Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72030 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

JOEL

Mumbai, India

#70900 Apr 5, 2014
Why does an NDE, in most cases, leaves the person who has experienced it serene, fearless of death, peaceful, spiritual and knowledgeable about subtler dimensions of consciousness?

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#70901 Apr 5, 2014
JOEL wrote:
Why does an NDE, in most cases, leaves the person who has experienced it serene, fearless of death, peaceful, spiritual and knowledgeable about subtler dimensions of consciousness?
rabbee: just the knowing the physical end here, is not the end. and there is more peace there, than here. and it depends on how far you go, after you have been killed. there seems to be a time limit, how long you can stay away before you are not allowed to come back. and you most certainly, do not want to return. most do not make it past Seetra HaArcha, and go no further.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70902 Apr 5, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Along this line, there's a somewhat humorous book called "The bad people stole my god" by Doug Philips. It's about the author's loss of religion. Needless to say, the Internet had a lot to do with it.
A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sun...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70903 Apr 5, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sun...
<rolling eyes>...Brain fart does not equate to mystical experience unless that is what one defines a mystical experience to be.

I was recenlyt reading an article about a specific gene associated with development of a particular part of the brain that makes people more receptive to belief. Perhaps she has this gene. I, most likely, do not.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70904 Apr 5, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sun...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/...

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70905 Apr 5, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
<rolling eyes>...Brain fart does not equate to mystical experience unless that is what one defines a mystical experience to be.
I was recenlyt reading an article about a specific gene associated with development of a particular part of the brain that makes people more receptive to belief. Perhaps she has this gene. I, most likely, do not.
Her main point is that it may be equally likely that a mystical experience could be the result of an alteration of consciousness (i,e, a change of the "dial") than of a brain fart. I agree.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70906 Apr 5, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
Supports her point of "...We need more data and more subjective accounts. But we also need a neuroscience bold enough to go beyond the observation that we are “wired” for transcendent experience; the real challenge is to figure out what happens when those wires connect. Is science ready to take on the search for the source of our most uncanny experiences?.."

I dont get why that author dismisses her theory out of hand. Its not like Ehrenreich is claiming theism. She is keeping open to alternative explanations. Thats congruent with the scientific method. You purport the possibility the state can be explained via normative neuroscience - but until it can demonstratively account for the phenomenon as defined by her and others, it would be unscientific to make any statement with certainty.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70907 Apr 5, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Her main point is that it may be equally likely that a mystical experience could be the result of an alteration of consciousness (i,e, a change of the "dial") than of a brain fart. I agree.
Perhaps, but I struggle to see a difference? Brain fart, "alteration of consciousness" -- po-tae-toe, po-ta-toe.

Seriously, I see nothing "mystical" about it unless you consider seeing the same thing from a different perspective as "mystical". I guess it's all in how you define your terms. All due respect, but your (and her) vocabulary is a little too fuzzy for me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70908 Apr 5, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Supports her point of "...We need more data and more subjective accounts. But we also need a neuroscience bold enough to go beyond the observation that we are “wired” for transcendent experience; the real challenge is to figure out what happens when those wires connect. Is science ready to take on the search for the source of our most uncanny experiences?.."
I dont get why that author dismisses her theory out of hand. Its not like Ehrenreich is claiming theism. She is keeping open to alternative explanations. Thats congruent with the scientific method. You purport the possibility the state can be explained via normative neuroscience - but until it can demonstratively account for the phenomenon as defined by her and others, it would be unscientific to make any statement with certainty.
I'm not sure what she (and you) expect from science short of what they are already doing. Neuroscience does study these types of experiences and offers sound, logical explanations for them that typically center around brain chemistry. What other "source" for these "uncanny experiences" is she looking for? sorry, but this sounds like we're getting awfully close to Deepak Chopra territory. I don't think I need to tell you what I think of that guy's ideas.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70909 Apr 5, 2014
GENES cannot explain human personality features. The difficulty with regards to human beings is further increased by the lack of any clear-cut genetic mechanism for PSYCHOLOGICAL INHERITANCE. This is even more evident for subjective states as self-awareness, abstraction, conscious reflection, intuition, inspiration and revelation.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70910 Apr 5, 2014
BRAIN is simply a receiving station for waves of information that it receives from outside or from within the body itself. Processing of information takes place within the brain centers where the indwelling consciousness arranges the information to form patterns and takes cognizance of the same. In a NDE, the brain functions are clinically dead but yet the subject has a clear perception of events going on within the room where his body is placed and often he sees events beyond the room and at times he sees events taking place hundreds of miles away. So, a clinically dead brain is incapable of any of these functions especially the nonlocal sightings of events happening outside the room or at great distances.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70911 Apr 5, 2014
DOES THE BRAIN GENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS?

It is the consciousness that perceives not the brain.

The brain is simply a processing machine through which the indwelling consciousness acts while trapped inside the body and besides during a NDE the disembodied consciousness sees all the better.

There's ample evidence to support the case.

To draw an analogy from engineering - the machine does not generate the energy that causes the machine to do work - the fuel put into the machine either as electricity or as petrol or whatever is processed by the machine and the fuel's energy is manifested during the process which enables the machine to do work.

So, it would be foolish to argue that a machine can generate energy by itself when it is the indwelling fuel that generates the energy when the machine processes it.

Similarly, the brain is the machine that does not generate consciousness but simply processes the indwelling consciousness which can lift off during a mystical experience, NDE or at death.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70913 Apr 5, 2014
typo

RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70914 Apr 5, 2014
RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF YET AGAIN

IN THE GOD DELUSION, Richard Dawkins says that a partially formed wing would work to the extent that it is formed - a quarter of a wing would function up to 25%, a half formed wing up to 50% and so on.

He fails to see a system as an integrated whole composed of connected parts that bring the system into existence and are responsible for the functional capacities of the system.

Would a bird with a quarter of wing fly - would its pinion be capable of generating the requisite power against air currents to cause it to lift off from the ground?

Would a partially formed wing be sufficiently aerodynamically streamlined to minimize air resistance during flight?

Would a partially formed wing maintain the center of gravity of the body by keeping the line of equilibrium within the needed range to sustain balance? Of course not.

The bird with a partial wing (or with partial wings) would neither take off nor be capable of flying.

If it happens to take off from a tree branch it would simply crash to the ground below and injure itself or die due to the impact of the fall.

Take an aeroplane. Would it fly if it has a wing that is just 50% of its requisite length and the needed aerodynamic shape? No.

If the wing of a plane in midair breaks off to the extent of 25% or 50% as the case may be would it continue flying up to 25% or up to 50% in the air or would it crash? Obviously, it would crash.

The systems view is that a system is an integrated whole with all the parts of it being interconnected; destruction of any part would disable the system and the absence of any part would render the system non-functional.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#70915 Apr 5, 2014
RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF - EYE

According to the fool Richard Dawkins, half an eye would help the eye to see 50%, a quarter of an eye would help the eye to see 25% and a three-fourth of an eye would help the eye to see 75%.

LOL.

He cites the case of a cataract which he says makes the person see fuzzily even in the presence of the coating over the lens.

What Dawkins forgets is that a cataract is formed over the lens only after the lens is fully formed and that the density of the coating over the lens could be partial as it is in many cases which then would enable the person to see partially from those parts of the fully formed lens that remain unaffected by the disease.

What needs to the noted is that the lens has been fully formed after which the cataract develops over it leading to gradual loss in eyesight depending on the severity of the coating causing cloudiness of vision or no vision if the diseases covers the whole lens.

If Dawkins thinks that a quarter of an eye can see up to 25% he's wrong since it is not the organ that sees but the consciousness in the optic center of the brain that does the job of seeing and taking note - qualia.

Besides, a quarter of a lens would not be functional.

And, if the connecting optic nerve is partially formed then too the eye would not work.

Let us take a fully formed eye belonging to a person and under anaesthesia let an ophthalmologist slice off 50%% of the eye without killing the patient and then seal up the wounds.

Would the eye work when the patient revives?

Obviously not.

So, as usual, Dawkins is wrong.

As per systems thinking and logical reasoning, every part of the eye should be in place before it can become functional and damage to any part would knock out the capacity to see.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70917 Apr 5, 2014
I think it was the physicist, JOHN WHEELER, who said:

"Never run after a bus, a woman and a cosmology theory since after a few minutes many more come along."

LOL. How true!

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70919 Apr 5, 2014
CAN COMPLEXITY ARISE FROM SIMPLICITY?

PART 1

The ignoramus RICHARD DAWKINS writes in the GOD DELUSION:

page 185

"Time and again my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason that there is something instead of nothing......Yes, I said, but it must be simple...The first cause that we seek must have been the simple basis for a self-bootstrapping crane which eventually raised the world as we know it into its present complex existence..."

JOEL: This is seriously flawed logic of looking at things and events from the outside instead of seeking out the internal mechanism.

If we look at an open system like a seed from the outside or even if we rip it open it does not look remarkable or complex but resembles a mass of undifferentiated protoplasm but in the tiny seed is the entire genetic blueprint needed to bring a gigantic tree with all its complex parts into existence on interaction with its environment - it draws in nutrients from outside and exchanges materials with its immediate surroundings but its genetic blueprint resides within it.

Now, the first cause of an isolated system may be a simple-looking event but in it resides the blueprint of the entire complex universe. the universe does not exchange information/energy with anything outside of itself.

The first cause or the seed cause is always the state of pure potentiality which on manifestation gives rise to complex forms which makes us blink in wonder at the nature of things.

The undifferentiated state or the unmanifest state of the entire potentiality of a first cause makes it appear to the ignorant mind of Dawkins that the first cause of an isolated system has to be simple but not complex and that complexity develops from simple beginnings by accretion or via natural selection.

What he conveniently forgets is that if many parts join to form an operational isolated system the question still remains - how could an ensemble of equally constituted parts in terms of information content ever give rise to a more complex system?

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70920 Apr 5, 2014
PART 2:

The gradual manifestation that a first cause is subject to over time appears to the ignorant mind as if each stage of development is a strictly partial formation and that for a new stage of development to appear a simple rearranging of its existing parts or an accretion of parts taken from its vicinity should take place for greater complexity to appear in the rudimentary system.

However, as said, the entire potentiality of an isolated system inheres within it and that it keeps manifesting more and more of its innate attributes when it encounters suitable stimuli from within.

Had an isolated system not contained the entire potentiality within itself in unmanifest form to begin with, then, the observed complexity would not have emerged in it.

So, the best model to explain complexity is to suggest an isolated system that contains within itself the entire potentiality needed for the complexity that the system would need in the manifest state to sustain itself.

Thus, the 3 phases that an isolated system would need to manifest its inner complexity are:

1) Devolution from the first cause after lose of inner equilibrium.

2) Involution of the contents of the above system subjected to devolution.

3) Evolution or emergence in the isolated system in gradual stages of manifestation of the involved information.

This model of sustainability applied to the constant source of energy that manifests from itself the entire complex universe from itself makes better sense than the scientific model of simplicity that somehow gives rise to complexity either in Darwinian mode or through some other accretion process.

Bottomline - Sentience and energy and blueprints inhere in the isolated system which upon manifestation in gradual stages give rise to a complex functional system of name and form and of remarkable fine tuning and the presence of life forms.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70921 Apr 6, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what she (and you) expect from science short of what they are already doing. Neuroscience does study these types of experiences and offers sound, logical explanations for them that typically center around brain chemistry. What other "source" for these "uncanny experiences" is she looking for? sorry, but this sounds like we're getting awfully close to Deepak Chopra territory. I don't think I need to tell you what I think of that guy's ideas.
Do I detect a little bias here?

How you feel about someone's ideas is (pun intended) immaterial.

The question is when you have a hypothesis and no way (yet?) for science to prove or discard it. That does not mean you have grounds to reject it. Or accept it. That's all she is basically saying. She is not rejecting science, just observing its limitations.

Just because we dont have the sensors (yet?) to detect life on planet Q in galaxy X, does that mean there is no life on planet Q? One would have to take an agnostic position by necessity.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70922 Apr 6, 2014
Reductionist assumptions prove nothing - they can't answer fundamental questions on the origin of the universe, fine tuning, consciousness, origin of life, personality and appearance of complex biological forms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pinos Altos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News WNMU to continue recruiting DACA students despi... 17 hr Susanna 7
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Jun 26 Tony 625
News Yes, Denny's is coming Jun 11 Tiger37 1
News Armory celebrates 100 years Jun 7 my opinion 1
News Old-fashioned Fourth of July party (Jul '13) May '16 YUUUUP 4
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) May '16 CrookedHillary 57
News Hearse from Pinos Altos Hearst Church moved to ... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Lorina 2

Pinos Altos Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pinos Altos Mortgages