My mother and father were both pentecostal ministers. Daddy preached fiery sermons but mother often prophesied in tongues when she was consumed with the Holy Spirit (which was often).

I don't like people in general as far as being around them, prefer the company of animals But surely, you can find at least one person here to talk with that you enjoy. I have and I hate talking yeah, I said that c'mon, no one, and worth what effort, friendship or something else, don't understand.

hey Sharpshooter

Of course JB. There are many different types of medial research. I am referring to actual studies in the field of NDE. There are a number of medical explanations. These range from legitimate possibilities, such as the effects of endorphins and hypoxia to less conventional interpretations. Medical explanations of NDEs are quickly dismissed while mystical interpretations predominate. So you are in good company.

I am going to be honest with you. The medical community by and large discounts for the most part the assertion that NDE indicates that there is life after death. Nevertheless, most doctors and researchers wont dispute that a dramatic psychological effect has occurred with these people who have reported a near-death experience.

Hypoxia is an abnormal physical condition in which a deficiency of oxygen reaches the tissues of the body. In the case of NDEs, some attribute the hallucinations involved in NDEs to hypoxia. They say that since the brain is deprived of oxygen, a person who is near death experiences pleasurable feelings and a natural high in which NDE episodes are imagined. No I dont believe this is the only explanation but I was irritated with your inability to even look at it. You tossed it out. Poof.

When a person suffers great pain or extreme stress, the brain sometimes releases natural chemicals to relieve this physical discomfort. These substances are called endorphins, and they affect people in the same way morphine or heroin does. I think this is one possible explanation and that the sudden stress and/or pain of dying produces a large amount of these endorphins, which then create a pleasurable and mystical high that some people interpret as a near-death experience.

Something really interesting that I have read many years ago in passing is that many of the people who report having a NDE have also had past experience with LSD usage which is Lysergic acid and a powerful hallucinogenic as Im sure you are aware. Its actually been thought that it might possibly play a role. However there are distinct differences. Usually people that have dropped acid are aware that they have done so and they realize what they are experiencing is due to the effects of the drug. During a NDE even though there are similarities reported, the primary difference is that the person having the NDE perceives their experience as intensely real.

Transient Depersonalization is another theory that offers a psychological explanation of NDEs that is similar to the endorphin concept. In this case, instead of natural chemicals reacting to the stress of dying, a psychological mechanism is triggered in response to this stress to create a sense of separation from the prospect of physical annihilation and actual demise. The illusion of a transcendental state is experienced in which a person feels detached from his or her body. In addition, time, emotions, and thoughts seem surreal.

Im not sure that you are totally accurate in your assertion that scientists and medical researchers are going to automatically discount any new findings or discoveries that do not not fit preconceived notions. Sure this research has been going on for several years but if new evidence presents itself, I would think that most are at least open to acquiring a better understanding of this phenomena. You have to realize that medicine is somewhat limited in its approach and it can only ascertain that which it can physically see and document and successfully compare. We cant just kill people and essentially these studies are quite limited and are based on what the subject can remember exactly about the experience.

I dont necessarily think there is a purpose for NDE as you seem to feel. People may like to hope that there is and I can certainly understand why. But that alone will not make it so.

She deactivated. Poof.

poof

I believe (in this physical reality) that for every existing event or condition there is a cause. Some people say there is a reason for everything.

(I don't even go that far. The "cause" is the "reason.")

Therefore, I believe there is purpose for NDE's. Otherwise why would they happen? Why not just have a dream that someone is smothering you with a pillow or something like that rather than the "hallucinations" associated with NDE's?

If the purpose is to make death more acceptable or more comfortable what would be the purpose in that? Who would care about that enough to design the brain that way? What would it matter if you felt good or not at the time of death?

Purpose Purpose Purpose.

Also medical explanations do not explain people whose brains were NOT deprived of oxygen who had out of body experiences, and they don't explain Out of body experience done by just learning to do it.

Anyway, I have to consider my own OBE experiences first before considering other theories. (First hand experiences always rank higher than other people's opinions.)

As far as the majority of studies, they can all be biased towards what the person in charge of the study actually believes or wants to believe.

Science is limited to the physical universe. That is why their "studies" are limited. Of course the physical universe is all that exists according to modern science. Anything else is just theory or hallucination.

The funny part of that is maybe the physical universe is also a "hallucination," its just enhanced to the point that it appears real to us.

What if you could enhance your dreams to a point where they were as real as this reality? What if you could control them? If you could, you could create your own personal experiences in that reality.

What if that is what you are doing in this reality and you just don't know it?

I just suspect that reality is not what we think it is.

JB

I just suspect that reality is not what we think it is.

JB

I believe you are correct on that one

Reality is definitely not what I think it is.

I think existence is impossible.

Yet here we are!

Ta da! Clearly I'm wrong!

I'm not wrong about the Bible though. I'm not saying whether or not the Bible is true. I'm just saying that if it is true then God is a heartless bastard.

I personally don't want to put my faith in that idea, so I claim that it isn't true.

If it is true who would want to know it anyway until they have no other choice?

It would be like waking up and discovering that Adolph Hitler is God.

Could it be true?

I suppose anything could be true.

Do I want to put my faith in that idea?

Nope!

Double post

Okay JB, I agree with Abra, I suppose anything can be true. I certainly dont see what possible benefit there could be in minimizing the work of these scientists and researchers in their prospective fields. I can not explain what happens postmortem with absolute certainty. Your mystical interpretations will more than likely prevail. I dont doubt that your personal experience outweighs that of my own so there is no reason to argue this. You are obviously comfortable with your assertions and this topic does not really hold great interest for me anyway.

This was lost during all of the petty bickering and it deserves re posting. It was origionally posted by Bushidobillyclub. He also posted an excellent video but once again, overlooked.

"World's Largest-ever Study Of Near-Death Experiences"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910090829.htm

ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) — The University of Southampton is launching the world's largest-ever study of near-death experiences this week.

The AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study is to be launched by the Human Consciousness Project of the University of Southampton - an international collaboration of scientists and physicians who have joined forces to study the human brain, consciousness and clinical death.

The study is led by Dr Sam Parnia, an expert in the field of consciousness during clinical death, together with Dr Peter Fenwick and Professors Stephen Holgate and Robert Peveler of the University of Southampton. Following a successful 18-month pilot phase at selected hospitals in the UK, the study is now being expanded to include other centres within the UK, mainland Europe and North America.

"Contrary to popular perception," Dr Parnia explains, "death is not a specific moment. It is a process that begins when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working and the brain ceases functioning - a medical condition termed cardiac arrest, which from a biological viewpoint is synonymous with clinical death.

"During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of death are present. There then follows a period of time, which may last from a few seconds to an hour or more, in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in restarting the heart and reversing the dying process. What people experience during this period of cardiac arrest provides a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process."

A number of recent scientific studies carried out by independent researchers have demonstrated that 10-20 per cent of people who go through cardiac arrest and clinical death report lucid, well structured thought processes, reasoning, memories and sometimes detailed recall of events during their encounter with death.

During the AWARE study, doctors will use sophisticated technology to study the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest. At the same time, they will test the validity of out of body experiences and claims of being able to 'see' and 'hear' during cardiac arrest.

The AWARE study will be complemented by the BRAIN-1 (Brain Resuscitation Advancement International Network - 1) study, in which the research team will conduct a variety of physiological tests in cardiac arrest patients, as well as cerebral monitoring techniques that aim to identify methods to improve the medical and psychological care of patients who have undergone cardiac arrest.

Dr Parnia will formally announce the launch of the AWARE study at an international symposium to be held at the United Nations on September 11.

I so totally concur. Ive noticed the older Ive gotten, the more I enjoy the company of animals. I actually prefer them to people in many instances. Not that I never socialize but its getting to be a lot less these days. Luckily I live on a farm here so in fact i have far too many animals and I am responsible for their upkeep. Though they can be difficult and have "moods" just like humans, they dont seem to have ongoing plans for hostile acquisition nor military coop. I run a tight ship here.

Edited for brevity.



Hmmm... Having read the OP of this thread - I just thought it appropriate to mention it as a response to your broad reference to negativity in posts. Didn't mean it as a direct reference to any previous posts of yours.

Not an "Us/them" thing. Well - I disagree. I've seen Spider attacked enough to know that this isn't true. It doesnt matter what the topic is, Abra will get his "I hate Christianity" post in.

So - I'm not sure where you are getting your impression from - you will find that more than a majority of these threads will bring itself down to some comment about christianity before the thread ends. But it just so happens that >this< thread was one on christianity.

Shouldn't you be at church or something Eljay? Its Sunday and all 9am.

I've read every post on this thread (though I often ask myself why) and felt compelled to respond on your "taught in schools" comment - not as something argumentative, but as a point of reference.

Do you think the option of being "pulled" from science class is one that is intended on enhancing a students education? Like that is a viable option? What then does the student say when they are applying to colleges and have no academic record of having taken science? Is this balance in the education system? Wouldn't it be better if the parents had the option of withdrawing their tax contributions to their public school sustem rather than their student? Let's see how long the NEA holds onto their secular-humanist agenda's if this becomes an option.

Oh and that comment isnt intended to be argumentative at all. Come on. Congratulations. You just uniformly disrespected every member who has contributed to this thread thus far with your "though I often ask myself why" remark. Thanks a lot, from the bottom of my heart.

I am telling you what I saw happen to a friend. She was escorted from science class as we began our study of The Theory of Evolution and anthropogenesis. She was forced by her parents to be separated and she had to sit in study hall over the course of the period. I am simply letting you know it occurs. My position is that the public schools should be left to teach both science and mathematics and this would include a general overview of the theory of evolution. Parents have the right to enroll their children in whatever bible theology study or Sunday school program they deem appropriate. That would not be limited to the study of Christianity either. In this way, no religious instruction is being forced down the throats of other students. That is not your right and the tax payer should not be expected to pick up the tab for evangelical agendas being espoused in the public school system.

Well - perhaps that last comment of mine was - but I would guess it would be a better topic for it's own thread if that were the case.

Am I being disrespectful to you and Jeannie because I didn't necessarily find it worth my while to see you two bicker over 5 or 6 pages? It was moderately entertaining - but had I not seen it, I don't think I would have missed anything. I didn't say EVERY post was not worth reading. Perhaps you should take Jeannie's advice about not attempting to read between the lines of everyone's posts to reflect on your take on their perspective. Just read the words for what they say instead of what you assume they mean. Then - if you percieve an agenda - ask, rather than assume.



Yes - I understood the point about your friend, and was merely reflecting on the consequences this girl faces because - despite it being taught as a theory, students have no option but to learn it - be graded on it - and accept it's effect on their transcript. This is a non-negotiable part of our education system. Do you not think that having to pick up the "tab" for this is any less unacceptable than one for "evangelical agenda's"?
Is that not an argument of a hypocrite?

An in dept study of human consciousness would be more to my liking. Modern science is limited to our perceptions of physical reality.

Their conclusions must conform with physical laws hence they are limited in this kind of investigation because in order to remain "scientific" they cannot assume or imagine anything outside of the physical reality they perceive.

There are more studies about this subject that conclude that NDE's are evidence of an after life than the opposite.

People unwilling to accept these conclusions assert that the people doing these studies are bias towards wanting that to be the case.

The studies that conclude the opposite are touted by the other camp of being bias, so I am thinking that there will probably always be disagreement in this area.



Absolute certainty is not possible in my interpretations. I can only weigh the evidence and add my own personal experience and come to my own conclusions. There is nothing "mystical" about it. I use my own logic all the way. The conclusions of most studies plus my personal experience tilt the scales towards the idea that there is existence apart from the physical body and after death. Until more evidence is in, that is where my conclusions stand.

If is clear that you are only here to take sides and begin this argument all over again. Its not impossible to predict the inevitable "tag team" maneuver that we see so very often on these forums. That aside, if I have misunderstood the purpose of your comment than please feel free to clarify. You always have that option.

Well then you explain exactly how we can fit the instruction of Creationism into a 60 minute standard science class period along side that of the Theory of Evolution which by the way, is introduced and accepted to be a "theory". Students are NEVER told this is the only possible explanation for the origions of man and animal. They are informed that this is but one theory that modern science has been able to formulate and compile.

Another question, how do you then justify ONLY teaching the components of Christian theology and not that of Jewish tradition or Muslim or any other religion or spirituality? Why should one take precedence over another? It seems to me there is no hypocrisy involved with merely allowing students to learn and become familuar with a scientific premise.That is what defines a well rounded individual. At least in my opinion. They always have the ability to dismiss it or research outside of their public school curriculum. It seems to me the most inclusive and tolerant and genuinely humanitarian option for the parents of such children would be to enroll them in bible study (or whatever theological classes they find acceptable) and allow the children the option of seeing all sides of the debate? Maybe its just me, but that sounds fair.

I can see your point Eljay. These days it really surprises me what they do and do not teach in schools. They sort of pick and choose things. Today's history is nothing like what we were taught. What changed in history? Well it was probably not the truth anyway, but now they just leave most of it out.

On the subject of Darwins theory of evolution, I was not exposed to it in school or it was so brief I forgot, and I know very little about it but I was smart enough to understand the idea of "theory." It simply means, here are the facts we discovered, and this it what some guy called Darwin thinks. I think it would be wrong for a teacher to show bias one way or another or try to insist that this is the absolute truth and your religion is all wrong.

But I am apposed to teaching religion in schools. Creationism as it stands is religion. You can hear about that on Sunday.

JB