums, I think there should be at least a minimum amount of mental discipline. Statements of faith and statements of fact should be treated differently, with the latter being restricted to conformance with mainstream science.

Furthermore, when somebody makes a statement of fact and is questioned, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Rino_2 posted the following

Even more proof that there is life after death is that the consciousness isn't a part of the brain but actually an external being (Rather like a VB program that requires APIs - hehe). Scientist are proving that the brain cells in the brain can not think for them selves so the consciousness can't be a part of the brain.


Harryw
Do you accept as fact the statement: "...the consciousness isn't part of the brain but actually an external being ..."? I would be astonished to discover that you do. Do you interpret it as a statement of faith? It looks like a statement of fact to me. Note, I am not questioning nor discussing his personal belief in the hereafter. By the way, I would not have questioned him if he had made the following statement "Because I believe in the hereafter, I believe that the consciousness is independent of the physical brain."

When somebody makes a statement of faith like "I believe in God!" or "I believe the hereafter is like ...", I might say that I do not believe, but I usually do not comment. I would never attack such a statement or call it nonsense. Furthermore, I do not believe that such statements are subject to proof or disproof. Sometimes I encounter a set of such statements which seem logically inconsistent to me, and am likely to make a comment. However, I am not sure that logical consistency should be required of statements of faith.

Is it being open minded or gullible to accept every statement of fact as true without judging it on the basis of comparison with mainstream science?

There are certain arguments which should not be accepted. For example: "If you had an open mind ...", "Intelligent people agree that ...", "When I was young I believed ... but now I know ...", "I had this revelation that ...". When somebody tells me to have an open mind and believe whatever, I say baloney! Show me a valid argument or some evidence. The "Open mind" argument is especially insulting. It is equivalent to saying "If you were as smart as I am, you would know that I am right." The "I had this experience" argument can be used to back up anything.

When somebody makes a statement of fact which is not supported by the scientific community, I expect to see some evidence or at least some supporting argument, especially if he is making the statement as part of a proof of some other statement/belief. If Rino_2 wants to say that he was expressing a personal religious belief, I apologize for attacking his faith. If he insists that it is a true statement of fact, I challenge him to specify a mainstream scientist or experiment described in a reputable journal. Until he can back it up, I will continue to assert that it is nonsense, and wonder if he was being deliberately deceptive or is merely ignorant of what are considered accepted scientific facts. Please note that I am discussing statements of fact not statements of belief.

I do not know who Robert Bruce is, but I imagine that he is analogous to Uri Geller. I am sure that he is not a microbiologist, a physicist, or other mainstream scientist.

OBE
Several times in my life, I have had vivid convincing deja vu experiences. I never considered them as evidence of anything other than a minor glitch in my brain functions or an unimportant hallucination. However, I have read some fascinating theories about them. Similarly, I have had some dreams which seemed very real while they were happening. When somebody claims to have an OBE, I do not think it should be uncritically accepted as a statement as a fact. This is the "I had an experience that convinced me ..." argument which can be used to fallaciously prove anything. Your anecdotal experiences do not prove anything to me. If you want to play that sort of game, I will counter your claim with a statement like "Just the other day, the great god Chilthzar told me that OBE experiences are hallucinations caused by a spell he casts." Would such a statement (honestly expressed) convince you that your OBE experience was an hallucination? If not, do not expect me to accept your claim of an OBE to convince me. Once again, I claim that there is no mainstream scientific backing for OBE. If you think there is, tell me where to read about it.

[rino_2]

Guv you seem to be taking on a very old fashioned scientific approach. Scientists once said if it can’t be seen, heard, measured or felt then it must not exist. Of course scientists are now accepting that things aren’t that simple anymore (thankfully). Why won’t you accept that the consciousness is external? The evidence is there, brain cells can only follow instructions.

As for Robert Bruce, he is actually a very intelligent man. He has around 25 years of experience in the field of the unexplained. If you want to know more go to his site: http://home.tower.net.au/~rsb/ Try looking at the forum.


[Edited by rino_2 on 08-13-2000 at 05:27 AM]

[HarryW]

rino_2 - Could you please clarify why this is true:

brain cells only follow instructions => conciousness is external

Guv - Most of what you have said there I agree with, and it is a pet hate of mine that people propose their opinions as fact. It's tantamount to lying if done deliberately.

Of course I did not read rino's post and accept it as fact because it is an unusual view, not one I've heard much of, but I think saying "that's nonsense" is taking it a bit far.

[rino_2]

Look guys, I’m not getting into an argument with you, I and many others know my opinion to be fact and that’s that! As for the external consciousness. Scientists have proven that brain cells can only follow instructions, so with this being the case, us human beings should also only be able to follow instructions. Humans though can think for them selves – although sometimes I wonder. So, because there’s nothing found in the brain that can think for its self the consciousness must be external – Its pure logic.

I'm not trying to make anybody believe anything - we all have a consciousness so we can all make our own mind up. I wrote what I wrote in the factual format because I know it to be fact, you can decide whether it is true or not but please don't criticise me for what I said.

[Edited by rino_2 on 08-13-2000 at 08:30 AM]

[rino_2]

Guv,

I have searched and searched and I can’t find any scientific site on the study of the OBE phenomena. This though, doesn’t mean anything. The best form of evidence isn’t what a scientist tells you, but what you know to be true. If you want evidence why not try to induce an OBE for yourself? If you try you will succeed! When I became interested in the OBE phenomena it only took me 5 days of trying before I induced a successful OBE. I have a feeling you won’t try and in your ignorance will just keep saying “That’s nonsense”. If you're interested read this technique: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.Ballabene/english/obepart3/easyway.htm

[Sam Finch]

rhino_2

I'm gonna have to dissagre with you, I can't say that conciousness isn't external and people don't have real OBEs but I don't think you've provided any real evidence that they do.

Your main argument seems to be this

One brain Cell Cannot think for itself
therefore the brain cannot think for itself
therefore conciousness is external


this argument seems to come down to an assumption that if one object cannot perform a certain task then many of those objects working as a team cannot perform that task.

I'm sure you can see that that isn't a valid assumption.

I can't remember whrere I got this information, I think it was something I read many years ago, but scientists did some sort of tests and showed that large ant/termite colonies displayed some form of conciousness. the ants themselves displayed very little intelegence and no signs that they were concious, but the collony itself did. Somehow the ants working together had produced something that could think for itself.

Now as I say I can't remember where this Idea came from so I don't know what sort of tests they did to see if it was concious and how valid these tests were (I'd assume they checked if it could learn and stuff but other than that I don't know)

I'm also a little confused by your implication that a conciousness is an object with a position, inside or outside the brain, conciousness is an abstract noun, it's not a physical object, I wouldn't consider it valid to go looking for it.

You also give this evidence

As for there being no evidence of OBE, scientists have done experiments. They put a person in a room and an object in another. That person had to have an OBE to travel to the other room and see the object. Then when the person comes back they can say exactly what they saw.

Now I don't want to dissapoint but there are thousands of confidence tricksters in this world, very clever ones as well, and I'm sure that this is a trick that could be done well enough to fool the scientists.

If we draw a parrelell with uri geller and his spoon bending shannanegans, I once saw one of his TV programs where he got everyone at home to try the spoonbending trick for themselves, My spoon bent, it wasn't a trick spoon and I did not know a trick to do it without the power of the mind. I was amazed and from that point genuinley belived in the power of mind over matter.

About a month later I attended a lecture by someone with "paranormal powers" who introduced himself straight away as a conman (he was wearing a T-Shirt with famous unexplained crop circles on it and pointed out 3 that he's made and 5 that his freinds had made) he explained that there were 27 ways of bending a spoon without the power of your mind or trick spoons and that it was quite likley that someone could use one of them to bend a spoon without knowing it. he also exposed several other paranormal tricks. He also said that there is no greater feeling for a paranormal guy to do one of the tricks under laboratry conditions and fool a bunch of scientists.

Just to show how clever these people are one of the tricks he did was to make, before our very eyes, something which has been proved to be impossible, 2 shets of newspaper cut into rings (a big circle of newspaper with a smalle circle cut out of it), linked together. anyone who's studied topology will tell you that this is impossible. one of my freinds examined it and there were no signes of any cuts or other tamperings in the paper and the newsprint followed exactly on both rings. He claimed that thse things had been studied under lab conditions and it had been proved that both rings were cut from one sheet of paper and had not been tampered with. he made no attempt to hide the fact it was a complete con and that there was nothing supernatrual going on, If people can do this then faking an OBE must be easy in comparison.

I'll just stress that I am not saying that OBEs etc are not possible (and for legal reasons I am not saying that uri geller is not a genuine psychic with spoonbending powers) I am just saying that you havn't produced any evidence that conciousness is seperate from the brain etc.

[parksie]

Parallel processing and neural nets today give evidence that the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. For example, one processor does it in X length of time, but 20 processors will do it faster than X/20 length of time.

[rino_2]

I agree that more than one object can do things that a single object can not i.e. lifting a heavy object. But if one brain cell can’t think for its self then 1 billion brain cells can’t think for them selves. That is like saying, my computer can’t think for its self but if I networked my computer with another 99 computers than the computers can think for them selves – This clear isn’t the case. I also mentioned NDEs (Near Death Experiences). In an NDE people say they left their body and could see their physical lying on the hospital bed (or where ever they were when they died). If the consciousness was in the brain then when the person left their body they would no longer be using the physical brain so should not be able to know anything about them, but they do. They know that it’s their body on the bed.

As for not producing evidence that supports the OBE phenomena you must not have been looking hard enough. I gave two links to web sites that are dedicated to the OBE phenomena, you can find plenty of evidence there. And like I said to Guv, if you want evidence then try to induce an OBE and see for yourself.

Just for the record, I do believe that Uri Geller has PK powers


If Evidence is wanted visit some of the links:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/9876/
http://www.wirenot.net/X/
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/mysticmeg/348/projection.html
http://www.newageinfo.com/res/astral.htm
http://www.astralvoyage.com/
http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.Ballabene/english/engindex.htm - Recommended by me
http://obes.cjb.net/
http://www.iipc.org/obe_techniques/obe_techniques.htm
http://home.tower.net.au/~rsb/ Recommended by me

[Gen-X]

Harry

If I were to say "Please don't say I am wrong, just accept it and don't analyse it" does that mean being respectful is to simply allow falsehoods to stand?

It is different to ask someone to not include them in their religous "rituals" and be respectful of them than to ask someone not to point out obvious flaws in the hope the fact it stands unadulterated makes it true.

I can understand how you got the wrong idea though... but they are 2 totally different topics for different reasons.


To emphasise this point... If I were to say to you now to please not reply to this post and say I am wrong would you respect me and not do so? ;)


All

I have to say I am in question about the brain now... I have always drawn the conclusion that despite the brain having its own activity there was no actualy "source" for it performing what it does.... that there is an unknown quantity that exhibits "preference" over the top of that which is purely chemical and cause/effect.

Now I am not so sure...

I have to ask myself if what we call "thought" is just a high level derrivation of the billions of chemical interactions that occur every minute rather than some external thought process.


Either way... one thing that holds true is that despite the origin of our ability to "think" and "reason" and despite whether that thoughs is influences by things on a Quantum level... the abstraction we perceive at a macroscopic level is such that it fits our description of "independant thought"

[HarryW]

That's just silly, you know that's not what he meant. He didn't ask you to accept it, he was, in his own words, "presenting a new thought".

Sopht asked for people's opinions, and that's why he gave it. He's not trying to convince you of anything. He was just responding to what was asked for in just about the nicest way I think anyone could have done, there was no need for you to jump in there and totally diss his beliefs.

Have a little respect for people would you? I know you're in a must-shout-at-anyone-religious mood at the moment but be fair, please. Saying things like that just makes you sound like a smartass, people don't listen they just get pissed off.

Hoping I'm a Christian and believing in the bible:

What does everyone think happens after we die? Believers- immediately to heaven, non-Believers (non-B)- to a place of silence until the last day. On "the last day", the dead non-B and living non-B will appear for judgement in their spiritual bodies.
Is there really such a thing as heaven/hell? Yes and there will be new ones.
Or is it just a ploy to keep peace amongst people.? Has definitely been used to control the masses, but may also be the disclosure of the way of things.

After all has anyone ever talked to GOD? or the DEVIL? There are claims for both according to Christians.

How do we know either exists? That's deep. Can you prove that you exist?

Deja Vu, OBE
I definitely believe in a spiritual component of our existence. I've had several deja vu. I once tried to extend the awareness of impending events, but I didn't gain from this and surely did not win a lotto. I wonder if it is a lure for anti-christ type appeal or the development of our capability as humans (more evolved or enlightened). Those OBE links seemed to hint at Devil Worship. I've heard that certain things like this claim "good" until you get to the higher levels or inner circles, then they are of "evil".

I wouldn't be surprised if some OBE are hoax and some are quite real! What's the deal with Deja Vu?!

[Gen-X]

Harry

"presenting a new thought".


And what is the purpose of presenting a new thought if not to analyse it? Perhaps I was "presenting a thought" in breaking it down.

I have certainly not gone against any of his beliefs or tried to perform some religious ritual on him... they are so totally different things and you are trying to join them to make a point that doesn't hold.


Sopht asked for people's opinions, and that's why he gave it


So I gave my opinion... Are you saying that people can only give their opinions providing it doesn't analyse what they were asked to give opinions on?????


Have a little respect for people would you?


I re-read what I wrote and I wasn't disrepsectful in any of it... that I simply didn't withhold analysis because he asked goes back to what I originally said about people saying anything and being "disrespected" because they don't comply.

If I were to say "God-Believer, please say God doesn't exist" would they be disrespecting me if they refused??

Of course not... If anything it would be considered a little disrespectful to have your say and ask that nobody actually analyses it for what it is worth... just like it would be disrespectful to ask the above question.

Please Harry... I asked you not to say I was wrong above... and now you have disrespected me by doing exactly what I asked you not to :D :D :D :D

Mmmm... I think that makes my point ;)

VVB

Or is it just a ploy to keep peace amongst people.?


Considering the concept of Satan as being red with horns and a tail and hell being a place of fire and torture didn't really come into existance until sometime after the 10th century I would say yes it was.

Quote for me in the Bible the definition of what Satan looks like and what happened to him?


After all has anyone ever talked to GOD? or the DEVIL? There are claims for both according to Christians.


Actually... there are claims by those Christians who want their words to have weight to have spoken with God... and by people seeking a scapegoat to have spoken with the Devil


How do we know either exists? That's deep. Can you prove that you exist?


YES. Anyone who doubts my existance can fly to Australia, walk up to me and pinch me to confirm my existance. Can you do the same for the Devil or God?????

Mmmm... Funny that the proof for such things are ALWAYS out of our reach... :)

Now Kedaman will probably join in here and start talking about our dellusional Matrix world where none of us exist and you coming to Australia would simply be a manufactured dellusion and that you never really touched me... but I think most people have at least accepted the fact we do actually exist be it in "reality" or our "virtual reality".

I've had Deja Vu as well.. in fact I usually have 3-4 events "outstanding" that some time in the future they play out and I remember having "felt" them before.... I don't know if I would explain that as "spiritual" though, it could simply be a phase variance in the trans-dimensional time continum like "cross-talk" on a phone line ;)

[Sam Finch]

OBE's
I had a look at a few of those links and didn't see much evidence, that the conciousness leaves the body, just that people can meditate into a state where thay can imagine it happening, it's a form of self hypnosis, It doesn't really suggest that the soul actually leaves the body.

if you can point me to a particular part of one of these sites that gives some evidence that it isn't just an illusion then I'll consider it.

Deja-Vu

This phenomina has been explained, when you dream you don't actually dream in very much detail, you fill in the blanks when you wake up (I don't know how this was proved but it was) so If you see something that's a little like a dream you had the night before then your brain will put that information into the gaps in the dream and remember seeing it before.

[Gen-X]

Sam

I'm not so convinced about Deja Vu.

I remember having a dream about reading a book with a Knight in it, sitting in a group of people and someone walking into the room.

About 6 months later I was in Social Studies at High School and we were studying Feudal England. I opened the textbook I was given and on that page there was a Knight.

That stopped me in my tracks and I looked around at the people in the class. The person next to me asked what was going on because I looked startled and I said to them without turning around "Someone will come in through that door (pointing over my shoulder)".

Well... someone walked in that door and the person next to me was gob-smacked.

That has happened to me several times now, where not only did I have the sense that I had seen this image before, but my actions following it directly match that which the image did and have been able to say what will happen in the seconds following to incredible accuracy.

It might be a whole load of balony and I am just imagining it (or I am completely crazy!!!!), but until someone can explain that to me I am going to stick to my theory of Chronological "Cross-Talk" :D :D :D

[Sam Finch]

Ok, I'm mildly amazed.

Some questions before I start working on a theory


How many times has this happened? (when you actually point it out to someone and it happens)
Are you ever wrong about your predictions? (if so how much, how wrong)
have you ever been diagnosed as clinicly insane? ;)

[Gen-X]

Sam


How many times has this happened? (when you actually point it out to someone and it happens)


Ummm... (starting the brain gears whirring)

About 4-5 times it has happened where there was significance that I predicted something happening next, and I think 3 of those times someone was around that I mentioned it to...

Once I was having dinner with the CD player (5 stack) playing random tracks... It played 2 of my favourite tracks and it "clicked" as one of those deja vu moments. I then in jest said to the person I was having dinner with "This reminds me of a dream I had... the next song was Cry Little Sister from the Lost Boys Albumn"... And that was exactly what played next.

She was shocked and I was shocked... I just put it down to one of those things.

Of course there have been another 10-15 other times when it has felt like Deja Vu but the event was over before I realised and thus couldn't say what was going to happen next (sometimes they don't include things "happening")


Are you ever wrong about your predictions? (if so how much, how wrong)


Of the 5 I predicted they were all exactly right, though only 3 were confirmed by other people... they just said I was freaky.


have you ever been diagnosed as clinicly insane?


No I have never been to see a shrink (or me) (OR ME) :D

[Sam Finch]

hmm,

You could possibly explain the person walking in as you hearing the person coming subconciously and then fitting the dream around that and the events happening but the CD changing is a little harder, I have 3 possible explanations (although I think my argumentts are about as strong as Mr no 7's)


It happened purely by chance


Your CD player isn't as random as all that and you worked out the pattern (subconciously) and extrapolated to get the next CD then added this into your dream


you predicted it just as the last song ended and the new one began and you recognised the fuzz at the begining of the track (although this is dependant on when you made the prediction)



Mr no 7 would be proud of me.

the reason I wanted to know how many times it happened and if you were ever wrong was to see if it could have happened by chance I think I am sort of justified in not counting the 2 which you didn't tell anyone because we don't know exactly when thoughts happen, and you could have asociated the action with the dream when the action happened and remembered it as before. although I think we would be more justified in doing this If there was an example of someone being there to tell but you not telling him untill after the event (because of thoughts being remembersed as happening before they happened for some reason.

but it's definatley not something I can really explain. I think 3 happening by chance is not too likley, especially as it hasn't ever happened to me and nobody else has mentioned one (If lots of people had had one and some had had 2 the it would seem it could be a chance occurrence but as it's just you with 3 that's a bit less likley (a lot less likley in fact)

[Gen-X]

Sam

Well I didn't hear the person as they were entering from behind me and outside the room and the same goes for the CD player...

But...

It could be something subconscious... I do happen to be one of those people who takes in a lot of data and then at some later point for absolutely no reason suddenly have an "answer" pop into my head as if it was set as some background task I wasn't aware of.


I guess thats the funny thing about events like this... We try to read into them more than what they are (like my cross-talk theory :D ) rather than just accepting they are simply the result of something we are not aware of.


People occasionally ask me questions and without looking I tell them where the object of their search is... I didn't "specifically" watch them put it down when they entered and at no time did I take notice of it but somewhere in my head it knows where the item is (possibly peripheral vision) and the thought just sticks.

I had some tests done when I was younger and they said while my memory isn't photographic in the normal sense (being able to completely recreate a page in a book) I was told I have an incredible memory recollection that included superfluous information that wasn't specifically within my focus at the time.


Perhaps it can just be put down to a brain process I am not directly aware of that triggers a structure that was already set up in my head and implicating a similarity in the traversal of neural pathways that gives the impression of "deja vu".


Either that or I am Autistic and you should call me Rain Man ;)

[Sam Finch]

Rain Man

I did say that you probably heard him coming subconciously, I don't think your mate would have been half as impressed if he'd heard someone clumping along in a huge pair of Doc Martins just before you predicted there was someone coming.

If you think about it the amount of time people have spent killing each other it's probably a bit of an evolutionary advantage if you can predict what's going to happen in the next few seconds in the heat of combat.

I'd assume that somewhere along the line your family moved from britain, or at least Europe over to Aus. So I'd Reckon you had Ancestors Fighting in The Crusades, the 100 Years war and The Normaan Conquests and stuff. So you could have evolved the Ability to take in what's going on around you while concentrating on killing someone else and then just knowing where to put your sword so that someone will come running into it in the next few seconds.


I also notice things without looking at them, possible not as much as you claim to but at least to some extent, Scientologists say that people only use 10% of their brain power or something, I'm sure they've exadurated this but there's probably a lot of unconcious thought your brain doesn't let you know about. I'm sure it could be used to extrapolate what's hapening frwards a few seconds, and the best way to present this information could be in the form of a memory as you are more likeley to accept and be sure of its predictions (especcialy if you're a supersticions 14th centruty infantryman going into batle,

I totally agree with the way Gen-X explained his deja vu. I never had a witness to the impending event as he did (it was always on the tip of my tongue), but I have noted they can be separated by months or days. All foresight that I recalled of my deja vu's lasted less than 3 minutes.

When the event physically happened, I could generally recall how long ago the even was "foretold" in a dream or somehow just when I knew. The strange thing is that when I was keeping track of these things, there came a point in the first "view" of events that I knew it would occur as a deja vu at a future time. It would be so cool if I could control this somehow.

My most recent ones are "visions" of my new job and my new apartment (well before I was at the job or apt). Knowing words that are about to be said in the living room and on the TV. It's been a while since I tried to contol it.

[Tainc]

Sam, I just joined this thread, so I'm a bit behind. I really like your explanation, but I can't seem to grasp one thing. Can we dream without a physical body? Haven't studies shown that brain activity is directly related to dream levels? So what happens when brain activity stops?
I'm not refuting your argument, simply asking for elaboration.

[Sam Finch]

I doubt the Ideas actually true anyway, but this is what happens.

as you become less concious your perception of time changes (becuase you've got your eyes shut or they die you can't see anything and just before you die you're effectivly asllep)

Tn the real world you percieve a minute as lasting about a minute, when you dream this isn't true, it has been shown that a dream that seems to you to last about half an hour only lasts a about a minute in real time.

If we extrapolate this Idea we can say that the less concious you are (ie the closer to death you are) the longer you percieve time (ie when your awake a second seems like a second, when you're halfway between awake and dead it seems to last 10 seconds, when you're 3/4 dead it seems to last 100 seconds.

so in the time you're percieving you never reach the point in real time when you're actually dead. (if you want an analogy sy you're runnin towards a line, when you're 100m away from the line you're running at 10 m/s when you're 50m from the line you run at 50 m/s, 10m from the line 1 m/s etc (the speed you are running is a tenth of the distance to the line per second) if you keep doing this you will never actually reach the line because as you get close to the line you are going so slowly that you are hardly moving at all)

so although in real time you die you never percieve yourself as dying because your peception of time slows down and you never get to that point.

then if we stick a nice dream on top of that that's sam's definition of heaven.

[Tainc]

In that case, it must suck to be in a coma... Even if you wake up after a few months, it must feel like centuries!

[dvst8]

it's a glitch in the matrix.
i thought everyone knew this...

dvst8

[HarryW]

I'm not going to bother saying much about the honeybee thing. I just think it's rude and we can argue all year but I will still object to what you said Gen-X.


I stuck a CD on yesterday, pressed random, and (without looking I should add) thought to myself "Right that's gonna be track 1 then" and it was. I didn't put it down to anything more than coincidence though. 12 tracks on the CD, one CD in the stereo.

[rino_2]

Déjà vu

It’s very interesting. My theory on the matter is much different to Sam’s. I think you have a vision in a dream that is a little taste of your fate. Some say you “pick up the vibration”. Things like this often happen to me where I have a dream that contains a person I haven’t seen for a long time and a few days later I see them, “I picked up their vibration”. Don’t take my word for it, read this small letter: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.Ballabene/english/letters4/lett314.htm

Evidence for OBEs

Sam looked at the links and couldn’t find evidence, why am I not surprised? Any sceptic would say the same thing. I’m no longer going to direct him to places for evidence because I think no matter what I say he will still say, “I couldn’t find any evidence”. Sam, if you really want evidence then stop asking me for it and start looking! When I heard about OBEs I didn’t keep asking, “Show me some evidence”, I went in search for it. I bought books, I visited web pages, I read peoples’ experiences and letters and then read techniques. When I thought I was ready I tried my technique and didn’t give in when I had a failed attempt. It only took me 5 attempts before I had my first conscious OBE but it only lasted around 10 seconds because everything was new to me and I was a little reluctant to stay in the Astral. So if anybody wants evidence start looking, its there.

Also Sam, I have had OBEs many times without entering a state of trance or doing any meditation. Meditation is done because it makes you relaxed and if you’re not relaxed it’s hard to imagine your consciousness anywhere else but where your physical body is. It is however possible to have an OBE without meditation.


[Edited by rino_2 on 08-14-2000 at 04:15 PM]

[Guv]

Anybody
When I first noticed this Thread, I was interested in hearing about what people believe on this subject. I was especially hoping to hear from people with beliefs other than those of mainstream Christian theology. I am still hoping for more Posts pertinent to the original subject. How about it guys & girls!??

Rino_2
It looks to me as though you believe in the continued existence of your soul in the hereafter. This is a very comforting belief, shared by many others. It obviously implies that when you die, your soul can continue to exist independently of your decomposing body. This belief is usually based on faith.

Your attitude and opinions suggest to me that you think your faith needs some help. Hence, you started using the term consciousness instead of soul, and started to believe that it is independent of the physical body before death. This causes you to make scientific statements not supported by any evidence.

Note that true faith does not require evidence. It is often defined as belief in concepts not supported by evidence. Believing without evidence is considered admirable by many people.

If you said something like: "I believe in the hereafter and that my soul is independent of my physical body," there are very few people who would tell you that you are wrong. I certainly would not.

When you say "....the consciousness isn't a part of the brain but actually an external being ...... Scientist are proving that ..... ", you are no longer dealing with theology, religion, faith, et cetera. You are moving into the subject matter of mainstream science, where people expect evidence and the ability to repeat experiments under controlled conditions. It is deceptive to use the word "Scientist" when you are not referring to a mainstream physicist, chemist, et cetera.

When I asked if you knew of any scientific support, you gave me a list of sites, most of which I visited. None had anything to do with a scientific approach to OBE.

I already stated that telling of your personal experiences is not evidence. It is "Preaching to the choir." If I thought I was clairvoyant, I would not consider it evidence to say "I predicted that Event-X would happen, and it did happen two days later!". It would certainly convince me that I was clairvoyant (if it happened), but I would not consider it evidence to anybody else.

Why not turn to ministers, books on religion, et cetera to support your faith, rather than looking for support from science?

Gen-X said: Quote for me in the Bible the definition of what Satan looks like and what happened to him?

(NKJV) Isaiah 14:12 " How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [How] you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

(NKJV) 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

That's the best I could find. You quote for me in the bible where Satan has the red suit and pitch fork. I'm not asking for horn and tail (which may be in the below Rev reference).

The moral of the story:
(NKJV) 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Just in case you need a bible reference that "devil" = "satan".

Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is [the] Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

[Sam Finch]

I think the horned omage of the devil comes from some pagan god who was a goat with some human like qualities and god like powers, christians turned him into satan because they didn't like pagans much.

[Gen-X]

VirtuallyVB

Sam the man.. you have that spot on. The depiction of Satan came from the middle centuries when Christianity was attempting to wipe out the last of Paganism. As well as moving Christmas to co-inside with Samhein (sp?) to put a dampener on the Pagan practices they also used all of their holy symbols (pentagram being one of them) and made them the symbols of their "Lucifer", adding horns and a tail, making him absolutely evil and ugly.

It was a typical ploy to represent God in a halo of light with angelic wings all nice and fluffy like the clouds and then paint Satan as being big and horrible, buring and hissing.... Who in their right mind would purposely pick something so horrible over something so wholesome?


But here is a real corker for you VVB... it is something that I was told and I fully admit I cannot confirm it but in saying it a certain logical "snap" really put it into perspective.

All your definitions of Lucifer that you quoted were in the New Testament right?? All of this "cast out of heaven" and "weakened the nations" business?

Lucifer was actually God's Angel whose purpose was to tempt man... to lure him from God's path. He was vigilant in his job and sought to beguile man whenever he could in the servitude of God.

Man in its infinate wisdom decided that any "Angel" who did such nasty and deceiptful things like that couldn't POSSIBLY be doing it for God and so they developed the whole "cast out of heaven" business on their own.

As for the "weakened the nations"... of course he did, it was his job!!!

This means that Lucifer remains an Angel, with white wings and a halo, and has nothing to do with the middle-age reconstruction through a newly created and OBVIOUSLY politically correct testament because the first one didn't quite fit the needs they had.

The fact you cannot find ANY reference anywhere to this visage we gave him (or the reasons why they moved Christmas and added a few months to the calendar) more and more supports the fact that the new testament was a fabrication of man, done at a point in time when books were controlled ONLY by the church and very few could read so who would know what got changed.

Think about it for a while :)

OBVIOUSLY THE BIBLE CAN BE USED TO MAN'S SELFISH DESIRE TO CONTROL OTHERS

Stop using knives to cut your food because knives can also be used to kill people.

I thought this point was made clear in past threads.

Also, there is no command in the bible to celebrate Christmas. You are only exposing the falacies you have had about Christianity. This reminds me of the quote that someone here posted..."too bad no one has ever tried Christianity". If I were you, I'd apply your argument to the serpent tempting with the apple (which I think the bible says "fruit") but the fruit was the "good looking benefit" as presented by the devil. Even so, I'd check those terms for a real study.

Gen-X, you asked what the bible says about Satan and I showed you. Show me where the bible says red suit and pitch fork. There are so many misconceptions about what is Christianity. Many people who claim to be Christians are not what Christ (Jesus) would call a Christian. Can you see that? I hope that Jesus will call me a Christian. And technically, Jesus may not be interested in the title "Christian"; "They were first called Christians at Antioch". That is why there is a new cult that wants to be called "Disciples". My real hope is that Jesus will say (witness) to the Father that I am "with" Jesus.

Don't say, "Show me 'A'." and then when I show you 'A', don't say, "The fact you cannot find ANY reference anywhere to 'B'..."
That is not a sincere search for truth

The way I understand it, Lucifer was a high rank angel of God who desired to be "like" the Most High. Strange that Lucifer wouldn't desire to be better or more powerfull (instead of "like") the Most High. Lucifer was tolerated to "prove" his case (as in the book of Job), but ultimately was banished from heaven to earth where he thought he'd have dominion over the earth (his own kingdom). God gave Lucifer the shaft again when God told man that man would have dominion over the earth. Presently Lucifer tries to turn man away from God (but once that is achieved, Lucifer doesn't "care" for that man--so watch out for inner circles of witchcraft--beat me up on this) while tempting us with things that appear good (Angel of Light appearance stuff). Yes, there is more to this, but I'll leave you in "the present".

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 08-16-2000 at 12:14 PM]

[Gen-X]

VVB

Also, there is no command in the bible to celebrate Christmas. You are only exposing the falacies you have had about Christianity


And you my friend are only exposing the falacies you have about me ;)

At midnight on the 24th of December each year, every Catholic church in every city of the world fills with people to celebrate "midnight mass". They don't go becaue they "feel" like going... they do it because they believe they are commanded to go.

In the middle of the frikken week, on a Wednesday if the 25th of December happens to fall on that day, all good little baptists and every other "Christian" person, goes to church to celebrate Christ-Mass.

I know this because I had to actually do it, and I watched it and I saw it.... I would ask that you don't suggest they are falacies that I have because I was actually there my friend.

Now America might be different... we all know they are over the top on everything else and go to the extremes of what most people would call "normal", but I didn't think it was that much different to the rest of the world.


too bad no one has ever tried Christianity


Been there, done that, saw how everyone "used" it and realised why they all did it. Noticed how lividly angry they got when they were asked questions they couldn't answer and had to listen for several years about all their self-centred and warped views of the world.

I saw the types of people it bred, and how they were brainwashed at birth.... and didn't like one bit of it.

I would ask you to try and become a Bhuddist, or a Mueslim or even a Scientologist... but somehow I don't think you would be willing to actually do what you would tell others to do in trying Christianity... Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?


Gen-X, you asked what the bible says about Satan and I showed you. Show me where the bible says red suit and pitch fork


I told you (but obviously your reading ability isn't as good as I thought it was) that there is no metnion of the red suit and pitch fork... I TOLD you it was all contstructed!!!!


The depiction of Satan came from the middle centuries when Christianity was attempting to wipe out the last of Paganism


Did you not read this? or did you just skim over it?


That is not a sincere search for truth


I said "Show me A & B", you say "Here is A, YOU show me B", I say "See there is only A, B doesn't exist, yet that is how people see him... as B"

I believe in missing what I said above you have incorrectly taken the context.


The way I understand it


And that seems to be where our problems start. You yourself said that Lucifer tempted us with things that appear good... That was just JOB and he did it well. It was only the modern (pre-1100AD) creation of the New Testament that introduced Lucifer as a bad guy.

I would suggest you go read your original texts... go back BEFORE the new testament and read them again and you might actually find the truth.

I have to admit I dislike the way Christians cling to the New Testament as if it makes the horrors of the old one (like stoning wives for harming their husbands testicles) go away.