And who does your interpreting for you?
Of course it is. That’s why it was written. Revelation is primarily about the then-present-day Roman Empire, for instance- something that’s gotten so lost over the years that most Christians don’t know it (and the nature of Christianity is such that they wouldn’t feel they had to know about it anyway).
That would be nice, but since it’s only one reason religion developed in the first place, it’s not surprising that that’s not the only thing religion does. And since people came up with the entire enterprise in the first place, yes, the responsibility for that rests with people.
But in many places it’s straightforwardly evil and erroneous. And Christianity is fundamentally an extremely evil belief system; the ones warping and misinterpreting it are the ones trying (and failing) to do good in its name. The bigots, the tyrants, the tormentors and killers; they are the ones following what have always been the core values of Christianity.
Religion is incapable of being a moral guide, and its purpose is to maintain and spread itself like any virus. And “ideally”, it would not exist.
Instead of trying the religious beliefs for a month, I have another proposition for you or anyone who would like to try the experiment: We have all heard this before and it is very much taken for granted and forgotten in everyday life by many people: do to others as you would have them do to you. This is to me the most important moral principle, which I try to follow. 
It is a very logical and effective moral guide (that can be stripped away from religion) and you would be surprised how hard it is to actually put this into practice because it makes you think of others before you act/speak, it urges you to discard selfishness, and the positive, selfless actions have a great tendency of throwing back positive reactions. If anyone actually takes the challenge, let me know how it goes.
So, getting back to the topic at hand…does the total lack of verifiable evidence carry any weight when it comes to your belief in NDEs?
The Golden Rule is generally a good idea - and it also really doesn’t have anything to do with religion.
I’ve always preferred the contrapositive formula, “Do not do unto others what would be hateful to them.” In other words, not quite so much “Be good to people” as “Don’t be a stinker.”
I also prefer the “negative utilitarian” approach to ethics: rather than endeavoring to increase the world’s happiness, I feel it more moral to try to reduce the world’s misery.
(To which I have had weisenheimers say, “Cool! Let’s go out and kill poor people!” Not quite what I have in mind!)
But in all of these cases, consideration of other people seems to be at the heart of a valid system of morals, and I agree with this interpretation.
I don’t know if anyone is still reading this thread, but I recently discovered it and found it interesting. I am on the fence with this subject. I think we are far from understanding consciousness and I think quantum mechanics implies that, through entanglement that consciousness can exist outside of the physical body. There are some physicists who argue that consciousness is not material. They suggest we are connected to the universe on a subatomic level, that transcends the body. I don’t know how I feel about that, but I will say that NO ONE knows and to disregard the unexplained with simple explanations is a common mistake made throughout history. Most people used to think the earth was the center of the universe and scoffed the fools who suggested otherwise.
That sounds like an entirely unscientific interpretation of the actual science, though.
I think you need a better understanding of quantum mechanics.
Name these physicists and cite their work.
Yeah, they laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
What part of Quantum Mechanics suggests this?
Which physicists?
edited to add: upstaged by DocCathode
What a neat old thread!
Funny thing is, I have had a NDE. Roughly 30 years ago…
I tried (and very nearly succeeded) in killing myself. Which is btw a terrible idea ; you ought not to do it…
Anyway, at 13 I meet my then unborn children, if that was a hallucination please God let me have more of 'em! It was a truly bizarre feeling to look into my newborn’s eyes and see the same eyes (that I saw then) looking back at me.
I knew at 13 I would have a daughter that would be placed for adoption and why that was necessary, followed by my son 10 years later.
I wish I had the words to communicate what I knew and saw then.
Isn’t it weird how people only tell us what their long-ago NDEs predicted they were going to do after they’ve already done it? I wonder if there is a reason for that.
Incidentally this is what we in the business called “mixed messages.” I do know there are easier methods to hallucinate, but I haven’t tried them myself.
Would you happen to have any solid evidence that you had an NDE?
Is “postdiction” a word? If not, I’m coining it.
If by solid evidence you ambulance reports and hospital records, then I suppose so… this was 30 years ago though.
I rarely mention the whole thing because frankly, who cares?? It was a turning point for me at that time, it seemed meaningful and important at a time when I desperately wanted to matter to someone.
Whether it was real or a hallucination at this point doesn’t much matter, what matters is how I choose to deal with experience in the here and now.
It’s used fairly often in the paleontological sciences. The evidence pretty much all refers to the past, so we can hardly “predict” anything in paleontology. But we’ve been very successful at “postdictions,” such as the discoveries of various transitional forms between walking animals and whales.
I believe that Stephen Jay Gould had an essay on the word, but I can’t recall for sure.
Pardon me good sir or ma’ am but um, how do you know that statement is true, how do you know that truth claim is true, how do you know that the “Don’t have to. If you can’t prove it is true, then it isn’t. No further debate is necessary.” or rather “if you can’t prove something is true then it’s automatically false” truth claim is true; did you prove THAT truth claim to be true beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt?
And the thread is brought back to life once again…
But in a Pet Sematary kind of way.