There are MANY testimonies of NDEs in “hell”, many. As for “taught that few people were supposed to go to Heaven”…WHO taught you THAT? I was raised and educated a Roman Catholic. Never once did anyone “teach” me that. I did hear it in the Baptist church, though!
I’ve been tested in Remote Viewing. It works = it’s real. There is non-local consciousness, God’s “breath” (hakodesh) is in everything. And, I might add, there have been tests of this conducted by hundreds of scientists (every hear of a Faraday cage?) that proves non-local consciousness (so called “psychic” abilities). As for exorcism: the Roman Catholic Church has TRAINED exorcists: are they “wack-a-loons”? A “summoning” can, has, result in all sorts of unwanted manifestations and there is much (volumes upon volumes) written on the effects of occult practices (ever hear of “poltergeist” activity, which is actually a manifestation of EMOTIONAL STATES in human beings?) I’ve studied these phenomena for more than 30 years. Had you done the same, you wouldn’t be posing this question. Yes, sir, there are answers; yes, there are credible test results, so many that you can easily find them yourself. If you would like to read a real scientist’s interpretation of mind, matter and “soul”, read Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D., “The Presence of the Past”. That’s just one of hundreds that I’ve read. And I’ve had personal experiences for my entire life of precognition, telepathy, information sharing among/between other species, etc. and no, I’m not mentally ill or emotionally unstable. This is a proven fact, actually, since I have subjected myself to hours upon hours of psychotherapy due to the death of my daughter (and were I unstable, I would not have survived that death.)
Quick question — I apologize if this is off-topic.
No, it’s not ok for Catholics to engage in that sort of stuff. Specifically because there’s no way of verifying from where the information / visions comes from. It opens us up to a whole lot of negative influence from Satan and his minions. The Catechism warns against engaging in such practices or pursuing those avenues to gain insight into anything.
I have no problem explaining how knowledge (scientific or otherwise) can be illogical. To be totally honest, what I am having a problem with, is deciding whether you are worth the effort, or perhaps what I am really concerned about is whether I am capable of the effort. There is such a gap between the two of us that I am afraid that no amount of patient explanation on my part will have any effect in lessening that divide. You have chosen that which you are comfortable believing, and no matter how badly I may want to, or how hard I may try, there is nothing that I can do to change that. I can accept this, but in truth, it saddens me. I want so much for you to be able to see the world as I see it. To understand men, and God, and suffering, and sorrow, and life, and death in the way that I do. For life is a very precious thing, and I would like so very much for you to see and understand that, but I don’t think that I am capable of making you see it, and for that I am sorry. There are some things, like the hearts of men, that I simply cannot change.You are obviously having difficulty in explaining how scientific knowledge can be illogical!
Thank you, this is what I thought.
There is no such thing as “victory” in a philosophical discussion. It is an exchange of ideas and an exploration of reality in which we are all entitled to our beliefs and opinions. Disagreement is inevitable but that is not a good reason for expressing pity or compassion for those who disagree with us - as if they are misguided.
In Dr. Alexander’s case, though, his memory of the details of his experience and when, exactly, those memories were formed are what separates his claim of having glimpsed an afterlife from someone just inventing stuff, whole cloth.
In addition to lacking the aptitude and patience for philosophical discussion, my opinion on the nature of the brain/mind relationship is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not Dr. Alexander made his case – and the only reason I responded to the OP.
I agree.
These aren’t things I control, nor do I try to control them. We are told not to seek out the dead (i.e., as in seances), something I do not do (although I once did stumble into it and got a huge STOP sign and a warning). I can “see” if given coordinates (and those can be random, it can merely be a mechanism for concentration). I can “know” without attempting to know; I can “hear” without attempt to do so. I believe these are innate to our ability vis a vis our souls and a gift from God intended ONLY for His purpose, in His time. Having said that, there are many remote viewers who have worked (successfully) for the government and discovered many things of interest, and one such actually found the remains of Richard III most recently (she “knew” he was buried in that spot on the parking lot, which is why it was ultimately excavated). This “ability” (Gift) has saved my life, literally. It’s impossible to describe but it is certainly not of Satan (although I think it CAN be used by Satan if a person were to choose to “USE” it for his/her own satisfaction). The Church does teach us to avoid mediums, psychics, etc., but the Church cannot prevent God from using this ability for His purposes, should He choose to do so. Ultimately, who makes the rules?
“Indulge” means to deliberately attempt to elicit. Now, was this Satanic?
I hate to get off topic in this thread. However, that’s a truly amazing experience.
Thank you for sharing your experience with us. Many Christians claim to believe in a loving Father yet in practice they tend to be sceptical about any scientifically inexplicable event like yours. I believe this is largely due to the pernicious effects of living in a materialistic society where neuroscience is thought to explain most, if not all, mental activity.For the sake of discussion, I will accept every single last report of an NDE as being an accurate description of that person’s experience. In doing so, however, I’m immediately confronted with a problem. If all of these people are describing the afterlife, why are so many of their descriptions – beyond certain basic elements (e.g. tunnel vision) which can be attributed to such things as oxygen privation, etc. – different? As noted previously in this link, some see departed loved one, some don’t; some converse with people who are still alive; some see Jesus, some see other deities or none at all; some see fluffy pink clouds (like Dr. Alexander), some see verdant fields. Some NDEs are reported by people who were not even close to death. Unless the afterlife is radically different for everyone, then how do you account for those differences? By my way of thinking, it’s because their experiences are dependent on their cultural and personal expectations and not because of any objective nature of an afterlife. As already noted by a previous poster, they’re apparently seeing what they want to see. In other words, it appears that it’s all in their heads.
Not only did I already reference a well known skeptic – who you would likely regard as a “materialist” – who does not reject all accounts on principle, you’re ignoring the reason I cited for why such general philosophical discussion is irrelevant – it doesn’t address the particulars of Dr. Alexander’s case. If you wanted to have a general discussion on the brain/mind relationship, then why reference Dr. Alexander’s book at all? Was that just bait?
Aren’t you a bit thin-skinned?
An irrelevant, personal question which is out of place on a Philosophy forum and fails to alter the facts or advance the discussion in any way whatsoever…
OK, so, you keep referring to your experience, so let me ask a question. Please no straw men, no redirection to irrelevant questions, etc.