M
mee
Guest
Where
Are the Dead?
What happens to us when we die?
Why do we die?
Would it be comforting to know the truth about death?
Why do we die?
Would it be comforting to know the truth about death?
Mee,
Their bodies are in the ground. Beyond that I don't think we can really say. When I die I will either find out or I won't.
Our bodies decompose. Beyond that I don't think we can really say.
It depends on the individual but it's often related to aging or disease.
The truth about death is that it happens and we all die. I think what you mean though is the truth about what happens after death. It might or might not be comforting depending on what the truth about what happens after death really is.
Their bodies are in the ground. Beyond that I don't think we can really say. When I die I will either find out or I won't.
Our bodies decompose. Beyond that I don't think we can really say.
It depends on the individual but it's often related to aging or disease.
The truth about death is that it happens and we all die. I think what you mean though is the truth about what happens after death. It might or might not be comforting depending on what the truth about what happens after death really is.
M
mee
Guest
yes you are right we go to dust thats what the bible teaches, and rather than finding out about things when you are dead , the bible says that we are concious of nothing at all .
For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all,
ecclesiastes 9;5
Genesis 3;19
For dust you are and to dust you will return.
When a person dies, he ceases to exist.
Death is the opposite of life.
The dead do not see or hear or think.
Not even one part of us survives the death of the body.
.
Psalm 146:4 says that when a man dies, his thoughts do perish.
We are mortal and do not survive the death of our body. we are like the flame of a candle, When the flame is put out, it does not go anywhere.
It is simply gone.
have you ever wondered why most of the religions all teach that we have an immortal soul that survives the death of the body? it must come from somewhere dont you think?
it seems to be ingrained in people because even people who say that they are unbelievers in God, they speak about finding out when they die as if they will be concious in an afterlife , they take on board those beliefs without even realizing it .
its surprising just how widespread that belief in the IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL IS .
but according to the bible and what it teaches it says just the opposite to that . we are dust, we just go back to dust
M
mee
Guest
see what i mean ,
what is the soul ?..... why do you think it is immortal ,? the bible does not teach that the soul is immortal , the bible teaches that the soul is you , it never says that you have a shadowy thing inside of you that travels to God after your body dies. it is a manmade thought .
mee is after the truth not manmade thoughts ,thats why i could never take that thought on board .
but many religions have taken those thoughts on board .
and i believe that it all stems from the first ever lie that satan told to eve, he said to eve you will not die , and that thought has got into many things down through time .
people who talk to so called dead people do not realize that it is all part of that first ever lie that satan told back in the garden of eden, it is all geared up to make us believe that we do not die. that is why the bible is telling us not to have any part in those things ,because the most high Jehovah knows it is lies.
C
cyberpi
Guest
I imagine a day when the decomposed body can be seen simultaneously from birth to death. By what means this book is seen, I don't know. Not like a memory which can be corrupted, or a movie which can only see the angle that was filmed, but like a giant book of everything that ever moved which can be reviewed in full, perfect detail.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Does Snoopy use the dog house as it was intended?
"2. We do not allow CR to be used as a soapbox to aggressively promote any faith, or see any faith aggressively attacked."
It appears that soapboxes are fine as long as there isn't aggressive promoting or attacking... no aggression....
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
"2. We do not allow CR to be used as a soapbox to aggressively promote any faith, or see any faith aggressively attacked."
It appears that soapboxes are fine as long as there isn't aggressive promoting or attacking... no aggression....
This interests me because it speaks to posting standards. Some have called for consensus building on what is permissible as far as Internet communications.
My first question would be: How does one define "aggressive"?
M
mee
Guest
true you can believe what you want to believe.
Snoopy
Unknown Member
- Messages
- 5,419
- Reaction score
- 185
- Points
- 63
Interesting read:
Moyer (1968)[1] presented an early and influential classification of seven different forms of aggression, from a biological and evolutionary point of view.
- Predatory aggression: attack on prey by a predator.
- Inter-male aggression: competition between males of the same species over access to resources such as females, dominance, status, etc.
- Fear-induced aggression: aggression associated with attempts to flee from a threat.
- Irritable aggression: aggression induced by frustration and directed against an available target.
- Territorial aggression: defence of a fixed area against intruders, typically conspecifics.
- Maternal aggression: a female's aggression to protect her offspring from a threat. Paternal aggression also exists.
- Instrumental aggression: aggression directed towards obtaining some goal, considered to be a learned response to a situation.
Instrumental aggression: own interest first and foremost
Instrumental aggression is not the result of anger and seeking revenge. It is an aggression type that mainly serves one's own interest and, therefore, does not consider anybody else's interests. It is expressed in a much more varied way than angry aggression.
Causes and consequences
s.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
A bit broad, though the principles apply.
It appears there is actually a fair amount of debate on the subject a least among ecumenical groups. It seems the term "aggressive evangelism" tends to be identified with religious groups trying to get converts by "encroaching into areas where one church has traditionally dominated."
Evangelicals back other Christians on conversion code of conduct
The World Counsel of Churches has done some work in this area and they identify practices like "threatening behavior, material benefits (bribes?) or any forms of coercion."
Towards an Ethical Code of Conduct for Religious Conversions
I personally think that an emphasis on blatant overt behavior (trying to promote a faith by duress) does not have much direct relevance to the Internet in general or discussion forums in particular. I'm therefore inclined to think that the common notion of "aggressive evangelism" as overt territorial behavior is too narrow a view.
A broader view for Internet communications would emphasize the importance of "dialogical evangelism" -- or lack thereof -- and would hopefully extend to setting standards that make it possible to make judgments about the extent to which forum posts show respect for cultural diversity and religious plurality. To me the reason is fairly obvious: the Internet has given evangelism and online discussions international and interreligious dimensions. We see people from other countries here fairly regularly.
I've been baffled by the lack of sensitivity and intolerance I have seen in these parts. Frankly, I thought some of it outrageous. Some of it bordered on hate speech. I respectfully suggest moderators look into the possibility of revising the CR Code of Conduct to include something about misleading or totally unsubstantiated allegations of fact and deliberate deception in arguments or assertions about other people's religion. For this kind of conduct to be tolerated in a Comparative Religion/interfaith forum makes no sense to me.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Well Mee, I sincerely hope that whatever death brings it is not a place where everybody is dressed in marks and spencers clothes in some kind of suburban ideal. IE, I hope it is not the watchtower idea of a soma holiday.
What happens when we die is that we rot or we burn. That which we were is recycled into nature. You have molecules in you right now that were once in Ghengis Khan, Napolean and Grunt the cave man. That which we are made of is indestructible but ever changing. But the essence of you, your thoughts, your experiences, your memories they are temporary. You have but a short time to enjoy this experience. So go out and live...
tao
What happens when we die is that we rot or we burn. That which we were is recycled into nature. You have molecules in you right now that were once in Ghengis Khan, Napolean and Grunt the cave man. That which we are made of is indestructible but ever changing. But the essence of you, your thoughts, your experiences, your memories they are temporary. You have but a short time to enjoy this experience. So go out and live...
tao
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Oh yeh and while we are at it lets burn all the books that dont agree with your brand of apologetics. If anyone is guilty of deliberate distortions here then there are none more guilty than you.
tao
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Tao, I've never called for burning any books or anything even close to it.
You wouldn't need to resort to this kind of characterization if you could establish my "guilt" by means of a legitimate argument that has potential to lead to rational acceptance.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Look, you called for 'moderation' on what people can or cannot put forward as a legitimate point of view. In my book that is a call for censorship of opinion. I have little doubt that you can justify it to yourself but you will never do so to me. It is the moral equivalent of book burning, plain and simple.
As for legitimate arguments, with you it has been clearly demonstrated that there is simply no point. I could take you to the foot of a mountain, let you touch its rock, climb with some effort to its snowy peak and you would still turn round and call it a pebble. I cannot ascribe to your brand of religious apologetics. You like to attempt a re-definition of history that sticks in my throat like a fishbone and there is no middle ground to be found with you. But that statement, calling for censorship, is the last straw for me, I see clearly that any dialogue with you is utterly wasted.
Good bye.
tao
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I would say it was more like a call for standards. In fact, I specifically suggest the possibility of
Sorry you feel that way.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Why not learn to personally contend with whoever is personally judged to be revealing something undesirable? Wouldn't that personal talent be considered more desirable when comparing religion?
Achilles (movie Troy): "Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight?"