Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Heaven and Hell


Guyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And yet, when you were sober and you saw a door appear up in the night sky above, you took that as entirely real.

The issue is not whether you can suppress thoughts, but whether you reliably discern what is real from what is not. As you say (but apparently don't entirely realize what you're saying), three year olds can suppress conscious thoughts. BFD.

As to discernment, probably you do well enough with the day-to-day stuff. e.g. you look both ways before crossing unguarded railroad tracks. (Well, you've been known to claim that one time God himself revealed an oncoming train to you, but that's a different problem). What I expressed doubt about is whether you are more reliable than anybody else who claims to have met their god.

Based on your performance with flying doors mistaken for real ones, and other examples too numerous to recite, I'm thinking no.

It was real 

The whole experience was real.

How do I know ? Because my dogs had observed it and were barking up at it madly, which is what brought me out to shut them up.

I don't attach any religious /spiritual experience to that  physical experience but it was an unexplained and apparently almost unique phenomena, given that i cant find any other similar accounts,  

I apparently   suppress all  internal visual images while I am awke  ie hallucinations. I simply NEVER see anything in my mind while awake Unless under strong medication.

Yes I can be fooled by fleeting glimpses of something but given a few seconds for analysis i can almost always work out what I am seeing  and what is causing it  

what puzzles me is why everyone else cannot  (according to those who doubt human accuracy of vision and analysis) 

I dont see unreal things, while awake and not on opioids,  but I might be fooled momentarily to misinterpret something  More likely I will not make a judgement but analyse, observe, mentally record   and consider what it is I am seeing (all of which takes from  fractions of a second to a few seconds of time) 

I am unusual but not unique On large scale testing of several hundred people (in  professional settings)  I am one of two or three who can observe and memorise accurately  things flashed for a fraction of a second and pick errors etc in them.

  I was trained since infancy in observation and memory/recall.

 It is that training and practice which give me better skills than most.

   I could once see and remember an entire page of text in the time it took most people to read one world  Ie I saw and mentally read/ recorded in my mind  400 words or so as one image   Some professionals say that is impossible but its not, and its not even hard, given practice from  a young age Today my normal recreational  reading seed is around 600 words per minute but if I concentrate i can double or triple that without serious loss of comprehension/recall    Thats because reading is one skill,

Memorising what you read is a different one. 

You may not believe any of this, but it is why i can  observe, analyse, and interpret the environment so quickly and accurately  (unless of course  i am not concentrating or my mind is elsewhere) 

You make your own interpretations/judgements  based on what you believe is possible,  and then base your  conclusions on them. 

The door wasn't flying. It wasn't solid. 

it was a very bright hole in the  night sky about 24 times bigger than the full moon and shaped like a door.

  it was stationary about 30-40 degrees above the horizon, to the   south west of our farm .Through it you could see intense light sharply defined by the four edges of the "door"   It was like looking through a hole/ open doorway  in the night sky, to an environment of intense light  The light didn't shine out  through the hole in the sky but appeared behind. within it   

Then it began to move towards me,  increasing in size from  my perspective, until it filled my whole frame of vision,  and  passed through me,  causing my body to tingle

The dogs had seen it first and were barking at it when i went outside They kept barking more intensely as it approached, and then stopped once it disappeared They could all see it 

Ps this is not the only unexplained phenomena we have seen at our remote  farm house surrounded by open paddocks and no light contamination.

  We have observed a few unusual phenomena, including some witnessed by others from many miles away 

As long as you can't believe these things are possible, you are forced to question my judgement . 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Old friend You are making it tempting to come out to play.  What is real to you unfortunately because they are not in the 10% income that you have claimed in the past will not be held as one of the parameters in this discussion. Reality is that you are making payments on a mor5tgage and have a claimed income of less than 40k annually with no investments and have said that at time the generousity of you community helped pull you through bad times.

I don't need a recount what I need is for you to accept that this is a part of how I see you based on your claims and there is nothing you can say unless you can produce documentation that says otherwise. Whether you believe it or not I am a generous man so will not ask you to make your support for financial claims available to me after all these year of talking wit you as there are so many points of confusion that you protote at times.

You my sincere doubts, you talk too much for most of the people I deal with, those of us that rule the world just want to hear department break downs and standings of current acquisitions so all I need to know is base point what is your belief period.

Yes in your world not mine, big difference there.

 

I don't find it amusing that people that drive by people they think are **** are worse than they are. everyone is a sinner bud and if I wanted to own you I would control your vices one way or another that is how recruitment works and you will have to understand that exists on every socially perceived level of human exchanges. No matter what crime free hick town you live in that a spray painted a wall and 4 parking tickets with drug addicts and dealers with murderers that don't break the  law un ique but actually should be considered a social model for global peace and prosperity. Look I am going to be fair and say I only want 60% from what's generated in my domain.;)

If You ask me to help you develop other geographical opportunities is a different contract based on considerations of participation

Why would you ask this is a discrete conversation?

I don't care how big your dick isn't and you know that I have said all I will say about my past because we are not the subject of this thread.

You are the one who continues to assume my life has bee safe and unchallenged  Thats untrue 

Until you realise that you will never understand me  and its you who for some reason seems to feel threatened or challenged   by me . 

No you couldn't control me No one ever has unless i choose to be "controlled "as in a partnership with a loved one    to be honest i cant really understand what you are saying here

 I don't find it amusing that people that drive by people they think are **** are worse than they are. everyone is a sinner bud and if I wanted to own you I would control your vices one way or another that is how recruitment works and you will have to understand that exists on every socially perceived level of human exchanges. No matter what crime free hick town you live in that a spray painted a wall and 4 parking tickets with drug addicts and dealers with murderers that don't break the  law un ique but actually should be considered a social model for global peace and prosperity. Look I am going to be fair and say I only want 60% from what's generated in my domain.;)

I dont see anyone as sinners,  but we are all less than perfect and less than we could be . 

Its quite easy not to be controlled but it means not wanting or needing the things which allow others to control you    Those things can be physical but are more likely to be emotional /psychological.  Recognise them and not be driven by them, and there are no levers to control you with  .

The rest doesn't make sense to me.  We are not defined by where we live, but whom we chose to be,  wherever we live 

Finally i asked those questions because the y are all experiences from  my own life, despite living in a small town or on our own farm.   

We CHOSE to involve ourselves with people who needed help, and thus expose ourselves to those experiences and risks   We minimised the risks as much as possible, but you cant help others in real need   without getting your hands dirty, and sometimes bloody.  

ps in the past i think you did some mathematics on my income and how much i could afford to give away.  I have nothing to prove 

We have gone from  assets of over a million and an income of $150000 or so, down to assets of less than a quarter million and an income soon to be around $40000  a year 

We can still live comfortably, but cant afford to help others much financially,   which is a  shame, so instead I contribute to my community in other ways.    

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yes and here you are speaking of people medically and clinically diagnosed with cognitive impairment due to dementia Alzheimer's etc 

I had a decade of 24/7 lived experience caring for such people 

It is fair  enough for you to treat them as you do, because they have been professionally diagnosed and their condition is known 

Ps you seem to have a good theoretical understanding However I would still find some difficulty with your practical  application eg how do YOU decide if a faith is providing benefits, such as comfort and peace,  or dong harm. Given your own experiences there would be a danger of bias  

How about a person like my brother in law, who had diabetes and  was told he needed daily  transfusions for kidney failure 

He was a believer, and simply  decided not to be treated due to the time and travel involved and after discussion with his wife  allowed him self  to die  when he was ready to  He died peacefully and happy without worries or anxieties or fear 

Would you have tried to tell him that he was not going to heaven, because it did not exist, and should thus try to prolong his life on earth for as long as possible? 

In a case, not unlike your brother-in-law one would set up an appointment with a psychologist one that specializes in end of life such as Hospice. First of all a person must have a terminal diagnosis this means they are expected to die within a year, they must also be evaluated mentally by a doctor and there cannot be any coercion on anyone’s part.‘Diabetes isn’t terminal, and not to mention euthanasia has to be legal.

 

I assume he had type 2 while this is serious as long as one follows the things prescribed they can live as long as anyone without the condition. In the US to date caregivers, therapists hear it all and a person preferring to die over driving for treatment is most likely depressed, isolated, lost touch with reality doctors, therapists and CG’s  are adept at pointing their patient in the right direction, most of the time everything works out fine. It sounds to me that your brother was depressed, it was a cry for help gone unheeded and he didn’t get the right support from his wife. 
 

I would have strongly encouraged him and his wife to get evaluated mentally that they both felt hopeless ( depression) and concluded death was the only option and the wife agreed that a drive was to much to handle and sought no other recourse is a huge red flag.  The wife could have said let’s explore our options first as I am not ready to lose you quite yet and we will go from there. It would have been a demonstration of sound mind in other words, the capacity to make quality decisions. 
 

I think it is a tragedy, it would not have been necessary to go after him for his beliefs, it would just be noted by the professional and they would use validation techniques, meaning get into their perspective and use their belief to be proactive. 
 

‘’Validation therapy is used all the time in these cases. 
 

Where was his family in all this, or hers?

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2021 at 2:30 AM, Mr Walker said:

Imagination is an advanced cognitive process, as is abstract thought.

Both require sophisticated  /advanced language skills (thought is an unspoken language of the mind)

Please show me a link to a paper where this is proven.

You claim a lot, but posting links to support your claims is not one of your assets.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagination and abstract thought; needing no natural language at all.

Bull's Head Pablo Picasso 1942

1441734262_719_737_Bulls_Head.thumb.jpg.73305308e0c64d4cbcd0e4214f970d22.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Imagination and abstract thought; needing no natural language at all.

Bull's Head Pablo Picasso 1942

First thing I though of :

BullSeat!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaven and Hell? ,  even the Pope said it was a state of mind.I do believe Earth is the  hell and Heaven was painted over it.:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

In a case, not unlike your brother-in-law one would set up an appointment with a psychologist one that specializes in end of life such as Hospice. First of all a person must have a terminal diagnosis this means they are expected to die within a year, they must also be evaluated mentally by a doctor and there cannot be any coercion on anyone’s part.‘Diabetes isn’t terminal, and not to mention euthanasia has to be legal.

 

I assume he had type 2 while this is serious as long as one follows the things prescribed they can live as long as anyone without the condition. In the US to date caregivers, therapists hear it all and a person preferring to die over driving for treatment is most likely depressed, isolated, lost touch with reality doctors, therapists and CG’s  are adept at pointing their patient in the right direction, most of the time everything works out fine. It sounds to me that your brother was depressed, it was a cry for help gone unheeded and he didn’t get the right support from his wife. 
 

I would have strongly encouraged him and his wife to get evaluated mentally that they both felt hopeless ( depression) and concluded death was the only option and the wife agreed that a drive was to much to handle and sought no other recourse is a huge red flag.  The wife could have said let’s explore our options first as I am not ready to lose you quite yet and we will go from there. It would have been a demonstration of sound mind in other words, the capacity to make quality decisions. 
 

I think it is a tragedy, it would not have been necessary to go after him for his beliefs, it would just be noted by the professional and they would use validation techniques, meaning get into their perspective and use their belief to be proactive. 
 

‘’Validation therapy is used all the time in these cases. 
 

Where was his family in all this, or hers?

 

 

He died peacefully at home with no need for hospitalisation or medical care  There was no question of any form of euthanasia Hhe just died when his body was ready to. 

Thus there was no need for any psychological evaluation People here, at least, have a right to die naturally, without medical intervention to prolong or extend their lives  Diabetes CAN be terminal form complications like kidney failure .

and no he wasn't depressed or fearful or anxious  indeed he was his usual happy self  but increasingly tired  He didnt want transfusions or dialysis. it is your bias /judgment which sees a need to fight for life and to take efforts to extend it   Indeed a new book by experts claims that depression   along with many other natural conditions such as aging  has been medicalised for profit of big pharma   

He believed in heaven and that he would have a new body 

So, who has a right, and on what basis to tell a person he should not die happily and naturally when his body wears out ? No one, really.  

This argument is often put forward not for the benefit of the patient but for that of  the heath professionals and others who profit from  the effort required to preserve and extend life 

Personally i disagreed with him and would have had the treatment   (about 5 hours a day  for 3 days a week  in a hospital 30 miles from  his home ) but I understood and accepted his pov 

  He was my brother in law and his wife was with him caring and supporting him The y had been married for  over 60 years.

Like my wife and her other sister the y had not been able to have children  due to Rubella as teenagers, which might have contributed to his readiness to die.

He had no children or grandchildren to worry about  leaving 

All his own family had already died,  but he was closely supported by his in laws 

It is quite weird that many modern people   think that accepting death is unnatural, where as it is actually very natural  

and lol, no one would ever have convinced him to change his mind.  We did discuss options with him, as did his GPs,  but he was the most stubborn and firm minded person that i know.  He had no fear of death at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Imagination and abstract thought; needing no natural language at all.

Bull's Head Pablo Picasso 1942

1441734262_719_737_Bulls_Head.thumb.jpg.73305308e0c64d4cbcd0e4214f970d22.jpg

 

I dont accept this.

imagination (such as constructing alternate scenarios, futures or pasts)   and abstract thought  such as symbolism are byproducts of quite sophisticated language capabilities.

Explain how it can be otherwise. 

Picasso designed that figure through sophisticated language of the mind. You and  I interpret and appreciate it only through sophisticated language of the mind 

 

Show me examples of such art by other animals, which are not inherent /intrinsic, or based on biological drivers.   Show me an animal which could recognise it as a bull's head  and appreciate it's beauty craftsmanship and symbolism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Please show me a link to a paper where this is proven.

You claim a lot, but posting links to support your claims is not one of your assets.

This has been known for decades.  I guess i learned it a t uni in the 70s, during psychology  and human cognition language classes 

eg Piagets  explanation

 

Abstract reasoning is a cognitive mechanism for reaching logical conclusions in the absence of physical data, concrete phenomena, or specific instances. ... This process is a cognitive transcending of lower-level knowledge to form a new construction, or what Jean Piaget dubbed reflective abstraction.

 http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/developmental-psychology/cognitive-development/abstract-reasoning/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

He died peacefully at home with no need for hospitalisation or medical care  There was no question of any form of euthanasia Hhe just died when his body was ready to. 

Thus there was no need for any psychological evaluation People here, at least, have a right to die naturally, without medical intervention to prolong or extend their lives  Diabetes CAN be terminal form complications like kidney failure .

and no he wasn't depressed or fearful or anxious  indeed he was his usual happy self  but increasingly tired  He didnt want transfusions or dialysis. it is your bias /judgment which sees a need to fight for life and to take efforts to extend it   Indeed a new book by experts claims that depression   along with many other natural conditions such as aging  has been medicalised for profit of big pharma   

He believed in heaven and that he would have a new body 

So, who has a right, and on what basis to tell a person he should not die happily and naturally when his body wears out ? No one, really.  

This argument is often put forward not for the benefit of the patient but for that of  the heath professionals and others who profit from  the effort required to preserve and extend life 

Personally i disagreed with him and would have had the treatment   (about 5 hours a day  for 3 days a week  in a hospital 30 miles from  his home ) but I understood and accepted his pov 

  He was my brother in law and his wife was with him caring and supporting him The y had been married for  over 60 years.

Like my wife and her other sister the y had not been able to have children  due to Rubella as teenagers, which might have contributed to his readiness to die.

He had no children or grandchildren to worry about  leaving 

All his own family had already died,  but he was closely supported by his in laws 

It is quite weird that many modern people   think that accepting death is unnatural, where as it is actually very natural  

and lol, no one would ever have convinced him to change his mind.  We did discuss options with him, as did his GPs,  but he was the most stubborn and firm minded person that i know.  He had no fear of death at all. 

 


I do not glean that your brother in law was at peace it sounds like he was afraid, paranoid about medicine and isolated himself. 

Interesting, my understanding from your posts is that the accommodations and health care system are outstanding in your country. The death experience in his case is one of the hardest, liver failure is horribly painful for the person. I am saddened he had to suffer uthere is always better options for a person. 
 

Here we look for ways to deal with the fear of doctors. I had a client who was operating on a religious delusion that all doctors are crooks, I found a doctor that takes any patient whether they can pay or not. Fast forward, the family is doing well. Problem solved. 

 

I would have used validation techniques with your Brother-in-law, he was scared to the point of paranoia, sounds like fundamentalist mind set. 
 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont accept this.

Then don't.

You do not know Picasso's thought process and you surely do not speak for him. Similarly, you do not know what your dogs were barking at that night, and you don't speak for them, either.

Bully for you if you rely only on words as the vehicle and the representation of your own personal conscious mental deliberation. It does not follow that other people similarly limit themselves. Your personal habits of thought aren't "necessary" to accomplish feats of imagination or abstraction.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:


I do not glean that your brother in law was at peace it sounds like he was afraid, paranoid about medicine and isolated himself. 

Interesting, my understanding from your posts is that the accommodations and health care system are outstanding in your country. The death experience in his case is one of the hardest, liver failure is horribly painful for the person. I am saddened he had to suffer uthere is always better options for a person. 
 

Here we look for ways to deal with the fear of doctors. I had a client who was operating on a religious delusion that all doctors are crooks, I found a doctor that takes any patient whether they can pay or not. Fast forward, the family is doing well. Problem solved. 

 

I would have used validation techniques with your Brother-in-law, he was scared to the point of paranoia, sounds like fundamentalist mind set. 
 

 

You are  a hoot.

You have once again imposed your own fears beliefs etc onto another person 

believe as you must  

but you see for many humans belief removes all those fears and anxieties about death 

Others, who are not even believers also can perceive death as natural and inevitable and not worry about it 

I dont think you can "get"  people who are not afraid lonely depressed or anxious about life or approaching death 

he was not isolated He was not afraid.

He logically weighed up the time and effort it would take to have dialysis every week against the quality of life it would give him and decided it wasn't worth it.

  If anything perhaps he was just too lazy to be bothered to make the effort required :)   

When you have no fear of death it is not so necessary to take extreme  measures to prolong life. 

 

He never suffered. There was no pain and no fear. He wasn't afraid of doctors  Again those a re things you see in yourself or perhaps in other people you deal with.  

and lol no he wasn't a fundamentalist.

He didn't attend church  or observe any religious practices. He just didn't fear death (I do think he believed in an after life, although we never really spoke of it )   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Then don't.

You do not know Picasso's thought process and you surely do not speak for him. Similarly, you do not know what your dogs were barking at that night, and you don't speak for them, either.

Bully for you if you rely only on words as the vehicle and the representation of your own personal conscious mental deliberation. It does not follow that other people similarly limit themselves. Your personal habits of thought aren't "necessary" to accomplish feats of imagination or abstraction.

I do, however, know the nature of human  thought/ cognition and language  (both oral and mental)

I know how and why Picasso was able to produce this work, and how and why other humans can respond to it in a variety of ways 

I know why other earth animals cannot do either. 

I do know he couldn't have produced it, and we couldn't  appreciate or understand  it, without sophisticated inner language of the mind. 

and yes I know what the dogs were barking at.

Your failure to accept this goes to a wider failure of acceptance of anything unexplained 

You know dogs and thus you  would be able to tell when they were barking at different things, like a person, another animal, or something unusual, or indeed a t the full moon  

When 4 dogs are all staring intensely in the direction of a big bright light  in the night sky, with hackles raised; and barking intensely and non stop, then  you "know" they are barking  at it 

It is true that all my language of the mind is verbal BUT  that doesn't mean I cant appreciate other forms 

However, images unaccompanied by words are not abstract.

  The y may be symbolic as in dreams but unless you can verbalise  the  nature of the symbolism, they are not communicating anything,  either to you or to anyone else

Music may make  you  feel a certain way,  but unless you can understand how and why, you cant communicate with it .  

Again I ask you to  explain to me, how you can use imagination, or construct abstract thoughts,  without words 

 

How do you do this,

Abstract reasoning is a cognitive mechanism for reaching logical conclusions in the absence of physical data, concrete phenomena, or specific instances. .

without any language of the mind ?

Picasso could  not  have made that object without sophisticated  language of the mind 

Humans never began making any such objects (like fertility figures, or cave paintings, or grave items)  until AFTER they evolved more sophisticated language skills than those required for simple tool making and use.

Thus we have a few animals today which make and use tools but none who spontaneously  demonstrate abstract/ symbolic; art, music  painting sculpture etc. 

ie they are not programmed /evolved to do things like decorate a bower or sing a song     

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Abstract reasoning is a cognitive mechanism for reaching logical conclusions in the absence of physical data, concrete phenomena, or specific instances. .

Piaget's statement is not legislative, nor was his purpose in writing on that occasion to offer himself as a law giver.

Many native speakers would allow classical induction to serve as an example of abstract reasoning. Classical induction requires the presence of specific instances, from which some generalization about them emerges, often subject to constraint-based reasoning, which is a form of logical reasoning.

Conclude: While Piaget's formulation was adequate for the immediate purpose of communicating his interpretation of his experiments which involved a distinctive subset of human thinkers, it doesn't cover all occasions of reasoning which are fairly described as abstract. Nor is there any particular reason to think that it would or should. Google wasn't your friend this time.

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

How do you do this,

You are the original claimant, the burden to substantiate your teaching is yours, not mine for questioning you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

   Music may make  you  feel a certain way,  but unless you can understand how and why, you cant communicate with it .  

Again I ask you to  explain to me, how you can use imagination, or construct abstract thoughts,  without words

How do you do this,

      

i'll not attempt to explain How ...but I have always been able to use imagination ,and construct abstract thoughts ,such as Music, or Art, or design other things in my mind...without using words .     And I don't need to understand how or why ,to very effectively communicate with music.  If I add words I can make people cry  :P

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are  a hoot.

You have once again imposed your own fears beliefs etc onto another person 

believe as you must  

but you see for many humans belief removes all those fears and anxieties about death 

Others, who are not even believers also can perceive death as natural and inevitable and not worry about it 

I dont think you can "get"  people who are not afraid lonely depressed or anxious about life or approaching death 

he was not isolated He was not afraid.

He logically weighed up the time and effort it would take to have dialysis every week against the quality of life it would give him and decided it wasn't worth it.

  If anything perhaps he was just too lazy to be bothered to make the effort required :)   

When you have no fear of death it is not so necessary to take extreme  measures to prolong life. 

 

He never suffered. There was no pain and no fear. He wasn't afraid of doctors  Again those a re things you see in yourself or perhaps in other people you deal with.  

and lol no he wasn't a fundamentalist.

He didn't attend church  or observe any religious practices. He just didn't fear death (I do think he believed in an after life, although we never really spoke of it )   


 

MW you quoted “He believed in heaven and that he would have a new body” this more than substantiates an inference that he was operating from a fundamentalist mindset operating on delusion. 
 

 

While it is moot now, but to not want to  take a drive 30 minutes away 3 times a week and choose to die instead would be a red flag for depression, regardless, he should have been evaluated.  That is how it is done in real time, no one takes the word of a brother in law, they have a doctor determine if the person is of sound mind. 
 

I have worked with many folks who were terminal, meaning there was nothing more medical science could do for them, and have been inspired by how they dealt with the ending, and was honored to be a small part, FYI most folks have no belief in god or heaven etc at this point. If one is hanging their hat on a belief to get them thru it is a fear bandaid, I have seen endings like this too. I will not comment other than to say don’t try this at home. 

 


 


 



 


 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addressing the topic, rather than anyone and their inputs here, Heaven and Hell are abstract concepts which vary a great deal with the definitions we assign to these 2 "ideas" of supposed physical, or non-physical places. Abstract concepts, of necessity, are grasped with our minds, therefore have to be mental experiences, as far as we can tell for right now. If heaven and hell do really exist as part of reality, for the general population of those who give these Places some credence, we must also consent that they are not part of this physical world, as far as the general consensus, which this consensus is that we'll experience one or the other (or both) only after physical death.

It's not difficult to imagine that a similar state of mind, in some form or other, of what we imagine heaven and hell to be can be present in our physical world. Surely our physical experiences of pains/sufferings and pleasure/happiness can be short-term, and in lesser degrees, a representation as to things to come. One thing is certain, whether one be a skeptic or a believer of such places, and that's we all experience some form of the idea we have formed of heaven and hell right here and now. Whether there is still greater pain and suffering, or greater pleasure and happiness to be had after physical death, is something that we cannot, with certainty, know while we still live. Although we have had, through history, supposed messengers from that afterlife, we cannot be certain, as their reports are such that there is no consistency in them, which compels the rational persons to have doubt, or even complete disbelief in such stories brought to us. 

For those tending to lien towards a belief of these two places, one thing is almost certain, which is that the concepts of heaven and hell believed by the Christian religion, and other similar religious concepts, is not a true representation of these two places. For one, the idea of eternal suffering, or pleasure, being assigned as punishment or reward to human beings solely for what has been done in one physical human life is ridiculous. I mean, what is an average human life span(say an average of 100 years) compared to eternity?  One drop of water in an ocean is not even close to representing the ratio of what 100 years is to eternity.

In my belief of there being something still after our physical death, I tend to lien towards a Socratic representation of the afterlife, with its very brief details of hell, and an even much less detailed heaven. Taking the liberty to quote a little from book 10 of Plato's Republic, which leads into the Myth of Er (the messenger from that other world).

These, then, are the prizes and rewards and gifts which are bestowed upon
the just by gods and men in this present life, in addition to the other good
things which justice of herself provides.
Yes, he said; and they are fair and lasting.
And yet, I said, all these are as nothing, either in number or greatness in
comparison with those other recompenses which await both just and unjust after
death. And you ought to hear them, and then both just and unjust will have
received from us a full payment of the debt which the argument owes to them.
Speak, he said; there are few things which I would more gladly hear.
SOCRATES: Well, I said, I will tell you a tale; not one of the tales which Odysseus tells
to the hero Alcinous, yet this too is a tale of a hero, Er the son of Armenius,
a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in battle, and ten days afterwards, when
the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of corruption, his body
was found unaffected by decay, and carried away home to be buried. And on
the twelfth day, as he was lying on the funeral pile, he returned to life and told
them what he had seen in the other world. He said that when his soul left the body
the body he went on a journey with a great company, and that they came to
a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth; they were
near together, and over against them were two other openings in the heaven
above. In the intermediate space there were judges seated, who commanded
the just, after they had given judgment on them and had bound their sentences
in front of them, to ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand; and in
like manner the unjust were bidden by them to descend by the lower way on
the left hand; these also bore the symbols of their deeds, but fastened on their
backs. He drew near, and they told him that he was to be the messenger who
would carry the report of the other world to men, and they bade him hear and
see all that was to be heard and seen in that place. Then he beheld and saw
on one side the souls departing at either opening of heaven and earth when
sentence had been given on them; and at the two other openings other souls,
some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel, some descending
out of heaven clean and bright. And arriving ever and anon they seemed to
have come from a long journey, and they went forth with gladness into the
meadow, where they encamped as at a festival; and those who knew one another
embraced and conversed, the souls which came from earth curiously enquiring
about the things above, and the souls which came from heaven about the things
beneath. And they told one another of what had happened by the way, those
from below weeping and sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they
had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasted
a thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenly delights and
visions of inconceivable beauty. The Story, Glaucon, would take too long to tell;
but the sum was this:– He said that for every wrong which they had done to
any one they suffered tenfold; or once in a hundred years–such being reckoned
to be the length of man’s life, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a
thousand years. If, for example, there were any who had been the cause of many
deaths, or had betrayed or enslaved cities or armies, or been guilty of any other
evil behaviour, for each and all of their offences they received punishment ten
times over, and the rewards of beneficence and justice and holiness were in the
same proportion. I need hardly repeat what he said concerning young children
dying almost as soon as they were born. Of piety and impiety to gods and
parents, and of murderers, there were retributions other and greater far which
he described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Heaven and Hell are all about Justice. My GOOD guess is that Justice is a little game we are currently playing in this physical existence. It's all about the games we play in eternity.

Socrates: "And yet, I said, all these are as nothing, either in number or greatness in
comparison with those other recompenses which await both just and unjust after
death."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Show me an animal which could recognise it as a bull's head  and appreciate it's beauty craftsmanship and symbolism.  

There may be some animals that recognize it as resembling a bull's head, cows for instance may be able to identify that.  Almost all animals are able to differentiate between different creatures, kinda necessary for reproduction, although many are not as proficient pattern-recognizers as we are.

If a bird sang a song out of 'appreciation' for a beautiful day that makes it feel good, how would you or anyone know?  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This has been known for decades.  I guess i learned it a t uni in the 70s, during psychology  and human cognition language classes 

eg Piagets  explanation

 

Abstract reasoning is a cognitive mechanism for reaching logical conclusions in the absence of physical data, concrete phenomena, or specific instances. ... This process is a cognitive transcending of lower-level knowledge to form a new construction, or what Jean Piaget dubbed reflective abstraction.

 http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/developmental-psychology/cognitive-development/abstract-reasoning/

I must have missed it, but could you please show me where your claim, "Both require sophisticated  /advanced language skills (thought is an unspoken language of the mind) " shows up in your link?

Walker, the larger the tomes you post, the more you appear to me as hiding what you really KNOW.

But that's just me.

And believe me, I have library containing some 3500 books.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And believe me, I have library containing some 3500 books.

"That's nice for you, I had that many books in my library when I was 3 years old."

"Oh yea?  Well my library has 3500 million books."

"I read that many books last week.  Anyone can do it, I've been speed reading since I was an infant, and realized how gifted I was when...."

 

(It is Unexplained Mysteries after all, seems like an appropriate place to test my powers of clairvoyance...)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I must have missed it, but could you please show me where your claim, "Both require sophisticated  /advanced language skills (thought is an unspoken language of the mind) " shows up in your link?

Walker, the larger the tomes you post, the more you appear to me as hiding what you really KNOW.

But that's just me.

And believe me, I have library containing some 3500 books.

 

I work for a Neurologist who has read some of his posts/claim. I try to maintain fairness on his claims, so I show her and so far her input is there is no indication or evidence of any formal foundation in how the brain works or psychology, or psychiatry, or child abuse or Cognitive Science, research etc. etc. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.