Has anyone else understood the phrase "Wake up dead"? This phrase has confused me for quite a bit. If you are killed in your sleep, do you Wake up Dead, or Never Wake Up?
A Question relating to the Afterlife....
First think, who is sleeping? Are you REALLY sleeping? If so, you may not get up. But if you think you are just sleeping and will wake up, chances are there for you to wake up again, I am not sure about the next world, if it is there.
Good point. I never thought about it that way. I always thought of it as your body sleeping, but your soul leaves it's post-mortal body.
There is no afterlife, this is all there is. Enjoy it while you can. 
If you owned an expensive car that you grew very much attached to and I were to take a big metal rod and place one long and slow scratch through it, wouldn't you cover your ears with your hands from the screeching as though you were being hurt directly? That is one's true relationship to their body. One becomes so connected to the physical that they think they are their body and only their body. That is where astral projection comes into play as well as afterlife and one's qi(chi) ghost.
Last edited by Aredon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:18 pm; edited 4 times in total
Last edited by Aredon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:18 pm; edited 4 times in total
| Aredon wrote: |
| If you owned an expensive car that you grew very much attached to and I were to take a big metal rod and place one long and slow scratch through it, wouldn't you cover your ears with your hands from the screeching as though you were being hurt directly? That is one's true relationship to their body. |
Sanding is different since it gradually improves the quality of the car while by a crowbar we are talking about severe damage.
What about a whipping boy? It's painful to watch...
Although we aren't really the car or the whipping boy getting directly damaged, our consciousness of our physical body is comparable to them. The problem is that we become so used to being conscious of both that we can no longer differentiate between the two. It is a hard to grasp concept that our consciousness is actually living two lives at once - the car and the person overly attached to their car i.e. the body and the soul. Just like by the car there is only so much "health" the car has before it is completely damaged and we are no longer attached to it, the same by the body - our connection to our body is limited and indirectly associated with the 5 senses which associate the body with the physical world as far as input data to our soul.
Last edited by Aredon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
What about a whipping boy? It's painful to watch...
Although we aren't really the car or the whipping boy getting directly damaged, our consciousness of our physical body is comparable to them. The problem is that we become so used to being conscious of both that we can no longer differentiate between the two. It is a hard to grasp concept that our consciousness is actually living two lives at once - the car and the person overly attached to their car i.e. the body and the soul. Just like by the car there is only so much "health" the car has before it is completely damaged and we are no longer attached to it, the same by the body - our connection to our body is limited and indirectly associated with the 5 senses which associate the body with the physical world as far as input data to our soul.
Last edited by Aredon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Aredon wrote: |
| Sanding is different since it gradually improves the quality of the car while by a crowbar we are talking about severe damage. |
| Quote: |
| Although we aren't really the car or the whipping boy getting directly damaged, our consciousness of our physical body is comparable to them in that it is limited by our senses connected to the physical while our real selves are actually our souls which remain in tact even after death. |
| Quote: |
| The problem is that we become so used to being conscious of both that we can no longer differentiate between the two. It is a hard to grasp concept that our consciousness is actually living two lives at once - the car and the person overly attached to their car i.e. the body and the soul. |
The analogy with a car doesn't work at all. You do not 'overlay' a person on a car - a car is still a car whether it is being driven or not. The driver is a physical entity which can be perceived. The driver is simply a mechanism to operate the gears, steering and pedals - a robot could do the job equally well (or even better). The notion that the soul is a control mechanism for an otherwise 'lifeless' bunch of 'stuff' is offensive nonsense. Religions have used this notion for their own ends for millenia. First it was a physical entity - sometimes placed in the 'heart', sometimes in the 'gut' sometimes in the head. Now we are told it is a metaphysical entity (because, of course, nobody can find it).
The fact is that it has never been traced to any physical structure within the human body. It is a construct to describe neurological processes in the brain, nothing more.
Science still cannot explain how to turn a corpse into a conscious living person while golems and resurrection of the dead appears all over religion. I think religion understands more about the origins and structure of the world than science's skeptic approach. Science is so skeptic that they linger behind other cultures that can prove their abilities and science refuses to learn anything from it since there is so much science is skeptic about that such matters just remain unexplained along with the other mysteries of the world which science hasn't even developed the vocabulary to attempt explaining.
| Aredon wrote: |
| Science still cannot explain how to turn a corpse into a conscious living person while golems and resurrection of the dead appears all over religion. I think religion understands more about the origins and structure of the world than science's skeptic approach. |
Next time you get ill, need to travel, want some entertainment, want to keep warm (or cool) then try asking your local priest/vicar/preacher/rabbi/imam for help. They may well pray for you. Me? I'll take the medicine, car/jet, TV/computer, boiler/air-conditioning.
The fact is that your entire life is completely dependant on science and technology. You can get along quite well without religion (as I do), but you would be dead inside a few days, or weeks, without science and technology. The idea that religion(s) understand more about the structure of the world than science does is demonstrable bollox.
If religion understands about the origins of the world, then which religion is correct? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? They can't all be correct can they? The fact is that none of the religious creation myths holds up to proper scrutiny. They are metaphors and should be treated as such. When treated in that manner they have a beauty/poetic quality that is meaningful. When treated literally, however, they become sheer nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Science is so skeptic that they linger behind other cultures that can prove their abilities and science refuses to learn anything from it since there is so much science is skeptic about that such matters just remain unexplained along with the other mysteries of the world which science hasn't even developed the vocabulary to attempt explaining. |
In the case, above, of the Buddhist Monk - who do you think is doing the experiments? Clerics? If the Monk in question can indeed change his body temperature through meditation (and it looks like he can), then that is wonderful! Scientists will measure the change and scientists will theorise about how it is done. Does that mean that Buddhism should be taken to be 'true'? What about Christians who have produced remarkable physiological effects? Does that mean we should take Christianity as 'true'? Which one do you suggest we take as 'true'?
Or does it, instead, mean that the human mind is still little understood and can produce remarkable physiological effects in the body, which can be measured?
Me? I think the latter....
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:38 pm; edited 4 times in total
In religion there are ressurections etc. why? Most likely because people are afraid of dying and being ressurected is the best next thing to being immortal.
Being Skeptic is the best thing ever we would accept everything that is told to us and tumble in every trap.
And the monk didn't die and then came back.
He could control what his boby does that is something else.
Nor do i think that we are attached to our body in any way resembling our cars.
When our body dies is (I think) the end. Until otherwise is proven:wink:.
Only voodoo priest are any one recorded (as far as I know (could be wrong)) who made any one a zombie.
It was more like that people were made to sleep very deep. In haiti people are buried as fast as possible because of the heat etc.
Later dug up made mad etc. and voila, a zombie.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html
EDIT
your arguments sound like badly copied from some creationist propagandist, gget ur facts straight.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Being Skeptic is the best thing ever we would accept everything that is told to us and tumble in every trap.
And the monk didn't die and then came back.
He could control what his boby does that is something else.
Nor do i think that we are attached to our body in any way resembling our cars.
When our body dies is (I think) the end. Until otherwise is proven:wink:.
Only voodoo priest are any one recorded (as far as I know (could be wrong)) who made any one a zombie.
It was more like that people were made to sleep very deep. In haiti people are buried as fast as possible because of the heat etc.
Later dug up made mad etc. and voila, a zombie.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html
EDIT
your arguments sound like badly copied from some creationist propagandist, gget ur facts straight.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
| YungGunz wrote: |
| Has anyone else understood the phrase "Wake up dead"? This phrase has confused me for quite a bit. If you are killed in your sleep, do you Wake up Dead, or Never Wake Up? |
Who knows what is meant other than those that have passed. Well, maybe. They might not even be aware that they have died because nobody knows what happens to the mind once your vessel stops working.
| roxys_art wrote: |
| Who knows what is meant other than those that have passed. Well, maybe. They might not even be aware that they have died because nobody knows what happens to the mind once your vessel stops working. |
| Mark Twain wrote: |
| I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit. |
Felt like using the quote lol...sort of applies, but not really.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
Ahhh...well, I guess I was using the terms "mind" and "brain" interchangeably (and incorrectly). What I was trying to get at is that no one knows what happens to the brain when it is "dead". What goes on with that individual the brain is connected to? Is there really a light that they see, or is it just a chemical reaction in the brain due to it shutting off?
I personally would like to believe there is "life" after death. A place where people go to continue their existence in some sense or another. My grandfather passed away about a week ago, and he was one of the greatest people I have ever met (tied with my dad). He served his country during World War II, served his company for 30+ years after the war, served his friends, and most importantly, served his family and raised three kids into fine adults...one of them being my dad. I admired him more than words can even describe and I'd like to think he is reunited with my grandmother and that I will be able to join both of them again when it is my time to go.
Well, it's a common enough wish. I guess most of us would like to think that we will someday be reunited with loved ones we have lost.
I'm not entirely convinced, however, that it would be such a good thing. Most of the people I have admired in my life, and who have now passed on, stick in my mind because of how we interacted at the time(s). Would it still be the same when we met-up after death? I'm not so sure. Re-visiting places and people who were once important to you can often be a very disappointing, even disillusioning, experience.
I'm not entirely convinced, however, that it would be such a good thing. Most of the people I have admired in my life, and who have now passed on, stick in my mind because of how we interacted at the time(s). Would it still be the same when we met-up after death? I'm not so sure. Re-visiting places and people who were once important to you can often be a very disappointing, even disillusioning, experience.
 |