Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 18:38:16 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/teenage-girls-wish-for-preservation-after-death-agreed-to-by-courtInteresting story in the news today which surely raises the question as to what happens to the soul of a person who chooses to be cryogenically frozen should scientific progress ever enable the cryogenically frozen body to return to life. Would the soul that had departed the body on death return to the body following the successful defrosting of the deceased? Could a soul actually leave heaven or hell or purgatory to return to the body of the resurrected person? And could there be a delay on its return, for example if the soul was unaware that the defrosting had occurred? Or could a resurrected body exist without a soul? Or would it be given a new soul? Could a soul that had moved on to enjoy eternal life, return to a resurrected body but on the second death (due to the future life choices or a change in the beliefs of the resurrected body) be sent to hell following the body's second death? I heard an evangelical Christian respond to this story by stating that death only occurs when the soul leaves the body and implying that a body which had medically died may not actually be dead if the possibility exists for the body to be restored to life. Why he felt the need to say this when such a possibility does not currently exist was certainly not clear. He gave the impression that the soul of the cryogenically frozen would not actually leave the body despite death having occurred. I presumed this was a clever way of attempting to get around having to answer any awkward questions around what happens to the soul. Of course this is an absurd position to take. One can almost imagine the soul hovering around the recently deceased looking for evidence of anyone approaching who looks like they might cart them off to a freezer before deciding whether or not to depart. Whatever it was he was saying it didn't seem to make any sense. I don't even think it made sense to him and he soon started talking about abortion. Interesting that a man who is vehemently opposed to redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage should suddenly seem completely open to redefining death rather than contemplate the possibility than his understanding of how the soul operates may be flawed. But there you go. I'm certainly no expert on the soul but I'm aware there are some here who claim to understand its behaviour so I'm hoping they can shed some light on these rather soul searching questions. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 19:15:14 GMT -5
when a person ACTUALLY dies the soul departs it all thats left is a hunk of flesh they could freeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont return...
that does bring up the interesting question what would happen if a LIVE person were frozen would the soul linger?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 18, 2016 22:16:41 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/teenage-girls-wish-for-preservation-after-death-agreed-to-by-courtInteresting story in the news today which surely raises the question as to what happens to the soul of a person who chooses to be cryogenically frozen should scientific progress ever enable the cryogenically frozen body to return to life. Would the soul that had departed the body on death return to the body following the successful defrosting of the deceased? Could a soul actually leave heaven or hell or purgatory to return to the body of the resurrected person? And could there be a delay on its return, for example if the soul was unaware that the defrosting had occurred? Or could a resurrected body exist without a soul? Or would it be given a new soul? Could a soul that had moved on to enjoy eternal life, return to a resurrected body but on the second death (due to the future life choices or a change in the beliefs of the resurrected body) be sent to hell following the body's second death? I heard an evangelical Christian respond to this story by stating that death only occurs when the soul leaves the body and implying that a body which had medically died may not actually be dead if the possibility exists for the body to be restored to life. Why he felt the need to say this when such a possibility does not currently exist was certainly not clear. He gave the impression that the soul of the cryogenically frozen would not actually leave the body despite death having occurred. I presumed this was a clever way of attempting to get around having to answer any awkward questions around what happens to the soul. Of course this is an absurd position to take. One can almost imagine the soul hovering around the recently deceased looking for evidence of anyone approaching who looks like they might cart them off to a freezer before deciding whether or not to depart. Whatever it was he was saying it didn't seem to make any sense. I don't even think it made sense to him and he soon started talking about abortion. Interesting that a man who is vehemently opposed to redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage should suddenly seem completely open to redefining death rather than contemplate the possibility than his understanding of how the soul operates may be flawed. But there you go. I'm certainly no expert on the soul but I'm aware there are some here who claim to understand its behaviour so I'm hoping they can shed some light on these rather soul searching questions. Matt10 www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/teenage-girls-wish-for-preservation-after-death-agreed-to-by-courtInteresting story in the news today which surely raises the question as to what happens to the soul of a person who chooses to be cryogenically frozen should scientific progress ever enable the cryogenically frozen body to return to life. Would the soul that had departed the body on death return to the body following the successful defrosting of the deceased? Could a soul actually leave heaven or hell or purgatory to return to the body of the resurrected person? And could there be a delay on its return, for example if the soul was unaware that the defrosting had occurred? Or could a resurrected body exist without a soul? Or would it be given a new soul? Could a soul that had moved on to enjoy eternal life, return to a resurrected body but on the second death (due to the future life choices or a change in the beliefs of the resurrected body) be sent to hell following the body's second death? I heard an evangelical Christian respond to this story by stating that death only occurs when the soul leaves the body and implying that a body which had medically died may not actually be dead if the possibility exists for the body to be restored to life. Why he felt the need to say this when such a possibility does not currently exist was certainly not clear. He gave the impression that the soul of the cryogenically frozen would not actually leave the body despite death having occurred. I presumed this was a clever way of attempting to get around having to answer any awkward questions around what happens to the soul. Of course this is an absurd position to take. One can almost imagine the soul hovering around the recently deceased looking for evidence of anyone approaching who looks like they might cart them off to a freezer before deciding whether or not to depart. Whatever it was he was saying it didn't seem to make any sense. I don't even think it made sense to him and he soon started talking about abortion. Interesting that a man who is vehemently opposed to redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage should suddenly seem completely open to redefining death rather than contemplate the possibility than his understanding of how the soul operates may be flawed. But there you go. I'm certainly no expert on the soul but I'm aware there are some here who claim to understand its behaviour so I'm hoping they can shed some light on these rather soul searching questions. Matt10 It will be interesting to hear the rationalizations that will be made on this conundrum.
When the solution to the that problem is to simply to realize that there is NO "soul!"
The idea of there being a "soul" within this material body is only the creation of mankind in order to make themselves feel "special," - more important than the others in the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 19, 2016 0:23:31 GMT -5
There is no denying that humans are a species of animals. If you deny that other animals exist post death through survival of the soul, at what stage of evolution did the soul become part of the human animal? Brain death results in the death of the organism. There is no evidence that any component of any organism survives death other than through a composting process (good for the vege garden ).
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 19, 2016 0:53:19 GMT -5
when a person ACTUALLY dies the soul departs it all thats left is a hunk of flesh they could freeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont return... that does bring up the interesting question what would happen if a LIVE person were frozen would the soul linger? Returns to God who gave it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 25, 2016 19:41:52 GMT -5
@wally said: when a person ACTUALLY dies the soul departs it all thats left is a hunk of flesh they could freeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont return... that does bring up the interesting question what would happen if a LIVE person were frozen would the soul linger? speakReturns to God who gave it in the first place. Do you ever wonder that the brain is the source of all functions in the bodies of humans and other species? and that when the brain ceases to function, death is final. When adding up* information, and looking at the bigger picture outside of an ancient book compiled in a time when people did not understand the natural world and fear was an expected response, it just falls into place and makes sense: that we are no different to the infinite other non-human individuals who are conceived, live and die. Most believers accept that humans are the only ones who will survive death. The original resurrection concept placates people to this present day as death is overwhelmingly viewed as something to fear. Death-denying is a salient motivator for belief in salvation. * Adding up is a colloquialism for applying critical thinking. Faith forms the stop-gap to those failed sums framed on extraordinary, unevidenced assertions. One of which is that the soul returns to god who gave it in the first place. Evolution is a proven fact. Not one person has explained at what point of evolution the soul became part of the human organism. So faith, the enemy of reason, is again called upon as that stop-gap in a sum that fails to add up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 20:13:22 GMT -5
Evolution is a proven fact. Not one person has explained at what point of evolution the soul became part of the human organism. not everyone believes in evolution whether you believe it be fact or not and since your asking some who don't believe in it your going to get an answer you wont like.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2016 20:35:02 GMT -5
Evolution is a proven fact. Not one person has explained at what point of evolution the soul became part of the human organism. not everyone believes in evolution whether you believe it be fact or not and since your asking some who don't believe in it your going to get an answer you wont like. Wally, you may not want to believe that Evolution is a proven fact, but there is no other belief that comes even close to it as to how life evolved.
It really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, -what is true is true.
It doesn't need your acceptance as to whether it is a fact or not.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 25, 2016 21:05:25 GMT -5
I agree , dmmichgood, like you stated, that evolution is a belief. To credit or believe that evolution is the source or beginning of life one has to ignore or disbelieve a law of biology, that Pasteur "proved" that life only comes from life ? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2016 1:53:55 GMT -5
I agree , dmmichgood, like you stated, that evolution is a belief. To credit or believe that evolution is the source or beginning of life one has to ignore or disbelieve a law of biology, that Pasteur "proved" that life only comes from life ? Alvin Alvin, I believe that you misunderstood Pasteur's work.
It really had nothing to do with evolution.
It was about an entirely different subject. Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.
Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.
A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular.
Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.
Maybe I can explain it a bit.
At that time there was the belief that the maggots were on dead flesh ONLY because it was dead flesh. They didn't realize the it was flies which laid their eggs on the dead flesh which when they hatched were maggots!
I know that such an idea sounds crazy to us now, but that is what they believed and it was Pasteur who did experiments which showed us that it wasn't true.
That is what scientists DO!
That is why I would rather depend on science to show me truth rather than to believe any religious dogma that has been around god only knows how long!
(pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 26, 2016 9:33:23 GMT -5
I understood your post to state that evolution was the best or closest correct belief to the cause or beginning of life. If so, one has to disregard the irrefutable law of biogenesis accepted and supported by science. Basically two options to the origon of life- either it was created or it created itself - spontaneous generation.Alvin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 10:24:49 GMT -5
I agree , dmmichgood, like you stated, that evolution is a belief. To credit or believe that evolution is the source or beginning of life one has to ignore or disbelieve a law of biology, that Pasteur "proved" that life only comes from life ? Alvin Of course DMG didn't state that evolution is a belief, she stated that evolution is a fact. One might well wonder how you could possibly have misunderstood that especially given that her post was a mere 3 sentences long and she used the word "fact" in each of them. I also note that in response to a post about the evolution of life you make a point about the origin of life. In fact you have now made two posts about the origin of life in response to a poster who hasn't made any mention of the origin of life in either of the two posts you were responding to. i think for the sake of clarity it is worth pointing out that the evolution of life to which DMG refers IS a fact while the biblical story of the origin of life (involving talking serpents and the removal of Adam's rib) is merely a belief that some people hold. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 26, 2016 10:29:50 GMT -5
Hi matt. Am i understanding you and dmmigood correctly or incorrectly that you believe evolution is the cause for the beginning of life? Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 10:43:22 GMT -5
when a person ACTUALLY dies the soul departs it all thats left is a hunk of flesh they could freeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont return... that does bring up the interesting question what would happen if a LIVE person were frozen would the soul linger? I note that you haven't actually addressed the issue which was presented. I note also that Nathan hasn't understood the question and, rather than responding to the questions posed, formulated his own question and then went on to answer that question instead. I'll ask the question again. What happens to the soul which belongs to a body which has died, is then cryogenically frozen and then restored to life some 200 years later. This isn't a live person being frozen. This is a dead person undergoing a process which (if I understand it correctly) involves the removal of the blood from the body and remaining dead for 200 years. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 10:50:51 GMT -5
Hi matt. Am i understanding you and dmmigood correctly or incorrectly that you believe evolution is the cause for the beginning of life? Alvin I can't quite figure out how you have come to that understanding. I haven't said anything about the beginning of life other than to point out that you keep referring to it. I'd therefore be interested in his you came to that understanding. Did you come to your understanding as a result of carefully studying comments I have previously posted? Help me out here. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 26, 2016 12:01:10 GMT -5
I think my misunderstanding came from dmmichgood post where i obviously misunderdtood her to say that evolution was the best belief to explain the "evolution of life" and was looking for clarification. My bad sorry alvin
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 26, 2016 13:48:24 GMT -5
If I may:
The study of the origin of life involves the attempt to understand how life first appeared; what was its cause; how did it happen; where, and why, and who or what was its cause.
The study of the evolution of life takes as its starting point some point AFTER the origin of life, and involves the study of how life progressed, and branched, and changed over time after its origin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 14:01:33 GMT -5
when a person ACTUALLY dies the soul departs it all thats left is a hunk of flesh they could freeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont return... that does bring up the interesting question what would happen if a LIVE person were frozen would the soul linger? I note that you haven't actually addressed the issue which was presented. I note also that Nathan hasn't understood the question and, rather than responding to the questions posed, formulated his own question and then went on to answer that question instead. I'll ask the question again. What happens to the soul which belongs to a body which has died, is then cryogenically frozen and then restored to life some 200 years later. This isn't a live person being frozen. This is a dead person undergoing a process which (if I understand it correctly) involves the removal of the blood from the body and remaining dead for 200 years. Matt10 i did answer the question but i'll answer it again... when the body ACTUALLY dies the soul leaves the body and is not coming back it goes to heaven or to hell where it resides for eternity. you can freeze and unfreeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont be coming back it would be just a hunk of flesh thats breathing probably with medical help.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2016 17:00:45 GMT -5
I note that you haven't actually addressed the issue which was presented. I note also that Nathan hasn't understood the question and, rather than responding to the questions posed, formulated his own question and then went on to answer that question instead. I'll ask the question again. What happens to the soul which belongs to a body which has died, is then cryogenically frozen and then restored to life some 200 years later. This isn't a live person being frozen. This is a dead person undergoing a process which (if I understand it correctly) involves the removal of the blood from the body and remaining dead for 200 years. Matt10 i did answer the question but i'll answer it again... when the body ACTUALLY dies the soul leaves the body and is not coming back it goes to heaven or to hell where it resides for eternity. you can freeze and unfreeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont be coming back it would be just a hunk of flesh thats breathing probably with medical help. Then for those people like Christians who believe that a living body HAS a soul why would they even want to come back and live without a soul?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 17:17:03 GMT -5
i did answer the question but i'll answer it again... when the body ACTUALLY dies the soul leaves the body and is not coming back it goes to heaven or to hell where it resides for eternity. you can freeze and unfreeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont be coming back it would be just a hunk of flesh thats breathing probably with medical help. Then for those people like Christians who believe that a living body HAS a soul why would they even want to come back and live without a soul? they wouldn't and won't...
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 26, 2016 17:27:02 GMT -5
The word soul comes from nephesh in hebrew and psuche in greek and both are used to denote an individual's incarnate life force. In the noahide covenant the soul is said to be tied up in the blood so it is intimately tied to and not separate from the flesh. Human feelings and attitudes arise from the soul and so it is one's 'soul' - one's very life force - which 'panteth' after god in passages such as psalm 42.
The word spirit comes from ruakh in hebrew and pneuma in greek and both are used to denote the lifebreath - movement of air. Though one's words - religious or otherwise - are carried via the spirit. The word doesn't mean a feeling or attitude - no matter that thats how is how it gets twisted in 2x2-ism. Emotions and attitudes - for good or ill - are thing that arise from the flesh and are more related to soul than spirit and thats how they are used in the bible. God's spirit/ruakh/pneuma breathed into the thing fashioned and adam became an incarnate living soul/nephesh/psuche. And yes animals also have spirits/lifebreath and according solomon it isn't known whether their spirits return to god or to the dust with their bodies.
Suspending animation in instances like cryogenic freezing the soul has not departed the flesh - assuming that it is still alive tho suspended and then revived. Now as to what happens to the spirit - and I'm also ready for additional insight - at death I think the bible shows it returning at least in some cases to its source in god. My take is that souls await resurrection. Some like enoch and elijah and those slain in the tribulation in revelation 6 their bodies and/or spirits and/or souls are caught up direct to heaven so its not as if there is a hard and fast rule.
And yeah evolution - or more properly selective change and differentiation - is something observable and so it exists. In my mind it doesn't explain life at all or even differentiation entirely. Even with all the correct building blocks in ideal proportions theres not yet been an instance of lab-produced life and despite centuries of experimentation not even reanimation of complete cells that have died - ceased functioning not merely suspended frozen. We understand in great detail how cells and the parts of cells work - and even how to make genetic modifications and transplants to cells and viruses - but not what makes them alive. Maybe like the false prophet of revelation someone will manage to fabricate from scratch or reanimate but the bible suggest it won't be a living being. Nor do the 4 billion years that life has been possible on earth explain diversity or some major leaps required - no mechanism that plausibly explains selection/evolution process that would make random strands of proteins become active rna and then the huge leap to cellular bacterial life and then going to primitive multicellular plants and primitive animals or even a compelling explanation for the adaptation/survival 'instinct' that is supposed to be the force behind the whole shebang - . What seems like a long but graspable long time is still a little-understood - one might say implausibly 'miraculous' - progression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 20:58:28 GMT -5
I think my misunderstanding came from dmmichgood post where i obviously misunderdtood her to say that evolution was the best belief to explain the "evolution of life" and was looking for clarification. My bad sorry alvin Fortunately Gene has now provided a wonderfully simple clarification of the difference between the origin of life and evolution. Hopefully this will ensure that no one mixes up the two again. I fear there is a tendency for some (believers) to (appear to) misunderstand the difference between the two and seek to divert discussions on evolution to one on the origin of life. I suspect this may be an attempt to associate the lack of certainty around how life began with the theory of the evolution of life for the purposes of casting doubt on the facts relating to the evolution of life. However, no matter how much doubt one seeks to cast on the evolution of life, the facts remain the facts. And the evolution of life is a fact whether one believes it or not. Of course evolution does not necessarily rule out life beginning a result of an act of (a) God. But what it does rule out is the possibility of the Genesis story about the biblical God creating Adam being accurate. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:10:07 GMT -5
I note that you haven't actually addressed the issue which was presented. I note also that Nathan hasn't understood the question and, rather than responding to the questions posed, formulated his own question and then went on to answer that question instead. I'll ask the question again. What happens to the soul which belongs to a body which has died, is then cryogenically frozen and then restored to life some 200 years later. This isn't a live person being frozen. This is a dead person undergoing a process which (if I understand it correctly) involves the removal of the blood from the body and remaining dead for 200 years. Matt10 i did answer the question but i'll answer it again... when the body ACTUALLY dies the soul leaves the body and is not coming back it goes to heaven or to hell where it resides for eternity. you can freeze and unfreeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont be coming back it would be just a hunk of flesh thats breathing probably with medical help. This is interesting. You seem to be saying that in 200 years time a body which is restored to life would exist with no soul. This seems to be getting perilously close to the position of those who have claimed all along that living bodies have no soul. If this indeed was the case would it mean that the resurrected body could engage in sinful activities without the fear of being judged and ending up in hell? I think I'm starting to see the benefits of being cryogenically frozen. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:21:59 GMT -5
Suspending animation in instances like cryogenic freezing the soul has not departed the flesh - assuming that it is still alive tho suspended and then revived. Now as to what happens to the spirit - and I'm also ready for additional insight - at death I think the bible shows it returning at least in some cases to its source in god. My take is that souls await resurrection. Some like enoch and elijah and those slain in the tribulation in revelation 6 their bodies and/or spirits and/or souls are caught up direct to heaven so its not as if there is a hard and fast rule. I'm certainly no expert on the issue of cryogenic freezing. However my understanding was that the freezing process only commenced AFTER the person had died. Are you suggesting that all those who have been cryogenically frozen are actually still alive? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:28:21 GMT -5
i did answer the question but i'll answer it again... when the body ACTUALLY dies the soul leaves the body and is not coming back it goes to heaven or to hell where it resides for eternity. you can freeze and unfreeze the body till doomsday but the soul wont be coming back it would be just a hunk of flesh thats breathing probably with medical help. This is interesting. You seem to be saying that in 200 years time a body which is restored to life would exist with no soul. This seems to be getting perilously close to the position of those who have claimed all along that living bodies have no soul. If this indeed was the case would it mean that the resurrected body could engage in sinful activities without the fear of being judged and ending up in hell? I think I'm starting to see the benefits of being cryogenically frozen. Matt10 we seem to be getting our definitions mixed up. most christians would say that a body wouldn't be really alive without the soul. if you were to unfreeze them and jump start the body it would just lay there and nothing would happen since it doesn't have a soul. YOU on the other hand think that the body would get up walk around and talk and thats pure conjecture and speculation you might as well believe in God if your going to believe that...
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 26, 2016 22:30:53 GMT -5
What evidence is there that the soul is a separate entity and can exist after death?
In all seriousness, writings in an ancient book which presents talking snakes and asses and other magical tricks, just cannot be relied upon as evidence.
So where is the support for the notion that we have both a physical body and an independent, intangible, immortal entity?
Beliefs like this may be soothing to some, however facts are important.
It is so much less complicated when realising that our brain is also the source of abstract thoughts, hopes and dreams and our spiritual self (spirituality is no longer only the domain of the religious but hones in on what 'makes each of us tick').
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 26, 2016 23:58:28 GMT -5
I'm certainly no expert on the issue of cryogenic freezing. However my understanding was that the freezing process only commenced AFTER the person had died. Are you suggesting that all those who have been cryogenically frozen are actually still alive? Matt10 Yes after the heart stops at least. The heart stopping isn't necessarily the point of death tho and depending on the cell involved and temperature and the cause of death and other factors there can be several to many minutes before cells start dying from hypoxia. There are other things - like enzymes and toxins and heat and programmed cell senescence - that can cause cell morbidity/death and resuscitation isn't even envisioned for such situations. Cryogenic freezing would have to take place before cell death in order to have any future possibility of resuscitation. Otherwise theres no value in freezing and just freezing a bit of dna would probably be as effective as zapping the entire body for making a clone using a living donor cell - which wouldn't reproduce the same individual but just a close twin. Some real scams have been perpetrated in the freezing business and many and probably most of those who pay for that process have major or entire cell death before the van arrives from the cryo company - walt disney's head included. The point of cryo freezing is to preserve live cells or whole organisms and its not something along the lines of mary shelley's 're-animation' - the hope dangled in front of potential cryo customers is that they can be unfrozen and whatever it was that was about to completely kill them beyond resuscitation will be fixable by the time they get thawed out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 3:46:02 GMT -5
This is interesting. You seem to be saying that in 200 years time a body which is restored to life would exist with no soul. This seems to be getting perilously close to the position of those who have claimed all along that living bodies have no soul. If this indeed was the case would it mean that the resurrected body could engage in sinful activities without the fear of being judged and ending up in hell? I think I'm starting to see the benefits of being cryogenically frozen. Matt10 we seem to be getting our definitions mixed up. most christians would say that a body wouldn't be really alive without the soul. if you were to unfreeze them and jump start the body it would just lay there and nothing would happen since it doesn't have a soul. YOU on the other hand think that the body would get up walk around and talk and thats pure conjecture and speculation you might as well believe in God if your going to believe that... I don't think it's a case of anyone getting their definitions mixed up. I think it's more a case of you insisting on giving a view as to whether the process of cryogenically freezing a body and then restoring it to life at some later date can ever be a success. While this may be interesting in itself it doesn't answer the question posed in the OP hence (as I pointed out previously) you are not in fact answering the question of what happens to the soul in the event of science ever progressing to the point where a cryogenically frozen body can be successfully restored to life. I'm certainly not saying that I think it is possible for a body which had been cryogenically frozen to get up and walk and talk (we all know that isn't currently possibly) but it just happens to be the premise on which my (hypothetical) question is based. Matt10
|
|