Rise of the dead

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You Can take a Stone, a glass of water in your hand and say, this is a stone. This is a glass of water. These are materials.
You cannot take love, patience, forgiveness in your hand and say, look, this is one love, or this is 3.5 patience. These are non-materialistic qualities.

What does, say, "kindness" mean when it has no physical expression?

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and even saying a kind word all involve the physical.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What does, say, "kindness" mean when it has no physical expression?

Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and even saying a kind word all involve the physical.

Yes. But I mean, where is the source of kindness?
Is it our hormones? Is it brain chemical? What is it that makes a person more kind than others?
I don't think medical science has an answer for this. Its source is not our physical body.
For example we can have a robot that acts nice. It gives food to others. But is this kindness?
We may have a criminal, that just acts nicely, because he learned pretending to be kind has some advantages. He can get people to trust him. But is this really kindness? It is not. We are not like robot that have a hardware and a program software. It is not like, the kindness is something stored in our brain, as a set of info, that makes us kind.
So, from all this, I mean, we may say, we have another dimension too. A non-materialistic, invisible being. That is soul. Kindness is attribute of the soul, which is reflected in our actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. But I mean, where is the source of kindness?
Is it our hormones? Is it brain chemical?

I would say yes.

What is it that makes a person more kind than others?
I don't think medical science has an answer for this. Its source is not our physical body.

Quite a pivot there: "we don't know the answer, but *I* know the answer."

For example we can have a robot that acts nice. It gives food to others. But is this kindness?
We may have a criminal, that just acts nicely, because he learned pretending to be kind has some advantages. He can get people to trust him. But is this really kindness? It is not. We are not like robot that have a hardware and a program software. It is not like, the kindness is something stored in our brain, as a set of info, that makes us kind.
So, from all this, I mean, we may say, we have another dimension too. A non-materialistic, invisible being. That is soul. Kindness is attribute of the soul, which is reflected in our actions.

You seem to be mostly dancing around my point until your last sentence: kindness is reflected in our actions. Our physical actions. Kindness that's entirely non-materialistic is nonsensical.

BTW: I had a whole bunch of other questions about the inherent absurdity of the idea of an incorporeal soul. Are you going to respond to any of those, or are we just going to let it stand that the idea of a soul is absurd?

 

[PruePhillip]

If it has nothing to do with science, then I would say, it is not a physical resurrection. It is not like literally, and physically people will be resurrected. Otherwise it would be explainable by science.

How the universe came from nothing, nowhere and for what reason are questions 'outside of science'
And many of the people who like to think 'one day science will answer these questions' will tell you it
is 'impossible' to raise the dead.
The resurrection, by definition, is outside of science. Look up the 'non-overlapping magisterium.'

But I can think of two ways to raise the dead
1 - quantum mechanics. The chances of vanishing off the earth, walking on the sun and returning
to the earth again are one chance in a massively large number, ten to the power one hundred
(known as a Googol 1.0 × 10^100) to the power one hundred again. Essentially, in the universe
nothing is impossible.

2 - go back in time to the point prior to the death of the subject, ie prior to an incident, ie germ,
accident, war etc..

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I would say yes.

Please provide info to support.

Quite a pivot there: "we don't know the answer, but *I* know the answer."

I am saying We know the answer is not in natural sciences. That tells us, there must be something beyond.

You seem to be mostly dancing around my point until your last sentence: kindness is reflected in our actions. Our physical actions. Kindness that's entirely non-materialistic is nonsensical.

What does make a person more kind than another scientifically speaking?
What does make a person more generous than another?

BTW: I had a whole bunch of other questions about the inherent absurdity of the idea of an incorporeal soul. Are you going to respond to any of those, or are we just going to let it stand that the idea of a soul is absurd?

I did answer them, didn't I?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please provide info to support.

This is the reasonable conclusion from seeing how changes in brain chemicals affect us.

I am saying We know the answer is not in natural sciences. That tells us, there must be something beyond.

Youre moving your goalposts. How do you get from "I don't think medical science has an answer for this" to "the answer is not in natural sciences"?

Do you think medical science right now has all that science will ever say about the brain or the mind?

And "that tells us there must be something beyond" is nonsense. What you're effectively saying is that if we can't understand how a thing works really well, we're justified in believing that it works by magic. This is ridiculous.

What does make a person more kind than another scientifically speaking?
What does make a person more generous than another?

How about you be clear about what you mean by kindness and then we start looking for a scientific basis for it?

As I've said a few different ways, by my understanding of "kindness," kindness that has no physical expression is incoherent, so for me to know what you mean when you talk about "kindness" that's completely non-physical, you're going to have to explain what you mean.

I did answer them, didn't I?

No, not at all.

Here they are again:

I have no idea what you mean when you say that kindness and generosity are "non-materialistic." What are these things if they don't manifest as actions in the real world?


So it would be fair to describe it as "not necessarily made up nonsense, but indistinguishable from made up nonsense"?


But that's what I was getting at: even if the soul is "non-material," if it had any effect on the physical, then you would have physical events that need explaining.


So in that case, you think that a person - the post-injury person's "self" - can live without a soul. How many other people we meet do you think are living without a soul?

And if the physical change of a brain injury doesn't change a soul, what about other physical changes like, say, hormonal changes in puberty? Does your soul reflect some child version of you instead of you as you are?

Humans change. If a soul doesn't change, how is it a human soul?

 

[InChrist]

Are you sure about that? If so then why was it holey?

The nail marks are an eternal witness to the incarnation of the Son of God and His purpose in coming to the earth to sacrifice His life and pay the penalty for the sins of the world; a penalty no one could pay themselves.

He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed”. Isaiah 53:5

 

[Subduction Zone]

The nail marks are an eternal witness to the incarnation of the Son of God and His purpose in coming to the earth to sacrifice His life and pay the penalty for the sins of the world; a penalty no one could pay themselves.

He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed”. Isaiah 53:5

Not an answer. We were discussing whether Jesus body was resurrected.

 

[Ponder This]

The body is made of various atoms, such as Calcium, iron, copper, iodine, and many other elements. To produce exactly same brain as Einsteins brain, the soil of the grave has to have all those elements. Then these elements has to turn to compositions, with exact same amounts of different atom and proportions. Some Graves soils are very dry, so, it does not have enough water to produce meat, bones and blood. So, even if one imagines, God miraculously turns soil into meat and bones, still that soil has to have all the ingredients, water, etc. Someone may have died in a salty desert. The soil is not a type that can a living human be made out of.
So, does the idea of resurrection of the dead, compatible with science?

It seems to me that you have described processes that can and do occur. From the soil, food is grown. From the food, living bodies are formed and maintained. This is the process by which Einstein's brain was formed in the first place. Moreover, each day, Einstein consumed more food and his brain changed each day. Yesterday's brain is no more, today's brain shall pass, and tomorrow's brain is yet to be.

But if by ressurection, you do not mean that the body shall be renewed, but rather mean that the body shall be returned to a past state... then the answer is that living bodies are never returned to a past state, they are only ever moved to new future states.

 

[InChrist]

Not an answer. We were discussing whether Jesus body was resurrected.

Oh, I thought it was already established that His body was resurrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I thought it was already established that His body was resurrected.

No. In fact most Bible scholars do not even seem to think so. Christians believe their own stories, but no one else does.

In fact there probably was no tomb. If it was a Roman crucifixion, as the Bible claims, they left victims up for days on end. It was part of the punishment to teach others not to do the same. If it had been a Hebrew crucifixion, and they adopted that penalty themselves, they would have taken down the body not to violate the Sabbath.

 

[InChrist]

No. In fact most Bible scholars do not even seem to think so. Christians believe their own stories, but no one else does.

In fact there probably was no tomb. If it was a Roman crucifixion, as the Bible claims, they left victims up for days on end. It was part of the punishment to teach others not to do the same. If it had been a Hebrew crucifixion, and they adopted that penalty themselves, they would have taken down the body not to violate the Sabbath.

Disagree, most reputable scholars have concluded the resurrection account to be true and accurate.

What do Scholars say about Jesus’ Resurrection: is it just a Myth?

25 Scholars (and 42 Quotes) on the Evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

 

[Subduction Zone]

Disagree, most reputable scholars have concluded the resurrection account to be true and accurate.

What do Scholars say about Jesus’ Resurrection: is it just a Myth?

25 Scholars (and 42 Quotes) on the Evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

I am not so sure about those articles. The second one definitely distorted what Bart Ehrman believes. He clearly believes that the resurrection is mythical. There are some quotes out of context that even I recognize as being lies when used in that fashion.

It can be difficult to find scholars on the internet since apologists, who are not scholars, tend to flood the webs with less than honest stories. When I see a site outright lying by quote mining I put them in the worthless category.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@InChrist , if you read what most scholars say carefully you will see that they say that at least some of the disciples believed that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. That is not an acknowledgement that he was resurrected. For example:

"Many Trump voters believe that Trump won". Does that mean that Trump winning is true and accurate? Not at all. We know that the opposite is true. People can and do reremember things differently from how they actually happened. That does not mean that they are lying since many really believe that what they "remember" is correct.

 

[Brian2]

I am not so sure about those articles. The second one definitely distorted what Bart Ehrman believes. He clearly believes that the resurrection is mythical. There are some quotes out of context that even I recognize as being lies when used in that fashion.

It can be difficult to find scholars on the internet since apologists, who are not scholars, tend to flood the webs with less than honest stories. When I see a site outright lying by quote mining I put them in the worthless category.

Bart Ehrman did not say in those quotes that he believed Jesus rose from the dead. Bart could have said those historically accurate quotes but no doubt that would be in the context of why he did not believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bart Ehrman did not say in those quotes that he believed Jesus rose from the dead. Bart could have said those historically accurate quotes but no doubt that would be in the context of why he did not believe it.

I said that the article distorted what Ehrman said. They quoted out of context. Quote mining is a form of lying if someone uses it to push a false agenda. The article tried to make it look as if Ehrman accepted the resurrection. He does not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How compatible is the idea of literally return of dead people back to life, with science and philosophy?

Absurd according to science (at least for the present).
Philosophies treat the question variously. According to my belief (Advaita Hinduism - non-duality), there is no birth, no death; only the form of what constitutes us changes. So, the question does not arise.

 

[Brian2]

I said that the article distorted what Ehrman said. They quoted out of context. Quote mining is a form of lying if someone uses it to push a false agenda. The article tried to make it look as if Ehrman accepted the resurrection. He does not.

It could be viewed that way but the quotes do include words that show Bart Ehrman did not believe the resurrection story.

 

[Luchito Prays]

How compatible is the idea of literally return of dead people back to life, with science and philosophy?

Consider these scenarios:

1. If one has been eaten by a shark, then in turn, part of the flash had turned to energy, partly became the flash of the shark, and partly waste. Later that shark, dies, and its body was eaten by other fish.
A. Then on the Judgement Day, where and which location the physical body is generated, or the particles come back togther considering there is no grave.
Discuss scientifically and philosophically.

That is an easy one.

Compare it with recycling.

Read that the earth will be the whole under fire. This is to purify the land.

When you recycle you do the same, using fire you select metals according to their tolerance and reaction to it, and you separate them according to their class.

Well, the God will do the same. So don't worry about missing parts in land, ocean and even in space, The God will bring back everything and will put together everyone according to "his/her" class.

2. A baby who passed away, immediately after birth, or just before birth, and now is kept in an Alcohol container.

No problem, the baby body is preserved right?

Alcohol is something unique, kills the living person and preserves the dead one...

3. Albert Einstein, whose brain is kept in Alcohol container. How would His brain, as body part comes back and reassembled with the rest of the Body?

Albert Einstein defined himself as a retarded person when he was asked how he came with the idea of space-time. He did.

Then, why to care about his brain so much?

4. The idea of belief in resurrection of a dead in some ways, existed in non- Abrahamic ancient beliefs or myths, such as Osiris who was a resurrected king.
Did Abrahamic religions get their idea of resurrection from the myths, or it was the other way around? Discuss from historical point of view.

It appears that for some reason somebody "resurrected" after being declared dead, and witness propagate such event.

The event was increased in details from person to person.

5. In Zoroasterism, we can see belief in the Judgement Day, and general resurrection. Did Abrahamic religions get their idea about Judgement Day from Zoroasterism or it was the other way around? Discuss from historical point of view.

The best guess is that both, Zoroaster's and Abraham inherited the same belief from an older source.

 

[loverofhumanity]

A number of considerations.

In the Bible rebirth or to be born again means spiritually.

Mount Tabor where the disciples saw the transfiguration of Jesus and saw the Heavenly Father Elias and Moses. Then Jesus told them not to tell anyone of this ‘vision’. They witnessed this in waking life. Fast forward to the resurrection and it can be explained also as a spiritual vision.

Death. - One of Christ’s disciples wanted to bury a relative and Christ said ‘let dead bury the dead’. New translations say ‘let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead”.

The term dead does not mean ceases to exist with regards to the soul.

Baha’u’llah explains some conditions of the soul as the ‘death of unbelief and the life of faith’.

So the Day of Resurrection could mean that in that day people will be raised out of their graves of unbelief to the life of faith.

Since the Bible and Quran are largely about our relationship with God and belief in Him and are mostly spiritual Books, it is well within reason that these explanations make perfect sense.

Another one. It is said that one of the signs of Christs return is that the ‘stars would fall from heaven’. Baha’u’llah likened spiritual leaders of religion to stars and said that the time would come that they would cease to shine spiritually and not give spiritual light anymore and so the ‘stars fall from the spirituality heaven to earthly materialism. And we have witnessed that occur in this day when religious leaders have promoted terrorism and committed child sexual abuse.

And there are so many intelligent ways of understanding these concepts than just the current traditions.