Near Death Experience (NDE)

Debate: NDERound 2 Ogan: Check comments if you wish to read my reaction to your rather lengthy introduction, which you did not wish to add to the main debate, as I felt it my duty to respond in some way. Also, there was insufficient space for them in the debate anyway. p.s. Thank you for your excellent probing and hope that the following answers are as acceptable as your debating points. (Anyway on to my new argument 3)The Sovereignty of the Experience: ) (As a Methodist I completely accept that true experiences can happen to many people out therehttp://www.theopedia.com...... ; but even though a person really experiences something that is more than biological, it does not mean this experience tells them anything true. ) Ogan: It's interesting to note that people born blind can not only see clearly during NDE's, but in a far more superior way to normal physical sight. Then afterwards, when back in the body and blind again, they have a clear understanding of the concepts of colour, perspective and light forms, which other people born blind could never have. (see: People Born Blind Can See During a NDE. Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind... www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html. ) (In the early day's of America such false real experiences apparently happened for Joseph Smith, and in recent times they have happen for a man named Michel Cadry .http://www.amazon.com...... http://www.theologyweb.com...... Cadry's experience told him that the moon is God and Yuri Geller is the Anti-Christ. Even if the experience is not just biological there is still a danger of getting the wrong idea from it because of excess Enthusiasm as explained by John Wesley in this sermon when he gets to describing the second form of bad enthusiasm (18 ). http://new.gbgm-umc.org...... "Though there is a real influence of the Spirit of God, there is also an imaginary one: and many there are who mistake the one for the other. Many suppose themselves to be under that influence, when they are not, when it is far from them. And many others suppose they are more under that influence than they really are." Experiences that tell you things that are false feel as real to the recipients as experiences that convey truth. That's why what your experience tells you needs to be balanced by the other Wesleyan points.) Ogan: Powerful hallucinations and delusions exist in some, and mildly in many, but that has no effect upon True Conscious which must be experienced, and is a quite marvellous unfoldment of the True Self freed from the lower animal mental activities where all the hallucinations and delusions take place. In the same way, a sane man does not suffer another's insanity; nor should the sane man's mental state be judged based on the other's insanity. However, I agree that those who have an untrained reason and unruly imagination, may utterly distort an otherwise influx of Wise Ideas into a swirling mass of incomprehensible concepts, and then begin to preach these distortions to the faithful and trusting and non-doubting who may then be subject to much damage and distress – this is definitely best avoided like the plague. (The NDE by itself cannot make you unshakably certain without first seeing how it lines up in view of the other points. For sure it can probably make you feel a great deal more certain about Life being eternal, but not ‘Unshakably' so. There is room for at least a mustard seed of doubt (often all it takes) and if there is room for doubt then it's not ‘Unshakable') Ogan: Only the actual experience of this Consciousness can make you or me or anyone else… Certain. It does not need any points within the reason to prove or disprove it, as, following the experience, all dissention within that same reason has ended because of the unshakeable experience of Truth. But this cannot be communicated from one to another, hence, preaching can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but debating is not. People must discover this wonderful Mystery for themselves, or throw the whole idea with distain into a bottomless pit - we all have freewill to chose and that's a good thing. Although a full, unbiased and serious study of the kinds of NDE we are debating will produce much fruit in those interested. (To summarize this round….. 1)because this is still possible (not inherently contradictory), NDE is not "Unshakable" proof…. 2)….It's not "Unshakable" proof…. 3)….It's not "Unshakable" proof…. (I know I had other relevant specifics in my case; but that recurring theme is all I felt important to show in the summery, as it's the cardinal point I need to make to win this debate. If there is room for doubt to the recipients of NDE, then it's not ‘Unshakable' and the resolution is negated. Doubt isn't all that bad, most often it doesn't end up changing the beliefs, but lack of change does not mean pure absence of doubt. "Unshakable proof" does though.) Ogan: If the reasoning faculties refused to doubt anything at any time, both they and the body would be become totally unbalanced and be seriously injured one way or another. If the reasoning faculties lose the faith they depend upon, they will mentally stagger forward in a kind of drunken fashion, losing all drive and momentum to understand anything outside their self-constricted limited parameters, and fall into an even deeper more complicated 'sleep'. But as regards ‘unshakeable' proof, one group of individuals has it, another group does not have it – that is the present situation and always as been thus. The problem will only be solved by those individuals alone who first seek to understand it themselves and then eventually attain it themselves.