Posted on 07/21/2018 7:35:03 AM PDT by HangnJudge
The older approach was to ignore the NDE or just call it it hallucination or hoax. The newer approach is to try to "explain" it from a reductionist-materialist perspective. Here's a vid that is fascinating and entertaining and they participants don't take that kind of "walking talking chemistry set" approach. Thanks HangnJudge.
Is There Life After Death? moderated by John Cleese - 2018 Tom Tom Founders Festival
Curious as to what her belief system was going into the event. For instance, was she predisposed to see “an angel” or “see God.” I wonder if your mind is making sense of a situation based on its “religious” programming?
It doesn’t diminish the experience, but it might explain why there are differences from story to story.
I think that when we communicate, we can only use symbols we have already seen, We wrap our words around the frameworks we have already built in our minds, NDE are often perceived as very different in Hindu cultures for example.
https://www.near-death.com/religion/hinduism.html
Interesting article, a few novel insights re knowing and being and subjective reality but touches onto and, in fact, embraces nihilism as a personal philosophy: I ain’t going there, personally.
Thanks. We are interesting creations!
...but touches onto and, in fact, embraces nihilism as a personal philosophy
CD is not Christian in fundamental philosophy
In that regard your mileage may vary
Have you seen To Hell and Back with Dr. Rawlings?
And Glimpse into Eternity with Ian McCormack?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
I guess when the human body starts shutting down various effects are manifested.
Dead to sin and dead to this world comes to mind
Trouble is with these type of stories is 1) there is no way to verify this actually happened, 2) what actually happened, and 3) no one will really be changed by this event. We file these under the “Interesting” file and move on.
Whether this really happened or not is open to interpretation. But even if God parts the Red Sea few believe it. If He feeds 5,000 people crave for more food. If He raises from the dead we remain skeptical, refusing to believe.
So what point is all this?
To give an audience to those who bear witness to these events
Maybe we can glean some wisdom from the testimony
Perhaps
That is simply a baseless premise.
But even if God parts the Red Sea few believe it. If He feeds 5,000 people crave for more food. If He raises from the dead we remain skeptical, refusing to believe. So what point is all this?
Because some do believe based on evidential warrant, as God gives grace, revealing His nature, while as with preaching which is also overall rejected, the spurning of God's grace testifies to l the hardness of man, revealing His nature, All to the glory of God.
Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. (Acts 8:5-6)
For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:18-19)
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matthew 11:20-21)
It's not baseless. The Israelites walk through the Red Sea and a few days later were grumbling because they didn't have anything to eat. Our Lord Jesus rose from the grave and the Jews decide to make up a story about his disciples stealing his body.
God glory is all around us yet man refuses to acknowledge Him.
Luke 8:10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’
It is not baseless to say that just because someone gives a testimony of a supernatural event then it does not mean someone will be changed because of it, but it is was indeed baseless to make an absolute statement that no one will.
His sheep will hear His voice. It is not based on NDE.
That the sheep will hear the voice of the Shepherd does not mean He does not use the testimony of others in providing warrant for belief, and Scripture shows that God does just that, versus requiring blind faith.
The only valid objection you then have is that of the validity of NDEs, which are a mixed bag, and the only ones I specifically would recommend now are a couple in the "To Hell and Back) film (the first one and the atheist) and Glimpse into Eternity with Ian McCormack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
