Re: RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

" Lana,

Yes, Christ was able to die, but he also came back to life after 3

days and I know of no mortal that can do that.

Kayla "

They left out the part though about him eating human brains...

>

> I still maintain that Christ was purely able to die, therefore a mere

> mortal. I guess I'm using a different " mere " ...

>

> -Lana

[Guest guest]

Well, " ressurection " does imply he was dead. However, back then they

didn't have very good parameters for determining death. How do we

know he wasn't just comatose?

Death standards still sucked in the middle ages. People often drank

alcohol out of metal cups which resulted in metal poisoning that put

them into a coma - sometimes in the middle of the feast! This is why

they held " wakes " for days, in the hopes that the person would wake

up. If someone woke up on day 3 of his wake, was he really dead in

the first place? Does it mean he's not mortal just because he gave

himself bad enough metal poisoning to be comatose for days?

Now we have all this fancy equipment to determine death as an

absolute, and even then sometimes (although not often) it is wrong.

-Lana

On 1/7/06, <crimson_gray@...> wrote:

> Lana,

> Yes, Christ was able to die, but he also came back to life after 3

> days and I know of no mortal that can do that.

> Kayla

>

> >

> > I still maintain that Christ was purely able to die, therefore a mere

> > mortal. I guess I'm using a different " mere " ...

> >

> > -Lana

[Guest guest]

As I understand it, there are parts of India where it happens not infrequently.

Irene

At 02:33 PM 1/7/06, you wrote:

>Lana,

> Yes, Christ was able to die, but he also came back to life after 3

>days and I know of no mortal that can do that.

>Kayla

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> > Right, but your point is not a refutation of the virgin birth by any

> > means. You're establishing a law based on the countless observations

> > of human conceptions we've observed do not conflict with that law,

> > whereas the Christian who believes in the Virgin birth does not hold a

> > theory of conception that is in any way contradicted by these

> > countless observations.

>

> Are you saying that Christians do believe that conception occured

> normally in the virgin birth? Or are you saying that Christians

> believe there is some alternate way to procreate that is acceptable

> under their own law? Or am I missing the point, yet again?

> (Believe it or not, I actually like being set straight about this

> stuff, it helps my perspective.)

No, I'm saying that you are deducing a law from the observation that

all observed and examined human births and indeed all animal births

are preceded by a conception that involves the union of a sperm from a

male and an egg from a female, and the law you deduce is that all

humans are born this way. I am saying that the Christian view, which

makes an exception for one historical instance that it considers of

paramount importance and supernatural, is not refuted by any of these

observations from which your law is derived, and is therefore not

refuted by the law that you have stated.

I understand, likewise, that this is absurd to someone who is not a

Christian because she or he sees no reason to make such an exception.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Well, " ressurection " does imply he was dead. However, back then they

> didn't have very good parameters for determining death. How do we

> know he wasn't just comatose?

>

> Death standards still sucked in the middle ages. People often drank

> alcohol out of metal cups which resulted in metal poisoning that put

> them into a coma - sometimes in the middle of the feast! This is why

> they held " wakes " for days, in the hopes that the person would wake

> up. If someone woke up on day 3 of his wake, was he really dead in

> the first place? Does it mean he's not mortal just because he gave

> himself bad enough metal poisoning to be comatose for days?

>

> Now we have all this fancy equipment to determine death as an

> absolute, and even then sometimes (although not often) it is wrong.

Well if he was pierced in his side and blood and water came out

simultaneously, apparently a rupture of the heart or some part of the

heart is required. I don't really remember the details but the same

phenomenon has been shown in animals whose hearts are exploded.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Re: RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

On 1/7/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> > Right, but your point is not a refutation of the virgin birth by

> > any means. You're establishing a law based on the countless

> > observations of human conceptions we've observed do not conflict

> > with that law, whereas the Christian who believes in the Virgin

> > birth does not hold a theory of conception that is in any way

> > contradicted by these countless observations.

>

> Are you saying that Christians do believe that conception occured

> normally in the virgin birth? Or are you saying that Christians

> believe there is some alternate way to procreate that is acceptable

> under their own law? Or am I missing the point, yet again?

> (Believe it or not, I actually like being set straight about this

> stuff, it helps my perspective.)

" No, I'm saying that you are deducing a law from the observation that

all observed and examined human births and indeed all animal births are

preceded by a conception that involves the union of a sperm from a male

and an egg from a female, and the law you deduce is that all humans are

born this way. I am saying that the Christian view, which makes an

exception for one historical instance that it considers of paramount

importance and supernatural, is not refuted by any of these observations

from which your law is derived, and is therefore not refuted by the law

that you have stated.

I understand, likewise, that this is absurd to someone who is not a

Christian because she or he sees no reason to make such an exception. "

Wouldn't everything you say here apply to all irrational beliefs? What

makes this different exactly. Obviously, if I believe that I am from

Venus, and have come about that belief, say, through a dream in which my

mother was whisked away to Venus and copulated with the high Venusian

priest, nothing that you say can count as a refutation to ME. So what?

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'd say that this clearly IS the sense in which the Christian (and

> other) mystic tradition would say that God is within us. I probably

> don't have the time to reread this, but my strong suspicion is that you

> are missing quite a bit here.

I suggest you reread it. Oddly you will probably have time to respond

to this. No Christian believes that humans are uncreated. No

Christians believe that all creation was created through every human,

or that every human was with God before God created anything.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Re: RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

On 1/7/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'd say that this clearly IS the sense in which the Christian (and

> other) mystic tradition would say that God is within us. I probably

> don't have the time to reread this, but my strong suspicion is that

> you are missing quite a bit here.

" I suggest you reread it. Oddly you will probably have time to respond

to this. No Christian believes that humans are uncreated. No

Christians believe that all creation was created through every human, or

that every human was with God before God created anything. "

Who ever said that humans are uncreated? Somehow I don't think you have

the slightest clue as to what I was talking about, which is not unusual.