J
josie_L
Guest
No.
- Status
J
JordanSRT
Guest
Without delving into your personal life would you like to share the circumstances of your near death experience?
J
josie_L
Guest
Are you asking me in a rather “cunning” manner to know more?
J
josie_L
Guest
Give me a second to scrounge up the post where I actually wrote about this experience.
J
JordanSRT
Guest
Please forgive me as I must go in the middle of our conversation. I get up early ‘4am’ to be at the gym when it opens at 5. I’ll be back tomorrow throughout the day on my iPhone. Until then - Peace Friend.
J
josie_L
Guest
No problem, friend. But here’s the post I was talking about:
Well, it all began . . . actually every prayer I’ve prayed has been answered even the most insignificant ones, but the most important prayer he answered was given to me last year when I survived a deadly disease. I was on the verge of dying, and there was not much the doctors could do, I had a bacteria (same strain as the flesh eating bacteria) that got into the space between my lung and my veil, it became so severe that both my lungs were infected (it turned into pus) and got into my blood stream. By the time I got to the hospital my right lung had collapsed (I literally felt my life slipping away). I was operated on quickly but to no avail, I was on a respirator and in an induced coma. My parents were away on vacation. When they arrived they were told “that she is more there than here” My family (lots since I am of Italian background) held prayer vigils (rosary), my priest also came to give me my last rites, I survived due to my faith and the faith of others. I can not tell you how the sight of the crucifix on the wall in my hospital room kept me going. I was sick from the very beginning of lent and released a day before Easter. I was told I am an Easter miracle. My doctors have never seen a case like mine before, (apparently I hit the jackpot), but I was strong because of Jesus because of what he went through for me.
If you have any other questions ask away?
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
All I am going to say is that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard and that I am praying for you
God Bless
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
From Life is worth living:
“Let me tell you the story of an atheist in London, England. I used to do considerable work in St. Patrick’s Parish, in Soho Square. One Sunday morning I came into the front of the church to read Mass, and found a young lady standing in front of the communion rail harnaguing the congregation. She was saying, “There is no God! There is too much evil in the world! Reason cannot transcend sense! It is impossible to conclude to his existence!” “Every night,” she said, “I go out to Hyde Park. I talk against God. I circulate England, Scotland and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in the existence of God.”
As I reached the communion rail, I said to her, “Young lady, I am very happy to hear you say you believe in the existence of God.”
She said, “You silly fool, I don’t!”
I said, “I understood you to say just the contrary.” Suppose I went out every night to Hyde Park and talked against twenty-footed ghosts and ten centaurs. Suppose I circulated England, Scotland and Wales denouncing a belief in these ghosts and centaurs? What would happen to me?”
She said, “You would be crazy! They would lock you up!”
I said, “Do you not put God in the same category as these fantasies of the imagination? Why would I be crazy attacking them and you not crazy attacking God?”
She said, “I don’t know. Why?”
I said, Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the thrust of a sword. Do you think we would have any such thing in the world as prohibition unless there was something to prohibit? Could there ever be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? How can there be atheism unless there is something to atheate?"
She said, “I hate you!”
I said, 'Now you’ve given the answer."
Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath."
“Fulton also wrote that there were two kinds of atheists, one who concludes there can be no God based on reading a smattering of science, and the militant atheist who does not so much as deny the existence of God as defy God.”
“Let me tell you the story of an atheist in London, England. I used to do considerable work in St. Patrick’s Parish, in Soho Square. One Sunday morning I came into the front of the church to read Mass, and found a young lady standing in front of the communion rail harnaguing the congregation. She was saying, “There is no God! There is too much evil in the world! Reason cannot transcend sense! It is impossible to conclude to his existence!” “Every night,” she said, “I go out to Hyde Park. I talk against God. I circulate England, Scotland and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in the existence of God.”
As I reached the communion rail, I said to her, “Young lady, I am very happy to hear you say you believe in the existence of God.”
She said, “You silly fool, I don’t!”
I said, “I understood you to say just the contrary.” Suppose I went out every night to Hyde Park and talked against twenty-footed ghosts and ten centaurs. Suppose I circulated England, Scotland and Wales denouncing a belief in these ghosts and centaurs? What would happen to me?”
She said, “You would be crazy! They would lock you up!”
I said, “Do you not put God in the same category as these fantasies of the imagination? Why would I be crazy attacking them and you not crazy attacking God?”
She said, “I don’t know. Why?”
I said, Because when I attack these phantoms of the imagination, I am attacking something unreal, but when you attack God, you are attacking something as real as the thrust of a sword. Do you think we would have any such thing in the world as prohibition unless there was something to prohibit? Could there ever be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? How can there be atheism unless there is something to atheate?"
She said, “I hate you!”
I said, 'Now you’ve given the answer."
Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath."
“Fulton also wrote that there were two kinds of atheists, one who concludes there can be no God based on reading a smattering of science, and the militant atheist who does not so much as deny the existence of God as defy God.”
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
Making arguments then breaking them et cetra.
Argument 1:
I didn’t know I disliked carrots----- You lacked knowledge of yourself
I ate a carrot and I found that it tasted bad to me----- your sensory perception caused displeasure (You lacked knowledge of the objective reality)
You now know that you dislike carrots----- You know you dislike carrots because your intellect is in conformity with this thing of displeasure (you now have knowledge of the subjective reality that carrots taste bad to you.)
Therefore knowledge of self can come from the physical universe.
Breaking Argument 1
I think premise 2 is flawed in this argument, thus making the entire following arguments fallacious. This is so because knowledge that is greater is just a higher qauntity of truths that are held by the intellect. We know that although truth is one in one sense, it is also multiple in another sense. Just like there are different species of animals, so in a sense there are multiple animals, but they are also one in the sense that they are all animals. Therefore since knowledge is not one it is only actually greater in quantity not in essence. Therefore greater knowledge can come from lesser knowledge.
Example:
P1 → Knows he likes Fruit and vegetables but doesn’t know he likes chocolate.
P2 → Knows that P1 likes chocolate, but doesn’t know P1 likes fruits and vegetables.
Knowledge of P1 > then P2.
P2 → tells P1 that he likes chocolate, and P1 believes it and holds it as truth.
P1 has obtained greater knowledge from P2, even though P2 has a lesser knowledge of P1 then P1 did.
Argument 2:
(The beauty of saving everything you write is unexpectedly finding it when you are thinking about things. I was trying to find where I saved this note, and I ran across the following. I am not sure when I wrote it, most likely during the winter)
Knowledge of self is a direct consequence of the self-awareness of the human being, for which a desire to increase is always preset. The desire to know ones self is as old as our race itself, because it is a desire of all humans to understand themselves and their surroundings. To know ones self is to ultimately know the purpose of ones self and how he/she relates to the world.
What I reject however is the idea that to be ones self one is to remain fixed, never evolving or progressing and striving towards knowledge of the set purpose of ones self. Although I confess that self does end at a fixed point – the complete knowledge of ones self is forever hidden in the shadows. It would be ludicrous to hold a position that we should not progress nor change our outward behaviour or ideology as knowledge of self increases, and the purpose of our self becomes increasingly apparent.
To know ones purpose is to know ones self, and to know ones self is to know ones purpose, because the self exists to fulfil the purpose. Without the purpose there is no self, and without the self there is no purpose. The purpose of ones self is the reason for ones existence. Thus the purpose of ones existence should always be on ones mind. The extent of how little this is contemplated by the world is discouraging. What could be more important then knowing why you exist?
The knowledge of the purpose of your existence, is the purpose that the understanding of, will result in knowledge of self. Unfortunately many people do not have any understanding of why they exist, and have probably have not given the idea much thought. Therefore it is not surprising that most people know themselves very poorly, and as a result, have no idea what they should do in their lives. People are confused today more then they have ever been, in all of our history.
Thus I challenge everyone to contemplate why they exist. I challenge people to increase their knowledge of self, and as a result “know themselves”. Never stop in your quest for self discovery – as we all return to dust eventually.
By Aaron
Argument 1:
- You know more about yourself then anything in the universe
- Greater knowledge cannot come from lesser knowledge
- Therefore greater knowledge of oneself cannot come from the physical universe, and cannot come from yourself because you cannot obtain greater knowledge of yourself from your own knowledge.
- Therefore you cannot obtain greater knowledge of yourself from you or the physical universe.
- The only way to gain knowledge about yourself is through God.
I didn’t know I disliked carrots----- You lacked knowledge of yourself
I ate a carrot and I found that it tasted bad to me----- your sensory perception caused displeasure (You lacked knowledge of the objective reality)
You now know that you dislike carrots----- You know you dislike carrots because your intellect is in conformity with this thing of displeasure (you now have knowledge of the subjective reality that carrots taste bad to you.)
Therefore knowledge of self can come from the physical universe.
Breaking Argument 1
I think premise 2 is flawed in this argument, thus making the entire following arguments fallacious. This is so because knowledge that is greater is just a higher qauntity of truths that are held by the intellect. We know that although truth is one in one sense, it is also multiple in another sense. Just like there are different species of animals, so in a sense there are multiple animals, but they are also one in the sense that they are all animals. Therefore since knowledge is not one it is only actually greater in quantity not in essence. Therefore greater knowledge can come from lesser knowledge.
Example:
P1 → Knows he likes Fruit and vegetables but doesn’t know he likes chocolate.
P2 → Knows that P1 likes chocolate, but doesn’t know P1 likes fruits and vegetables.
Knowledge of P1 > then P2.
P2 → tells P1 that he likes chocolate, and P1 believes it and holds it as truth.
P1 has obtained greater knowledge from P2, even though P2 has a lesser knowledge of P1 then P1 did.
Argument 2:
- Unintelligent matter does not know anything about itself.
- Therefore knowledge of this matter cannot come from this matter.
- Knowledge of this matter must come from the rational intellect observing intelligible matter.
- Therefore the knowledge of this matter comes from our intellect being in conformity with the object.
- God is a pure actuality
- We are potentiality actual and we can know some things.
- Since God is fully actual must be able to know all things that can be know by anything with potentiality.
- God is a pure actuality.
- We are potentiality actual and we can know some things that can potentially happen
- Therefore God must be able to know all things that can potentially happen.
(The beauty of saving everything you write is unexpectedly finding it when you are thinking about things. I was trying to find where I saved this note, and I ran across the following. I am not sure when I wrote it, most likely during the winter)
Knowledge of self is a direct consequence of the self-awareness of the human being, for which a desire to increase is always preset. The desire to know ones self is as old as our race itself, because it is a desire of all humans to understand themselves and their surroundings. To know ones self is to ultimately know the purpose of ones self and how he/she relates to the world.
What I reject however is the idea that to be ones self one is to remain fixed, never evolving or progressing and striving towards knowledge of the set purpose of ones self. Although I confess that self does end at a fixed point – the complete knowledge of ones self is forever hidden in the shadows. It would be ludicrous to hold a position that we should not progress nor change our outward behaviour or ideology as knowledge of self increases, and the purpose of our self becomes increasingly apparent.
To know ones purpose is to know ones self, and to know ones self is to know ones purpose, because the self exists to fulfil the purpose. Without the purpose there is no self, and without the self there is no purpose. The purpose of ones self is the reason for ones existence. Thus the purpose of ones existence should always be on ones mind. The extent of how little this is contemplated by the world is discouraging. What could be more important then knowing why you exist?
The knowledge of the purpose of your existence, is the purpose that the understanding of, will result in knowledge of self. Unfortunately many people do not have any understanding of why they exist, and have probably have not given the idea much thought. Therefore it is not surprising that most people know themselves very poorly, and as a result, have no idea what they should do in their lives. People are confused today more then they have ever been, in all of our history.
Thus I challenge everyone to contemplate why they exist. I challenge people to increase their knowledge of self, and as a result “know themselves”. Never stop in your quest for self discovery – as we all return to dust eventually.
By Aaron
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
A
arcio
Guest
Please don’t.All I am going to say is that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard and that I am praying for you
God Bless
A
arcio
Guest
I can deduce that you were suffering from a very severe bacterial infection. Interesting that you claim that the doctors pumped you full of antibiotics, in an effort to defeat the infection, and voila, I can assume you recovered.
Instead of crediting the antibiotics, the science that created them, the diagnostic tests for identifying the infection and the doctors for saving your life, you credit a God.
Where would you be, if you only had your God to help you, without the science, the doctors,the hospital, the medicine and the tools necessary to identify precisely what it was you were suffering from?
I am humble enough to admit, that had I not had access to first world health care and only a God to rely on, my cancer would be about half way done killing me by now.
Only God can make the world a better place? Now that’s what I call a sad view of human kinds potential.
A
arcio
Guest
With all due respect, your doctors have not spent much time in an ICU. One of the most severe and deadly bacterial infections is called Sepsis. Many people survive and recover, only through medical interventions.
I would like to know the exact bacterial strain or the official name of your diagnosis.
Approximately 20–35% of patients with severe sepsis and 40–60% of patients with septic shock die within 30 days. Others die within the ensuing 6 months. Late deaths often result from poorly controlled infection, immunosuppression, complications of intensive care, failure of multiple organs, or the patient’s underlying disease.
J
josie_L
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
With all due respect, the doctor (my surgeon whose name I will give you so you can look him up on the internet) attested he had never seen a case like mine in all his thirty years, I suppose it had something to do with the type of infection and how it affected both my lungs (with a collapsed right lung) and the fact that I was young (32 years of age when it happened) with a severe case of sepsis (one of my nurses said that had I waited several more hours to get to the hospital the bacteria would have reached my heart) My blood pressure was 30 below 60 when they were rushing me to the hospital. The bacterial strain was strept A. .
J
Joe_Brown
Guest
To late
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I have learned a lot through reading this thread. I wish I could say I learned that christians have a corner on the happiness market. I wish I could say I was unhappy all my life.
So many people seem to know people they never could know, and I chalk it up to limited life experiences for some that have posted.
It is a good thing that survival is not based on this.
So many people seem to know people they never could know, and I chalk it up to limited life experiences for some that have posted.
It is a good thing that survival is not based on this.
A
arcio
Guest
Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) is a leading cause of pneumonia, sepsis, and meningitis among adults. Mortality associated with invasive disease remains high at 5–35% depending on site of infection, age and comorbidityI credit my life to God first, but he sure did give me good doctors.
P.S. I had streptoccocal pneumonia with a collapsed right lung (and I almost went under septic shock).
Maximum 35% mortality rate. Your Doctors claim to never have seen such a case before? With a maximum mortality rate of 35%, your doctors either told you what they thought you wanted to hear, or your Doctors, as I had already said, had spent very little time on an ICU.
I know you don’t want to hear this, but your recovery was not due to the hand of God. It was because of science, medical technology, dedicated professionals and modern medicine.
Your recovery from pheumococci was no miracle. Had you gotten sick at virtually any other time in history, or presently, in any developing nation, you would surely have expired.
( You also state that you developed a serious condition known as sepsis, where there is a 60% mortality rate for sufferers of severe sepsis)
That still leaves a 40% survival rate! A far cry from a miracle.
J
JordanSRT
Guest
I’ve been reading several of your posts in this thread and I gotta tell ya brother, you really come across as an angry little man who’s trying desperately to prove his faith to himself more than anyone else.To late
Just my two cents.
Peace Love and Happiness to you and yours.
- Status