Rules for thee, but not for Me....did Jesus really pay the price?

[Ozzy_O]

Some balk at the idea of eternal damnation. Is eternal hell fair? How can an eternity of punishment be just recompense for only one lifetime of human sin? Particularly if a person was generally decent, how is it fair that living apart from God for only 70 to 100 years results in eternity in hell?

A man sins; some say he is born in sin deserving of eternal hell.

God is fair and just, so He HAS TO insist on full payment for sin.

So a judge sentences you to life in prison as punishment for your crime; for reasons unknown, the judges son agrees to take your place and serve the sentence. Everyone is astonished and celebrates and worships the judge's son for doing such a wonderful deed.

However, after only three days in jail, the judge tells his son, that's ok, you can go, YOU don't have the serve the full sentence; however, had you or I gone to jail, we would rot and die in prison as a fair and just punishment for our crime.

Jesus knew he wasn't gonna stay dead forever and knew he wouldn't be tormented in hell for eternity.

Did Jesus really "pay the price" and take the punishment that sinners deserve?

[Shem Yoshi]

You are saying it is unreasonable to believe they are experiencing what happens at death?

Just because it is "near" death does not invalidate the experience of an after life, or the experience of death.

Of course it does. They haven't died so they haven't experienced either an afterlife or death. It's not complicated at all. What they have experienced is DMT based hallucinations.


Tcg

Hallucinations dont explain NDE's. Here is a Peer Reviewed article from the National Library of Medicine

Near-death experiences often occur in association with cardiac arrest.5 Prior studies found that 10–20 seconds following cardiac arrest, electroencephalogram measurements generally find no significant measureable brain cortical electrical activity.6 A prolonged, detailed, lucid experience following cardiac arrest should not be possible, yet this is reported in many NDEs. This is especially notable given the prolonged period of amnesia that typically precedes and follows recovery from cardiac arrest.

...
Out of Body Experiences, that can not be explained by hallucinations in the brain.

The high percentage of accurate out-of-body observations during near-death experiences does not seem explainable by any possible physical brain function as it is currently known. This is corroborated by OBEs during NDEs that describe accurate observations while they were verifiably clinically comatose.12 Further corroboration comes from the many NDEs that have been reported with accurate OBE observations of events occurring far from their physical body, and beyond any possible physical sensory awareness.13 Moreover, NDE accounts have been reported with OBEs that accurately observed events that were completely unexpected by the NDErs.14 This further argues against NDEs as being a result of illusory memories originating from what the NDErs might have expected during a close brush with death.

...
Later the article details blind people (even blind from birth), having vision in the NDE:

Vision in near-death experiencers that are blind, including totally blind from birth, has been described in many case reports. This, along with the finding that vision in NDEs is usually different from normal everyday vision and often described as supernormal, further suggests that NDEs cannot be explained by our current understanding of brain function. This is also further evidence that NDEs are not a product of what NDErs would have expected to occur during a life-threatening event.


...

The phenomenon of meeting dead people in NDE's, opposed to meeting living people in recent memories:

In dreams or hallucinations when familiar persons are present they are much more likely to be living and from recent memory. 25 This is in sharp contrast to near-death experiencers where familiar persons encountered are almost always deceased. Cases have been reported by NDErs of seeing a person who they thought was living, but in fact had recently died. 25,26 These cases illustrate that NDEs cannot be explained by the experiencer’s expectation of what would happen during a life-threatening event. Further evidence that NDEs are not a result of expectation comes from the aforementioned Kelly study where in one-third of the cases the encountered deceased person had a poor or distant relationship with the NDEr, or was someone that had died before the NDEr was born. 23

...

Life reviews seem to accurately depict an even wider scope of information then what is possible to know by the person:

In my review of 617 near-death experiences from NDERF, a life review occurred in 88 NDEs (14%). None of the life reviews in these NDEs appeared to have any unrealistic content as determined by my review or based on comments by the NDErs about their own life reviews. Life reviews may include long forgotten details of their earlier life that the NDErs later confirm really happened. If NDEs were unreal experiences, it would be expected that there would be significant error in life reviews and possibly hallucinatory features. The consistent accuracy of life reviews, including the awareness of long-forgotten events and awareness of the thoughts and feelings of others from past interactions, further suggests the reality of NDEs.

there are many more details of evidence not discussed here that is discussed in the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/


The evidence does not seem to suggest NDE's are Hallucinating on some kind of chemical, but that the are experiencing supernormal things. It backs up ideas of an after life that we have known for for thousands of centuries, but just recently been studying NDE's. It is totally reasonable to believe they are experiencing things that come with death, and it seems to be unreasonable to suggest this is some kind of normal hallucination. Simply because you dont believe in an afterlife because of your predetermined beliefs, does not give reason to deny the evidence of NDE's and where it leads.

Multiple lines of evidence point to the conclusion that near-death experiences are medically inexplicable and cannot be explained by known physical brain function. Many of the preceding lines of evidence would be remarkable if they were reported by a group of individuals during conscious experiences. However, NDErs are generally unconscious or clinically dead at the time of their experiences and should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness.

The combination of the preceding nine lines of evidence converges on the conclusion that near-death experiences are medically inexplicable. Any one or several of the nine lines of evidence would likely be reasonably convincing to many, but the combination of all of the presented nine lines of evidence provides powerful evidence that NDEs are, in a word, real.

[JehovahsWitness]

One chance in 812,500? ...

I cannot respond since I have no idea what this is referring to.


Sorry,


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[JoeyKnothead]

You are saying it is unreasonable to believe they are experiencing what happens at death?

I interrupt to say we have data to suggest a flood of electrochemicals is the most likely, most medically sound position.

Just because it is "near" death does not invalidate the experience of an after life, or the experience of death.

Our problem here is that folks're experiencing these events before death, so talk of afterlife - afterdeath - is speculation.

[Shem Yoshi]

You are saying it is unreasonable to believe they are experiencing what happens at death?

I interrupt to say we have data to suggest a flood of electrochemicals is the most likely, most medically sound position.

Just because it is "near" death does not invalidate the experience of an after life, or the experience of death.

Our problem here is that folks're experiencing these events before death, so talk of afterlife - afterdeath - is speculation.

Say what you will, I have given evidence that NDE's are super-normal and not due to physical brain functions (as I referenced above). It is certainly reasonable to believe NDE's are experiencing death like things. And nothing suggest that they arent, except a presupposition of scientific materialism.

[JoeyKnothead]

You are saying it is unreasonable to believe they are experiencing what happens at death?

I interrupt to say we have data to suggest a flood of electrochemicals is the most likely, most medically sound position.

Just because it is "near" death does not invalidate the experience of an after life, or the experience of death.

Our problem here is that folks're experiencing these events before death, so talk of afterlife - afterdeath - is speculation.

Say what you will, I have given evidence that NDE's are super-normal and not due to physical brain functions (as I referenced above).

What do you even mean by "super-normal"? Is that some way to skirt around the negative connotations of using the term "super-natural"?

Regardless, my point stands. NDE's are, by definition, a product of the living, and as such, can only tell us about the living.

It is certainly reasonable to believe NDE's are experiencing death like things. And nothing suggest that they arent, except a presupposition of scientific materialism.

Who here gets to determine what's reasonbable to believe?

What, exactly "death like thing", are you referring to here? Sleep is a death like thing - with ads. Is that an NDE?

I reject your trying to argue "presupposition of scientific materialism" when I can just as well refer to your "presupposition of supernatural idiocy".

Our trying to denigrate one another in such a pseudointellectual fashion will not support your assertions.

Again I say, NDE's are an experience of the living, and are, by definition, not the experience of the dead. This is a fact. It doesn't matter how upset it causes you, it doesn't matter if it makes precious baby Jesus cry. It's a fact.

If you have a problem with that FACT, then crack open your bible and smoke the dang thing.

[Shem Yoshi]

What do you even mean by "super-normal"? Is that some way to skirt around the negative connotations of using the term "super-natural"?

It is the term the medical journal i referenced used.

Again I say, NDE's are an experience of the living, and are, by definition, not the experience of the dead. This is a fact. It doesn't matter how upset it causes you, it doesn't matter if it makes precious baby Jesus cry. It's a fact.

Actually by definition a lot of them are dead at the time of their NDE's. Medical records report them being medically dead, they are then revived.

How do you assert they didnt die and were then revived?

[JoeyKnothead]

What do you even mean by "super-normal"? Is that some way to skirt around the negative connotations of using the term "super-natural"?

It is the term the medical journal i referenced used.

I missed the cite - what journal was it? Link?

Again I say, NDE's are an experience of the living, and are, by definition, not the experience of the dead. This is a fact. It doesn't matter how upset it causes you, it doesn't matter if it makes precious baby Jesus cry. It's a fact.

Actually by definition a lot of them are dead at the time of their NDE's. Medical records report them being medically dead, they are then revived.

Words mean things. Death is the absence of life. Why do you think folks make such a fuss about Jesus?

Notice here, you're also modifying "dead" with the use of "medical" there. Death don't give it one fret about if you're medically dead, or morally dead, or dead tired. Dead just cares that ya be it, and don't be hoping in and out of it.

How do you assert they didnt die and were then revived?

Folks have never been shown to be revived after they die. Rot, decay, smell, bloat, but not come back alive. This is like third grade medical stuff here.

It's why they're called near death experiences, and not "hallelujah we done got us another Jesus" experiences.

[Shem Yoshi]

What do you even mean by "super-normal"? Is that some way to skirt around the negative connotations of using the term "super-natural"?

It is the term the medical journal i referenced used.

I missed the cite - what journal was it? Link?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

Again I say, NDE's are an experience of the living, and are, by definition, not the experience of the dead. This is a fact. It doesn't matter how upset it causes you, it doesn't matter if it makes precious baby Jesus cry. It's a fact.

Actually by definition a lot of them are dead at the time of their NDE's. Medical records report them being medically dead, they are then revived.

Words mean things. Death is the absence of life. Why do you think folks make such a fuss about Jesus?

Notice here, you're also modifying "dead" with the use of "medical" there. Death don't give it one fret about if you're medically dead, or morally dead, or dead tired. Dead just cares that ya be it, and don't be hoping in and out of it.

How do you assert they didnt die and were then revived?

Folks have never been shown to be revived after they die. Rot, decay, smell, bloat, but not come back alive. This is like third grade medical stuff here.

It's why they're called near death experiences, and not "hallelujah we done got us another Jesus" experiences.

The question is, how do you know they are not dead and then revived? In fact many of their own stories the people are given a choice, to go back to life or stay where they are, and the ones that are here to tell about it chose to go back to life.

How do you know they arent dead and then revived? Lots of them have been shown to have no activity in the brain, nor the body, not even electrical activity that thought in the brain goes off of. A lot of them have stories of leaving their bodies and seeing things that only someone could see if they were out of their own body.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #1]

God doesn't will that anyone remains in hell, but he will not force them to love him. It is our choice to choose or reject God, to love him or not, to accept whether he incarnated and died for us or not. If those in hell continue to reject God, then it is their choice.

He won't force you to love him, or accept his puny sacrificial act, but if you don't he will just let you spend eternity suffering in hell. What a sad and pathetic specimen of a deity.

You choose to remain in hell. He is not going to force you to leave. You have the choice and power to leave.

Am I missing something, because that sounds like complete and utter nonsense to me? How did I end up in hell and what do I have to do in order to leave?

[JoeyKnothead]

What do you even mean by "super-normal"? Is that some way to skirt around the negative connotations of using the term "super-natural"?

It is the term the medical journal i referenced used.

I missed the cite - what journal was it? Link?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die.

It's literally the first sentence of the first paragraph in the introduction.

"Nearly" works for hand grenades, but not for your position regarding death. In NDEs the data shows a flood of electrochemical actions, and not a flood of death.

The question is, how do you know they are not dead and then revived?

Because death only happens when life has left the building.

In fact many of their own stories the people are given a choice, to go back to life or stay where they are, and the ones that are here to tell about it chose to go back to life.

Bring em here for cross examination.

How do you know they arent dead and then revived?

I'm sentient.

Lots of them have been shown to have no activity in the brain, nor the body, not even electrical activity that thought in the brain goes off of.

Please present pertinent medical records for analysis.

A lot of them have stories of leaving their bodies and seeing things that only someone could see if they were out of their own body.

Bring em here for cross examination.