100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Finally | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I just choose for myself to leave it, is that so wrong, No. Who ever said that was wrong? Not I anyway. I resent your attempt at portraying yourself as the victim.  you should know that, this thing has been going on most of the day Well point out who said you MUST accept the theory of evolution then. It wasn't me and it wasn't Billy. You had originally posed the question about transitional fossils and he was nice enough to offer you a couple websites to further explain how this occurred. If it was complete crap, no one would believe it at all and it would not be taught in public schools. So Im not sure who on this thread told you that you have to do anything. Hmmm... interesting argument. If it weren't true - it wouldn't be taught in public schools. If that were so - Christianity and the bible has over 300 yers of being taught in public schools. Does that make it unequivically true? I'll have to remember this one. You obviously did not even bother to read this thread and instead isolated one post and felt you just had to insert something argumentative. I was explaining to Sharp that no one had told him he MUST accept the Theory of Evolution. We all know you wont even bother to understand the most basic of its components. It is for this reason, I dont enjoy discussing it with you any longer Its akin to ramming my head against a brick wall. It is taught in public schools with the presumption of it being a theory. Parents who are not not happy with this situation, always have the option of writing a note and having their children pulled from science class. I actually had this very incident occur with a friend because she had evangelical parents. It was horrible but I was 11 years old and nothing I could do about it. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. The issue is easily handled. If the conclusionary goal is based on theory - it should be an elective. Remove evolution from all science classes and include the theory of intelligent design and "Darwinism" (or what-ever-it's-called) in a science elective on origins of life. That way - you get it all in one class, if you so chose. As to the different religions - irrelivant to the theory of creation. That is a topic for philosophy, not science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? 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 It was not much different for me as well. Evolution was sort of mixed in with science back in the 60's - and didn't have all this "evidence" that I hear about today. I agree - the opposition to teaching religion in schools sahould relegate it to an elective. As I mentioned in my post to Krimsa. This way, the religion of evolution, and christianity can be offered in balance, and a student be informed enough about the theory of each to make decisions based on their own reasoning and understanding. This way - the grade they recieve is one of their own chosing, and not based on what the NEA determines they should believe. History in an academic environment has been, and will always be revisionist. I mean - as you think about it now - do you think Columbus was the first one to explore the western hemisphere or Americus Vespuci? And no one before then? Dah.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 09/21/08 08:12 AM
|
|
Edited for brevity. While I can see the point that you are making here, I would like to bring up a point that often happens on these forums. The statement "Your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't exist - you're delusional" Now - I'm not going to passively let this statement go by - especially when it follows some claim of what "Christians do" - that I know to be absolutely false. I can respond to this vehemently without thinking for a single moment that there is a word of truth in it that might apply to me - what-so-ever. I don't even need to pause to think about it. Usually - what thought crosses my mind is to immediately ask the poster if they've even read the bible. To which I never get a response. At this point - I let it go. But I respond initially - not because I believe there is a ring of truth in it for me - but because I see a fallacy in the broad interpretation of "religious profiling" with no wisdom or understanding of the topic they are adressing in the first place. That of Christian doctrine and percieved behavior. So - while I see your point - often times it does not hold true in the religion forums. Whoa... Nothing about what this poster has written has A THING to do with "what Christians do". Nor has this poster EVER suggested that anyone is delusional for their beliefs... ...and were we limited to ONLY discussing Christian doctrine? If so... I'll consider myself moderated. Religious Profiling? Dude! This isn't an "Us and Them". At least not as far as this poster is concerned. Yes... This is a Religion Forum. I was under the impression that participation was not limited to one Religion. 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. Yes, Eljay... I stand corrected. As stated in a previous response to Feral, it is acknowledged that the OP was, indeed, about Christianity. Since I see very little value in "making" any one religion or any "one" wrong, there is little desire to focus on such divide... Even though there are recurring themes of "us and them" throughout this community. There seems to be such defensiveness of beliefs that many tend to be nearly completely blind to or unwilling to consider that others' intentions may be other than combative. NO CHRISTIAN BASHING HERE (only speaking for myself). I admit to having an agenda for finding common ground (I guess this somehow makes me feel better). I happily admit stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 08:17 AM
|
|
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. 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. 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. 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. Yes modern science has very hard and fast limitations. Im not sure that was ever a point of contention? It is my understanding that when a person is having a NDE, the same areas of their brain are activated as that of a person having a dream. The majority of people with near death experiences also experience REM while they are awake and this is also referred to as REM Intrusion. Less than 25% of those who have never had a near death experience ever experience REM stage while they are awake. REM intrusion may mean you wake up and cannot move your limbs, or any part of your body, your muscles may feel incredibly weak, or you hear sounds that other people cannot hear. It is a paradoxical state of being in a dream stage while you are awake. So at least for me, I start to put two and two together and can begin to formulate some kind of a conclusion though admittedly, I dont know if it is correct. I can guess that near death experiences are caused by the same parts of the brain being activated as they are during REM. I dont know why you feel that scientists are not studying various levels of human consciousness? How would you prefer that they change the course of their research from where it currently stands? Yes of course, we are ALL limited by how we perceive reality. This would apply to our ability to understanding this phenomena regardless of the way we approach the issue or which mode of study we choose to focus on. If you are unable to explain or record or document your findings, then why should I blindly accept what you are telling me to be true? Modern medicine must take this into account while they conduct their research. I can not rule out a spiritual explanation which you seem to be more in line with, however, I also choose to recognize these physiological manifestations because there is evidence to support that they are in fact occurring in certain instances. If they were not visually apparent or able to be successfully monitored by EKG's and pulse oximeters and oxygen saturation levels of tissue and brain wave movement and associated activity then we probably would not be discussing these physical interactions right now because neither one of us would know about their existence. So I choose to include them as one viable option. It is a given that people find the prospect of an afterlife to be somewhat comforting and emotionally satisfying. That is why science can not always rely on these conclusions reached by NDE proponents as being totally unbiased. This is yet another reason why I choose to include both sides of the debate and not simply minimize or disregard one or the other as being less credible. If human nature will pull us in one direction, then science is left to keep this research grounded in reality and what is actually occurring from an observable biological standpoint. I view it as a "ying and yang" comparison. In am perfectly willing to accept that your own rendered conclusions are reasonable and logical in your opinion. I, however, might have en entirely different set of criteria as it relates to the study and possible explanations for NDE I have no way of discrediting your own personal NDE because you have never revealed what occurred in your situation exactly. I would probably be able to offer reasonable explanations as to what I felt was happening to you and then again I might not. So I would need to say that as of today, my conclusions would lead me to believe that since death is a slow, gradual process and the body can actually be resuscitated by the use of electric shock impulse or other such means, it would rightfully require of me to keep a healthy dose of skepticism in the back of my mind when attempting to substantiate one premise or another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 09:22 AM
|
|
I just choose for myself to leave it, is that so wrong, No. Who ever said that was wrong? Not I anyway. I resent your attempt at portraying yourself as the victim. you should know that, this thing has been going on most of the day Well point out who said you MUST accept the theory of evolution then. It wasn't me and it wasn't Billy. You had originally posed the question about transitional fossils and he was nice enough to offer you a couple websites to further explain how this occurred. If it was complete crap, no one would believe it at all and it would not be taught in public schools. So Im not sure who on this thread told you that you have to do anything. Hmmm... interesting argument. If it weren't true - it wouldn't be taught in public schools. If that were so - Christianity and the bible has over 300 yers of being taught in public schools. Does that make it unequivically true? I'll have to remember this one. You obviously did not even bother to read this thread and instead isolated one post and felt you just had to insert something argumentative. I was explaining to Sharp that no one had told him he MUST accept the Theory of Evolution. We all know you wont even bother to understand the most basic of its components. It is for this reason, I dont enjoy discussing it with you any longer Its akin to ramming my head against a brick wall. It is taught in public schools with the presumption of it being a theory. Parents who are not not happy with this situation, always have the option of writing a note and having their children pulled from science class. I actually had this very incident occur with a friend because she had evangelical parents. It was horrible but I was 11 years old and nothing I could do about it. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. The issue is easily handled. If the conclusionary goal is based on theory - it should be an elective. Remove evolution from all science classes and include the theory of intelligent design and "Darwinism" (or what-ever-it's-called) in a science elective on origins of life. That way - you get it all in one class, if you so chose. As to the different religions - irrelivant to the theory of creation. That is a topic for philosophy, not science. I'm sorry but I must disagree with your proposed solution as it is quite over simplified. You have also not begun to address the issue of the interrelatedness of the sciences and how that will be handled exactly? If the Theory of Evolution is relegated to that of elective, than how will students then be able to fully understand the components encompassed in the other sciences such as biology? Do we just make them ALL electives? Why not allow the students to pick and choose all of their classes? You could try that but it might have quite devastating effects over the long term as it relates to the understanding of these basic principles. I might have some concerns if I discovered that my GP decided that taking basic biology would be detrimental to his or her belief structure in some respect so therefore they chose to bypass medical school and instead opted to receive their degree via a "suedo science" of some description that would not interfere with their held beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 10:51 AM
|
|
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. Yes modern science has very hard and fast limitations. Im not sure that was ever a point of contention? It is my understanding that when a person is having a NDE, the same areas of their brain are activated as that of a person having a dream. The majority of people with near death experiences also experience REM while they are awake and this is also referred to as REM Intrusion. Less than 25% of those who have never had a near death experience ever experience REM stage while they are awake. There are some who believe that the pineal gland is responsible for both the dream state, hallucinations, NDE's and OBE's. It secretes a substance called DMT and that induces dreams, visions, out of body awareness, etc. This same substance can be obtained and taken internally and it can induce visions and out of body experiences. REM intrusion may mean you wake up and cannot move your limbs, or any part of your body, your muscles may feel incredibly weak, or you hear sounds that other people cannot hear. It is a paradoxical state of being in a dream stage while you are awake. So at least for me, I start to put two and two together and can begin to formulate some kind of a conclusion though admittedly, I dont know if it is correct. I can guess that near death experiences are caused by the same parts of the brain being activated as they are during REM. Rapid eye movement (REM) is what happens when you are 'seeing' with the inner eye. The inner eye is what 'sees' things in the dream state and it is also what 'sees' when having out of body experiences and near death experiences. This inner eye is the pineal gland. The "REM intrusion" you mentioned is also called sleep paralysis or even sleep disorder. When you are aware can see and hear things and cannot move your body you are in a state of consciousness considered to be "astral awareness." Robert Monroe has coined this state of awareness consciousness level 10. I dont know why you feel that scientists are not studying various levels of human consciousness? It is obvious that they have separate agendas and for some reason don't regard each other's work enough to share information if it is outside of their comfort zone. Each scientist has their own personal approach and their own ego and they sometimes poo poo another scientists work if they think they are on the fringe of "real" science. They just don't work together well. How would you prefer that they change the course of their research from where it currently stands? Work together better.  Put aside their egos. Consider new possibilities. Get out of their boxes once in a while. Try some out of body work for themselves. Yes of course, we are ALL limited by how we perceive reality. This would apply to our ability to understanding this phenomena regardless of the way we approach the issue or which mode of study we choose to focus on. If you are unable to explain or record or document your findings, then why should I blindly accept what you are telling me to be true? Modern medicine must take this into account while they conduct their research. Robert Monroe founded the Monroe institute for this purpose. To actually practice out of body consciousness and document findings. (One of my goals is to spend some time at the institute in person, in the meantime I have been learning the techniques via CD's and microphones. I can not rule out a spiritual explanation which you seem to be more in line with, however, I also choose to recognize these physiological manifestations because there is evidence to support that they are in fact occurring in certain instances. If they were not visually apparent or able to be successfully monitored by EKG's and pulse oximeters and oxygen saturation levels of tissue and brain wave movement and associated activity then we probably would not be discussing these physical interactions right now because neither one of us would know about their existence. So I choose to include them as one viable option. It is a given that people find the prospect of an afterlife to be somewhat comforting and emotionally satisfying. That is why science can not always rely on these conclusions reached by NDE proponents as being totally unbiased. This is yet another reason why I choose to include both sides of the debate and not simply minimize or disregard one or the other as being less credible. If human nature will pull us in one direction, then science is left to keep this research grounded in reality and what is actually occurring from an observable biological standpoint. I view it as a "ying and yang" comparison. In am perfectly willing to accept that your own rendered conclusions are reasonable and logical in your opinion. I, however, might have en entirely different set of criteria as it relates to the study and possible explanations for NDE I have no way of discrediting your own personal NDE because you have never revealed what occurred in your situation exactly. I would probably be able to offer reasonable explanations as to what I felt was happening to you and then again I might not. So I would need to say that as of today, my conclusions would lead me to believe that since death is a slow, gradual process and the body can actually be resuscitated by the use of electric shock impulse or other such means, it would rightfully require of me to keep a healthy dose of skepticism in the back of my mind when attempting to substantiate one premise or another. I did not come to my conclusions because they are "comforting." (You keep repeating this as if you think everyone who believes in an after life do so because it is comforting.) I have looked at both sides of the coin very carefully and by shear logic, evidence and personal experience I have come to my personal conclusions. Which are always subject to change with proof to the contrary. In fact I found a lot of comfort in the atheist idea that when you are dead your are dead. As I have said before, that is the ultimate escape from the burden of life and responsibility. It might be true, but I wouldn't count on it. Also I am not trying to sell anyone on the idea that there is an afterlife, my search for the truth of the nature of reality and existence is for myself only. It is not for the purpose of starting a cult or religion or for being a guru. People kid me and I go along with it but that is certainly not my intention. I will share my ideas and my opinions openly and I will reveal my position on any subject if I have one. My life is an open book and I do not fear opposition, nor do I worry about what people think of me personally. My first priority is to be true to myself, be myself, and continue to look for answers to all mysteries that cross my path. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pineal gland has been misunderstood by medical science for a long time. It was once considered useless.
If the pineal gland is responsible for giving us dreams and visions it is also vital for the creative process and visualization. Spiritualists call the pineal gland "the seat of soul." It is located in the center of the brain and between the eyes. It regulates the aging process, the sleep process, visualizing process, the imagination, OBE's and NDE's. My evil scientist side of me is very curious how a human would function if this gland were removed. Would a human be rendered a robot with no imagination? Would he be unable to dream? Would he be easier to program? Would he have lost his soul? Would anyone like to volunteer for an experiment having your pineal gland removed in my effort to find answers to this question? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pineal gland has been misunderstood by medical science for a long time. It was once considered useless. If the pineal gland is responsible for giving us dreams and visions it is also vital for the creative process and visualization. Spiritualists call the pineal gland "the seat of soul." It is located in the center of the brain and between the eyes. It regulates the aging process, the sleep process, visualizing process, the imagination, OBE's and NDE's. My evil scientist side of me is very curious how a human would function if this gland were removed. Would a human be rendered a robot with no imagination? Would he be unable to dream? Would he be easier to program? Would he have lost his soul? Would anyone like to volunteer for an experiment having your pineal gland removed in my effort to find answers to this question? MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 09/21/08 12:10 PM
|
|
The pineal gland has been misunderstood by medical science for a long time. It was once considered useless. If the pineal gland is responsible for giving us dreams and visions it is also vital for the creative process and visualization. Spiritualists call the pineal gland "the seat of soul." It is located in the center of the brain and between the eyes. It regulates the aging process, the sleep process, visualizing process, the imagination, OBE's and NDE's. My evil scientist side of me is very curious how a human would function if this gland were removed. Would a human be rendered a robot with no imagination? Would he be unable to dream? Would he be easier to program? Would he have lost his soul? Would anyone like to volunteer for an experiment having your pineal gland removed in my effort to find answers to this question? MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! Really? Meet me in my evil laboratory, come in the back way via the alley. Don't tell anyone where you are going, this has got to be top secret. I must warn you, it may be worse than getting a lobotomy.  But you will be contributing to science in a BIG way. You will be an unsung hero in the area of dark science.  After your pineal gland is removed (if you survive the proceedure) you will be sent to a top secret underground facility and tested. Then you will be trained as a robotic drone for various duties not excluding assassinations. You are my friend Tribo, I would advise against it personally. But if you know anyone else... I will take your recommendations to the highest authority in the project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pineal gland has been misunderstood by medical science for a long time. It was once considered useless. If the pineal gland is responsible for giving us dreams and visions it is also vital for the creative process and visualization. Spiritualists call the pineal gland "the seat of soul." It is located in the center of the brain and between the eyes. It regulates the aging process, the sleep process, visualizing process, the imagination, OBE's and NDE's. My evil scientist side of me is very curious how a human would function if this gland were removed. Would a human be rendered a robot with no imagination? Would he be unable to dream? Would he be easier to program? Would he have lost his soul? Would anyone like to volunteer for an experiment having your pineal gland removed in my effort to find answers to this question? MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! Really? Meet me in my evil laboratory, come in the back way via the alley. Don't tell anyone where you are going, this has got to be top secret. I must warn you, it may be worse than getting a lobotomy. But you will be contributing to science in a BIG way. You will be an unsung hero in the area of dark science. After your pineal gland is removed you will be sent to a top secret underground facility and tested. Then you will be trained as a robotic drone for various duties not excluding assassinations. You are my friend Tribo, I would advise against it personally. But if you know anyone else... I will take your recommendations to the highest authority in the project. hmmm? how about funches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm? how about funches He would be perfect. If he survives the procedure, we may be able to make some improvements. He may not go willingly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. All people are not always good... NO PEOPLE - are always good!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm? how about funches He would be perfect. If he survives the procedure, we may be able to make some improvements. He may not go willingly. just tell him there are illogical christians there want to debate free will. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Plainome
on
Sun 09/21/08 12:30 PM
|
|
If I may......without quoting a bunch of people.
BUT, to explain how/why something happens in a purely scientific/biological way............can in no way take away from the spiritual/mental side. Just because you can explain something in scientific terms doesn't mean that the spiritual/mental part of someone is not what affects the biological. There have been many studies about how you are what you think.....etc. We are "whole" beings. TO try to simply explain things in a physical context is good, but it isn't the "whole" picture. For those who are threatened by science and physical evidence.........well, you simply have no/lil faith. For instance.......IF science proved that there was a Great Flood, and that it was caused by A and B........who is to say (if I was a believer in a specific "God") that "God" didn't simply use A and B to accomplish his goals. There is no such thing as "supernatural" as everything is both spiritual and natural......in this realm that is. As human beings, living and breathing oxygen....in a world that has dirt/grass/water/gasses etc. IF there is a "God" he would be using these said elements to effect change in this world. So........there should be no need to limit your studies....in fear that it would cause harm to your believe system. Just as there is a biological explanation to depression, why they prescribe antidepressants, there is also a mental/emotional side...... Psychology doesn't assume that one part is better or explains things more clearly........but they are simply different aspects to the same problem........ Anyhoo..........you can not remove "evolution" from science as it is the premise of a lot of study.......... BUT I'd like to say.......does it really matter where it all came from anyway?? I mean, what does it matter what happened several millions (or thousands) of years ago.........We know what we know now........everything else is conjecture. In other words. Science and spirituality can live side by side.........IF one remembers that we are made of both worlds, and every aspect of the human experience effects the others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 01:15 PM
|
|
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. Yes modern science has very hard and fast limitations. Im not sure that was ever a point of contention? It is my understanding that when a person is having a NDE, the same areas of their brain are activated as that of a person having a dream. The majority of people with near death experiences also experience REM while they are awake and this is also referred to as REM Intrusion. Less than 25% of those who have never had a near death experience ever experience REM stage while they are awake. There are some who believe that the pineal gland is responsible for both the dream state, hallucinations, NDE's and OBE's. It secretes a substance called DMT and that induces dreams, visions, out of body awareness, etc. This same substance can be obtained and taken internally and it can induce visions and out of body experiences. REM intrusion may mean you wake up and cannot move your limbs, or any part of your body, your muscles may feel incredibly weak, or you hear sounds that other people cannot hear. It is a paradoxical state of being in a dream stage while you are awake. So at least for me, I start to put two and two together and can begin to formulate some kind of a conclusion though admittedly, I dont know if it is correct. I can guess that near death experiences are caused by the same parts of the brain being activated as they are during REM. Rapid eye movement (REM) is what happens when you are 'seeing' with the inner eye. The inner eye is what 'sees' things in the dream state and it is also what 'sees' when having out of body experiences and near death experiences. This inner eye is the pineal gland. The "REM intrusion" you mentioned is also called sleep paralysis or even sleep disorder. When you are aware can see and hear things and cannot move your body you are in a state of consciousness considered to be "astral awareness." Robert Monroe has coined this state of awareness consciousness level 10. I dont know why you feel that scientists are not studying various levels of human consciousness? It is obvious that they have separate agendas and for some reason don't regard each other's work enough to share information if it is outside of their comfort zone. Each scientist has their own personal approach and their own ego and they sometimes poo poo another scientists work if they think they are on the fringe of "real" science. They just don't work together well. How would you prefer that they change the course of their research from where it currently stands? Work together better. Put aside their egos. Consider new possibilities. Get out of their boxes once in a while. Try some out of body work for themselves. Yes of course, we are ALL limited by how we perceive reality. This would apply to our ability to understanding this phenomena regardless of the way we approach the issue or which mode of study we choose to focus on. If you are unable to explain or record or document your findings, then why should I blindly accept what you are telling me to be true? Modern medicine must take this into account while they conduct their research. Robert Monroe founded the Monroe institute for this purpose. To actually practice out of body consciousness and document findings. (One of my goals is to spend some time at the institute in person, in the meantime I have been learning the techniques via CD's and microphones. I can not rule out a spiritual explanation which you seem to be more in line with, however, I also choose to recognize these physiological manifestations because there is evidence to support that they are in fact occurring in certain instances. If they were not visually apparent or able to be successfully monitored by EKG's and pulse oximeters and oxygen saturation levels of tissue and brain wave movement and associated activity then we probably would not be discussing these physical interactions right now because neither one of us would know about their existence. So I choose to include them as one viable option. It is a given that people find the prospect of an afterlife to be somewhat comforting and emotionally satisfying. That is why science can not always rely on these conclusions reached by NDE proponents as being totally unbiased. This is yet another reason why I choose to include both sides of the debate and not simply minimize or disregard one or the other as being less credible. If human nature will pull us in one direction, then science is left to keep this research grounded in reality and what is actually occurring from an observable biological standpoint. I view it as a "ying and yang" comparison. In am perfectly willing to accept that your own rendered conclusions are reasonable and logical in your opinion. I, however, might have en entirely different set of criteria as it relates to the study and possible explanations for NDE I have no way of discrediting your own personal NDE because you have never revealed what occurred in your situation exactly. I would probably be able to offer reasonable explanations as to what I felt was happening to you and then again I might not. So I would need to say that as of today, my conclusions would lead me to believe that since death is a slow, gradual process and the body can actually be resuscitated by the use of electric shock impulse or other such means, it would rightfully require of me to keep a healthy dose of skepticism in the back of my mind when attempting to substantiate one premise or another. I did not come to my conclusions because they are "comforting." (You keep repeating this as if you think everyone who believes in an after life do so because it is comforting.) I have looked at both sides of the coin very carefully and by shear logic, evidence and personal experience I have come to my personal conclusions. Which are always subject to change with proof to the contrary. In fact I found a lot of comfort in the atheist idea that when you are dead your are dead. As I have said before, that is the ultimate escape from the burden of life and responsibility. It might be true, but I wouldn't count on it. Also I am not trying to sell anyone on the idea that there is an afterlife, my search for the truth of the nature of reality and existence is for myself only. It is not for the purpose of starting a cult or religion or for being a guru. People kid me and I go along with it but that is certainly not my intention. I will share my ideas and my opinions openly and I will reveal my position on any subject if I have one. My life is an open book and I do not fear opposition, nor do I worry about what people think of me personally. My first priority is to be true to myself, be myself, and continue to look for answers to all mysteries that cross my path. JB DMT is actually present in all of our bodies. It is a natural brain neurotransmitter and considerably lacking in any mystical qualities. Perhaps excessive DMT production is responsible for naturally occurring "psychedelic" states. These might include birth, death and near-death, psychosis, and dream like experiences. Yet another plausible explanation based in psychopharmacology. I realize you seem to feel that ALL science and scientific research in this field is agenda driven in some respect and therefore unreliable and not worth the time it takes to look at it, however I'm not sure how you can justifiably apply this standard or criteria to that of modern medicine and not to these others who conduct their own experiments in the same field? Do they not have egos? Are they not also in some capacity predisposed to rendering biased conclusions based on the outcomes that are most desirable to them and furthering their research? It is my personal feeling that you are asking to have this both ways. You want to reject modern medicine as being an unreliable source yet you don't seem to apply this same standard to the individuals and resources that you find to be more credible for whatever reason. I'm having a hard time with that. Wouldn't the best approach simply be to evaluate these separate studies based on their own merit? The only reason I point out that you seem to cling to some of these beliefs (speaking of you and no one else) is that you continuously push away ANY credible evidence I bring forth produced by scientific research that might possibly offer physiological explanations for these occurrences. If you truly had no vested interest in substantiating the validity of an afterlife, you would probably be a little more accepting of these other modes of research and study. I myself, am not very interested in this topic but I have read a little bit here and there over the years. It is for this reason I think it might be possible for me to remain somewhat more objective because I have "nothing to lose". This is why I simply desire that all of these available resources at our disposal be included and given equal value before they are dismissed as simply being "agenda serving" in some capacity. So with that being said, even though I am not nearly as focused or emotionally invested in this subject matter, as an intelligent and analytical individual I am quite capable of objectively investigating the topic. So far, my conclusion has not been changed by what you have been able to bring forward. I have compared your explanations to what I have read and witnessed over the years and I do have to lean towards modern medicine as being slightly more comprehensive in its approach. I agree with you that if something earth shattering should make itself apparent, perhaps a person who is actually "clinically dead" for a much longer period of time before being resuscitated with a conflicting or different account, than something like that would definitely help sway my views. Absolutely. Right now, the nature of death and the dieing process is such that it is fraught with ambiguity and there is substantial physical evidence as noted to lend credibility to these scientific theories and possible explanations. So to sum up, I feel like we are closer to it in a sense but not there yet. And even if something comes to light that is quite substantial in support of either one or the other theory, Im sure one or the other opposing sides will find a reason to argue and attempt to discredit it. I have my feelings as it relates to what occurs once we die. I think something leaves us and begins again. But that is just my feeling about it and I have no way to prove this, nor support this premise with any inkling of credible evidence so I wont feel comfortable presuming to espouse such information to others. Its just a guess based on my own understanding of this phenomena and personal life experience. The "guru" comment was not meant to hurt your feelings and was primarily meant in jest. In fact I was not the first to use it in reference to you. I would imagine I am perceived as being the polarized opposite. People's perceptions of others via an internet relay chat interface are somewhat baseless and unfounded. I generally prefer to speak with folks by phone if I am going to put forth an effort to gain some kind of better understanding of who they actually are as a person. Other than that, I am who I am which is a straight shooter. I refuse to rule out any data on a particular subject until I have thoroughly and completely investigated it. Then I will move on. It is my opinion that this is the only way one can actually be truthful with themselves. I feel that when approaching the subject of OBE or NDE it becomes absolutely imperative that one fully understand and evaluate all possible sources of information and not merely those that you might find to be more suitable or credible. If there is one thing Im not afraid of, its disagreement. It is how I learn and grow and trust me, it isnt always pretty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 JB is a guru even though she denies it. I have found her an excellent source of interesting topics for my college papers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may......without quoting a bunch of people. BUT, to explain how/why something happens in a purely scientific/biological way............can in no way take away from the spiritual/mental side. Just because you can explain something in scientific terms doesn't mean that the spiritual/mental part of someone is not what affects the biological. There have been many studies about how you are what you think.....etc. We are "whole" beings. TO try to simply explain things in a physical context is good, but it isn't the "whole" picture. For those who are threatened by science and physical evidence.........well, you simply have no/lil faith. For instance.......IF science proved that there was a Great Flood, and that it was caused by A and B........who is to say (if I was a believer in a specific "God") that "God" didn't simply use A and B to accomplish his goals. There is no such thing as "supernatural" as everything is both spiritual and natural......in this realm that is. As human beings, living and breathing oxygen....in a world that has dirt/grass/water/gasses etc. IF there is a "God" he would be using these said elements to effect change in this world. So........there should be no need to limit your studies....in fear that it would cause harm to your believe system. Just as there is a biological explanation to depression, why they prescribe antidepressants, there is also a mental/emotional side...... Psychology doesn't assume that one part is better or explains things more clearly........but they are simply different aspects to the same problem........ Anyhoo..........you can not remove "evolution" from science as it is the premise of a lot of study.......... BUT I'd like to say.......does it really matter where it all came from anyway?? I mean, what does it matter what happened several millions (or thousands) of years ago.........We know what we know now........everything else is conjecture. In other words. Science and spirituality can live side by side.........IF one remembers that we are made of both worlds, and every aspect of the human experience effects the others. You are so wise. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 09/21/08 01:31 PM
|
|
If I may......without quoting a bunch of people. BUT, to explain how/why something happens in a purely scientific/biological way............can in no way take away from the spiritual/mental side. Just because you can explain something in scientific terms doesn't mean that the spiritual/mental part of someone is not what affects the biological. There have been many studies about how you are what you think.....etc. We are "whole" beings. TO try to simply explain things in a physical context is good, but it isn't the "whole" picture. For those who are threatened by science and physical evidence.........well, you simply have no/lil faith. For instance.......IF science proved that there was a Great Flood, and that it was caused by A and B........who is to say (if I was a believer in a specific "God") that "God" didn't simply use A and B to accomplish his goals. There is no such thing as "supernatural" as everything is both spiritual and natural......in this realm that is. As human beings, living and breathing oxygen....in a world that has dirt/grass/water/gasses etc. IF there is a "God" he would be using these said elements to effect change in this world. So........there should be no need to limit your studies....in fear that it would cause harm to your believe system. Just as there is a biological explanation to depression, why they prescribe antidepressants, there is also a mental/emotional side...... Psychology doesn't assume that one part is better or explains things more clearly........but they are simply different aspects to the same problem........ Anyhoo..........you can not remove "evolution" from science as it is the premise of a lot of study.......... BUT I'd like to say.......does it really matter where it all came from anyway?? I mean, what does it matter what happened several millions (or thousands) of years ago.........We know what we know now........everything else is conjecture. In other words. Science and spirituality can live side by side.........IF one remembers that we are made of both worlds, and every aspect of the human experience effects the others. You are so wise. I would agree but I think primarily when the two find themselves at opposition is when they flat out refuse to accept that one or the other theory is plausible or possible. As thoroughly convinced as I am that Creationism just did not occur, I cant tell you for certain that it did not. I also cant sit here and tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that man diverged from Chimpanzee 6 million years ago. I really cant. I can point at some bones and walk you through the theory and that's it. The rest is up to the individual to reach their own conclusions. The world's dont necessarily need to collide but they often do because people's egos get in the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warning: This is just more useless drivel between Krimsa and Jeanniebean so you can just scroll past it.
DMT is actually present in all of our bodies. It is a natural brain neurotransmitter and considerably lacking in any mystical qualities. Why is it that everyone I talk to about OBE's or NDE's or the pineal gland or the tarot cards or just about anything, they start proclaiming or protesting that there is nothing "MYSTICAL" about it? FOR THE RECORD: I have NEVER claimed that anything is "Mystical" so what is all this resistance against the word "mystical?" I am also aware that DMT is present in all of our bodies. It is secreted by the pineal gland in the brain. Anyone who has a pineal gland can secrete DMT and can dream, visualize, imagine, have OBE's, NDE's etc. Perhaps excessive DMT production is responsible for naturally occurring "psychedelic" states. These might include birth, death and near-death, psychosis, and dream like experiences. Yet another plausible explanation based in psychopharmacology. That is exactly what I am saying. The pineal gland secretes melatonin too help us sleep, and DMT to help us dream and who knows what else it does. Malfunctions of the pineal gland and excess DMT can contribute to psychosis and schizophrenia. I realize you seem to feel that ALL science and scientific research in this field is agenda driven in some respect and therefore unreliable and not worth the time it takes to look at it, however I'm not sure how you can justifiably apply this standard or criteria to that of modern medicine and not to these others who conduct their own experiments in the same field? I do not give "modern medicine" any more authority or respect than anyone else. Today's "modern medicine" is 80% driven towards the application and use of prescription drugs to line the pockets of drug companies and less and less about treating or curing disease. You can worship the gods of "modern medicine" and the FDA and their drug business if you wish, but I do not. Do they not have egos? Are they not also in some capacity predisposed to rendering biased conclusions based on the outcomes that are most desirable to them and furthering their research? It is my personal feeling that you are asking to have this both ways. You want to reject modern medicine as being an unreliable source yet you don't seem to apply this same standard to the individuals and resources that you find to be more credible for whatever reason. I'm having a hard time with that. Wouldn't the best approach simply be to evaluate these separate studies based on their own merit? Everybody is suspect for having an agenda and an ego in my book. Therefore they are all on pretty equal ground as far as I am concerned. The only reason I point out that you seem to cling to some of these beliefs (speaking of you and no one else) is that you continuously push away ANY credible evidence I bring forth produced by scientific research that might possibly offer physiological explanations for these occurrences. Just because I don't agree with you or accept your evidence as the gospel truth or bow to the institution of "modern medicine" (like you seem to do) does not mean that I am pushing away any credible evidence you "bring forth." If this research offers to your satisfaction physiological explanations for these occurrences and you are 100% satisfied with them then that is good for you isn't it? But please don't expect me to be 100% satisfied with them as I find them lacking. As for your impression that I am "clinging to" any beliefs you are way off base on that one. I don't cling to anything. I look at and evaluate information and I draw temporary conclusions about it. I wish you could carry on a conversation without presuming and assuming things about me that are most probably oly reflection of yourself. If you truly had no vested interest in substantiating the validity of an afterlife, you would probably be a little more accepting of these other modes of research and study. What "vested interest" do you imagine I have? I myself, am not very interested in this topic but I have read a little bit here and there over the years. It is for this reason I think it might be possible for me to remain somewhat more objective because I have "nothing to lose". Again, what is it that you imagine I have to loose? You have quite the imagination I think. This is why I simply desire that all of these available resources at our disposal be included and given equal value before they are dismissed as simply being "agenda serving" in some capacity. Both sides of the studies have been accused as being "agenda serving" by the other side, so that makes them all about equal in my book. So with that being said, even though I am not nearly as focused or emotionally invested in this subject matter, as an intelligent and analytical individual I am quite capable of objectively investigating the topic. You what makes you think I am "emotionally invested" in this subject matter? You aren't talking to a born again Christian here. You know nothing about my "emotional investment." I have said over and over that I seek truth no matter what it is. If you have proof that I am wrong in my temporary conclusion then lets have it. Your "modern medicine" theories are not proof of anything. They don't tip the scale in the favor of the Atheist agenda or even the agnostic agenda. So far, my conclusion has not been changed by what you have been able to bring forward. I have compared your explanations to what I have read and witnessed over the years and I do have to lean towards modern medicine as being slightly more comprehensive in its approach. Well that is just fine with me. You can come to any conclusion you want. I am not concerned about changing your mind about anything. The "guru" comment was not meant to hurt your feelings and was primarily meant in jest. This is simply not true. Your "guru" comment was spoken with disdain and you followed it with "I'm not falling for that crap" so don't try to soft soap your sarcastic emotion filled demeaning remarks and make yourself innocent. By the way, nothing you say to me could possibly hurt my feelings. And for a moment I thought we might have been able to actually start having adult conversations but it appears you are still just wanting to show off. Okee dokee. Over and out. Subject closed. I apologize to anyone who has to scroll over this useless drivel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 09/21/08 02:45 PM
|
|
Like most of us who are drawn to these topics, JB has some spiritual wisdom. She frames the concepts in her own terminology. But anyone who does the research will find that the things she discusses are actually ancient concepts. For example, her concept of a holographic reality is just a rephrasing of the ancient Hindu concept of Maya (dream reality). Take away the sci fi component and she is basically talking eastern philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
