Death

Wendy darling wrote:

The question is how much does one comprehend after death? When you die you are at least in limbo or purgatory, isn’t that so?

There are all these places people have concocted, rather than accept that the dead know nothing.

Scripture does not teach about “limbo or purgatory”.

Show me the word limbo in the Scriptures.

Where in the Scriptures is the word purgatory. It is not there is it. These are just man made things.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

5
For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten.
6
Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.

It could not be any clearer than that, almost like a dictionary definition.

Purgatory and Limbo do not appear in Scripture because they were added on by the Catholic Church very much later on
Purgatory was for sinners who were thought redeemable and Limbo was for babies who died before they were baptised
Limbo has since been discarded presumably because punishing innocents was not seen as something morally justifiable

surreptitious57, thank you, I am aware of it’s pagan origins and practices.

Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Deuteronomy 12:32

Living souls, never dying souls.

I shall return with my scriptural evidence I am certain. [-o< :evilfun:

with love,
sanjay

Oh??

So now the body is flash-frozen to preserve it??? And subsequently if it is thawed out and the person resurrected? (Assuming one has the technical ability to do this.)

This seems to run up into a logical problem … you could potentially flash-freeze a live person and then ‘revive’ him.

So if you flash-freeze a person at the moment of death, how do you that he is effectively dead? You lost that period of time after death which confirms that the person is really dead. Was that actually “the moment of death” or not? You don’t know.

with love,
sanjay

Secondly phyllo, i am not going to use any such thing/theory in my reasoning which has not be empirically proved yet. I will rely on only such things which are proven scientifically and anyone can confirm it.

with love,
sanjay

I’m not sure why you brought up the idea of keeping the body cold in order to avoid decomposition.

Does this discussion of death depend on preserving the body or not?

The issue of keeping in the cold comes only because pilgrim seeker tom said that the body will start decomposing afetr three days.

As i said above, preserving the body is a not a issue here. The only issue e\relevant here is whether one is declared once dead according to our establish medical/scientific benchmarks or not.

with love,
sanjay

[b]

[/b]

Sanjay … thanks for addressing my question. Body decomposition is not universal … apparently there are numerous exceptions to the norm … Ste Bernadette comes to mind. I observed her corpse in Nevers France … while some cosmetic work has been acknowledge it remains a wonder/mystery.

Recovery from “Clinical Death” is not new … though the time frame between death and recovery is always only a few minutes. Your story mentions “since several weeks” … an example in a league of it’s own.

[b]

[/b]
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 … 50582.html

While I can’t say I ‘know’ it is possible … I believe it is possible.

2 Kings 2:11

[b]

[/b]

The Biblical chatter about Elijah’s return to life on earth are too many to mention.

zinnat

Are you referring to the yogis who claim to be able to stop the heart beating? I recall something about this when I visited India.

Nevertheless, the scientific evidence is slim to none that yogis can voluntarily stop their heart.

No, i am not talking about yogies.

By the way, there is no such yogi who can stop breathing, lose the pulse and heartbeat even for one hour and becomes alive again. If anyone claims so, he is simply lying.

with love,
sanjay

I think i have waited enough for replies. I will present my argument tomorrow.

with love,
sanjay

Sorry for the delay. Next post follows in an hour.

with love,
sanjay

There is a breed of frog found in Alaska which is called woodfrog. Its botanical name is Rana sylvatica. We all know that frogs go into hibernation in winters. Woodfrog does the same but it goes far beyond normal hibernation.

I accidentally came to know about this while searching on the net for something else. I became curious and looked into the reasons. The survival of the woodfrogs happens due to a very special chemical procedure. When ice touches the skin of a woodfrog, it starts increasing the sugar level into some cells, which goes as high as 13 times than the normal. This high level of concentration of sugar in some cells save those from freezing. in other words, one can say that these cells remain alive during hibernation.

So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?

with love,
sanjay

But humans don’t have the same physiology as frogs.

When I asked if preserving the body was significant to this discussion, you said “no”. So now I’m confused because freezing clearly prevents bacteria and other agents of decay (molds and fungus) from destroying the frog’s body.

No. There is still heartbeat and brain activity.

No.

That is different from what you have asked in your opening post.

There is in fact “something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive” but that doesn’t answer your three questions.
If the process of keeping a living being alive is very economical, very spare, then this doesn’t mean that this living being is dead.
Your example says something about how economically a body can work, but it doesn’t answer your three questions.

the most relevant definition of death for me is that I will no longer think or feel.