Slashdot Mirror


Doctors Claim Suspended Animation Success

Philoneist.com writes to tell us the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that US doctors have developed a process to induce hypothermia in trauma patients, shutting down their bodily functions for up to three hours. The process has been proven about 90% effective in trials with pigs and now the doctors would like the go ahead to test it on humans who would "probably die" under normal care.

390 comments

  1. What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

    I expect that it only works on pigs, because they are dirty animals and don't have a soul.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    1. Re:What about going to heaven? by pdbogen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parent has an interesting post that probably deserved to be modded up, even if it is a bit flambaity (just because *you* don't believe in heaven doesn't mean everybody doesn't, and this is still on-topic)-

      Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations?
      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial? Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?

    2. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no soul, of course.

    3. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christians generally bury their dead, because Christians believe in the resurrection of the body.

    4. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious considerations aside, a Christian burial is about showing respect to the body, as a container of the soul, by not desecrating it, or seeing it burn or rot away.

    5. Re:What about going to heaven? by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or it could be thought that afterlife transends logic and science and that kind of mistake doesn't happen.

    6. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1
      Easy : if you can come back, then you've never been there all the way. Therefore, it's not different from a normal coma, except it's an induced one.

      Think about it : without proper medication, some illnesses are 100% fatal (rabies [hydrophobia]) ; so if you let them evoluate, you end up in heaven or hell. But there's a cure - should we stop using it because it delays our potential face to face with destiny ?

    7. Re:What about going to heaven? by toggles · · Score: 0

      I hope it does work on humans, then we can actually live Resident Evil.

    8. Re:What about going to heaven? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      What about people who are clinically dead and cannot be resuscitated?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've thought about that for awhile. The soul knows whether or not the body is coming back. I wonder if there is some truth to the Hebrew legend that the soul waits near the body for three days before leaving.

    10. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one thing to be sure, no? Try it out and see what happens...

      And if you (like a true scientist) don't believe in supernatural things, there's only benefit.

    11. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a Christ follower but I have many problems with Christianity and the overall Body of the church. Your questions are some of the more frustrating ones because the average Christian is so holier than thou when they answer it.

      I like to ask other Christians:

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      The answers to all three questions are basically: we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers. The Bible is pretty strict about holding other believers accountable for their actions, but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.

    12. Re:What about going to heaven? by yincrash · · Score: 1

      According to the article, the brain isn't dead, just deprived of oxygen and in a state of hypothermia.

    13. Re:What about going to heaven? by hutchy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think you are an unthinking whako!

    14. Re:What about going to heaven? by rlbond86 · · Score: 1

      Life is 100% fatal.

    15. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 1

      If I got hit by a bus and was bleeding to death and likey to die, I would be glad to undergo this treatment with a 90% success rate!

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    16. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      save valuable real estate

      Actually, we do quite often. at least in Europe where space is more at a premium than in America. Corpses are shuffled periodically to make place for newer corpses.

    17. Re:What about going to heaven? by mikael · · Score: 1



      There was an article which mentioned that scientists had figured out where the highest levels of consciousness in the brain was. Basically, this was the one region of the brain (central front left lobe) where if this area was damaged, the person would never regain consciousness, regardless of any stimulus given.

      At normal body-temperature, brain cells can only last 2-3 minutes without an oxygen supply, before starting to incur damage. But if they are cooled down (as with hypothermia), they can last much longer.

      So as long as this area of the brain remains undamaged, a person isn't really dead.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or how about this: assuming that heaven and God both actually exists, do you really think God is up there thinking "oh look what those clever little humans have managed to do this time, what am i going to do now?" i mean seriously, if God and heaven are real, God's got everything in control, it's not like human's are going to somehow "fool" God. and then when you really realize this, all those little "but what if..." don't even matter.

      all this is of course based on 3 big assumptions: heaven exists, God exists, and He's got everything in control. and honestly if it's the last point thats bothering you, i wouldn't be worring to much about the other 2...

    19. Re:What about going to heaven? by CommiePuddin · · Score: 1

      I'll take a crack shot at this one:

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life"). [sic]

      Which is the more dramatic occasion? The conception of a child (which many times can't be definitively nailed down), or the actual live birth? It's just a bigger occasion. Why do so many couples celebrate their wedding anniversary rather than their engagement anniversary, or their "first date" anniversary?

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead. [sic]

      Who is to say the moment death occurs. I'm of the belief that the moment of death and the moment that doctors pronounce a person dead are not necessarily the same time. Which body part's death constitutes complete death? If it's the brain, are all terminal patients hooked up to EKG machines to get more precise measurements of time of death?

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth. [sic]

      Overgeneralization at its greatest, and tantamount to saying "why do all Muslims want to blow up America?" There is a quality of life question there that is in dispute between the different denominations of Christianity. Some strictly say that all life is sacred and should be protected at all costs, despite that life's quality. Many times this comes from a family in denial of the finality of a loved one's condition. Others believe that when quality of life is non-existant, then allow nature (God?) to run its course. It just re-stresses the importance of a living will or health care directive.

      --
      x = x + ++x; //It's golden.
    20. Re:What about going to heaven? by freidog · · Score: 1

      Did you learn nothing from the South Park parody of the Terri Shiavo mess?
      When they revive you your soul returns to the body, thus depriving God of his Keanu Reeves figure and ensuring the armies of Satan will crush the Mormons in heaven.

    21. Re:What about going to heaven? by SIGFPE · · Score: 1

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days

      Why not? We're talking about when we schedule parties, not the timing of some scientific experiment.

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      You're confusing cause an effect. A person says they are dead because they have determined that they have ascended to Heaven (or descended to Hell).

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      There are more organs than the brain in a human body.

      I have many problems with Christianity

      Well now you have three less. They were pretty easy to clear up. Maybe you'd like to get onto the hard stuff next.
      --
      -- SIGFPE
    22. Re:What about going to heaven? by 3.14159265 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

      ehehehe! Or not.

      Pigs are actually very clean. Sure, they like to roll in the mud to stay cool (and they tend to get sunburns quite easily, like me), and to keep bugs under control (I don't need that, not yet.)
      If they'd be given a choice, I'm sure they'd rather hang out in green fields and pastures and run naked in the woods (I know I would! :), instead of being stuck in meat-producing-pig-hell-shitholes.
      And I'm sure they have a soul, try to scratch them, it makes them crazy! They know pleasure, and to enjoy pleasure is no reason to go to hell (I hope!)

      Going now, the sweet and sour spare ribs are waiting!
      -----
      Born stupid? Try again.

    23. Re:What about going to heaven? by msh104 · · Score: 1

      I always wondered about this kind of thought.

      In general life we always see our body as a thing, the "you" of today is the "you" of tommorow and the "you" of the past, you look in the mirror and say: he! that's me, you look in a picture album and watch your baby pictures and say: he! that's me too!

      but in reality your body is more like a progress. every cell in your body is replaced over and over again in your life. from a biological perspective the body you where born with is not the same (as in: not composed of the same matter) as the body you will die with.

      If we can say that this is the case, then i wonder,
      is there any purpose in having your body resurected?
      will it have to be composed of the same matter that you where origionally composed from? will something that is composed from different matter but in the same "profile" that you where also be you? if not, then what would happen to the people who became people from the same matter that other people where. (cannibalistic people for example are composed of the same matter that the humans who where being eaten where)

      or does god to "snapshots" of people just before they die, so he can "recover" them at the end of days...?

      I always found this mather quite mindbending...
      any insights from the ressurection front?

    24. Re:What about going to heaven? by J_Darnley · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what the doctors what to find out? They want to see if they can do it with a human that isn't the son of God.

    25. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 1

      I like to ask Christians why God doesn't make everyone on Earth good.

      Normally the response is "God gave us freewill so we can make up our own minds"

      To which i normally reply "So does that mean in heaven we don't have any freewill"

      watching "The Root of All Evil" has made me start wondering why I stopped asking that question, and why I've push my believes (I'm an atheist) to one side so not to offend people

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    26. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is the more dramatic occasion?

      I agree, but on the other hand I have Christian coalition groups all around me badmouthing my beliefs when they say that "life begins at conception" at whatever pro-life rally they're at. If it does, celebrate that day. It is a better use of your time than trying to control those that God never intended believers to control.

      Who is to say the moment death occurs.

      True. This is why I'm consistently reminding those in my congregation to leave their wishes in writing with their family so that the family knows what to do if the worst happens (vegetative state, etc). In the end, and in my opinion, only God knows when you're heading for heaven. Why should anyone choose by the person who is dying? I feel the same way about making the choice to end one's life.

      It just re-stresses the importance of a living will or health care directive.

      Bingo. This is how I live -- trying to follow God's Word while understanding that we live with free will. Make it easy on your family and friends and leave your testament for what will happen in any situation.

      I'd love to find a generic living will/directive that is focused on the choices Christ followers find hard to do. Anyone have a link?

    27. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      To which i normally reply "So does that mean in heaven we don't have any freewill"

      Before I found my religious beliefs, this was a very tough question that I often asked believers.

      I've found the best answer I can give is that once I'm in heaven, the veil of uncertainty will be lifted. Once I can see the consequences of an action, there would be no need to take any direction but the one with positive consequences. Does that mean free will in gone? Not really, but why make bad decisions when the good one is obvious?

    28. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations? Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      They are soulless abominations, and should be burned!

    29. Re:What about going to heaven? by CommiePuddin · · Score: 1

      I'd love to find a generic living will/directive that is focused on the choices Christ followers find hard to do. Anyone have a link?

      I found this one after a quick google for Christian "living will". That should give you a good head start.

      --
      x = x + ++x; //It's golden.
    30. Re:What about going to heaven? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      It's not always possible to know the date of conception. Birth is when a new life enters into our world, not when life itself began but when that life began functioning on its own. We celebrate a lot of things that the Bible doesn't say we should celebrate (but also doesn't say we shouldn't).

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about being pronounced dead by a doctor? That's the legal time of death, but doesn't necessarily strictly correspond to reality; someone saying you're dead has no bearing on whether or not you actually are dead.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      Again, I don't know what you mean here.

      The answers to all three questions are basically: we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers. The Bible is pretty strict about holding other believers accountable for their actions, but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.

      Yes, except for the Great Commission. We are charged to spread the Gospel, and try to bring salvation to the lost. Jesus Christ spent a lot of time around sinners, including corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes, and rather than condemning them for their sins, He offered an alternative. The Bible says we are to follow Christ's example.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    31. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't god make earth like that?

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    32. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life")."

      I'm not a Christian, but here's an answer: we can be certain when the birthday was. We may not always be sure when the conception date was.

      So we have a choice: A. most people pick an arbitrary day close to the day of their conception or B. Eveyone uses their birthday.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    33. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one goes to heaven for living a good life. You only go to heaven by accepting Jesus as your advocate. No one is good enough to get into heaven on "good behavior." Sorry, that's just the way it is.

    34. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't god make earth like that?

      I believe that He has -- its called heaven. I don't really believe in the artist's form of heaven and hell. To me, heaven would be a temporary place to hang out in the love of God until the earth is returned to us -- giving us that perfect body and perfect knowledge. Hell is not fire and brimstone and pain for eternity, I believe it is just eternity without the light of God's love.

      Of course, my beliefs are very different than typical Christians believe. I think the average Christian would rather scare a non-believer into salvation than offer them the choice to come and ask questions themselves.

    35. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a funny comment. Almost funnier is how it's actually been modded "flamebait"! :)

    36. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Yes, except for the Great Commission. We are charged to spread the Gospel, and try to bring salvation to the lost. Jesus Christ spent a lot of time around sinners, including corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes, and rather than condemning them for their sins, He offered an alternative. The Bible says we are to follow Christ's example.

      I offer my testimony to the (possibly) unsaved every day, but I don't push it through fear or retribution speeches. You know when someone is open to receiving the Gospel and when they aren't.

      The best way to open yourself up to spreading the Gospel is by living a really awesome life and having people say "Why are you so happy?" or "Why aren't you bothered by [zzz]?" Once the question is asked, you can offer the reason through spreading the Gospel to questioning minds.

      If I tell people they'll be condemned for their sins, they are much more likely to never be interested in what makes me happy every day and lead me to peace rather than depression.

    37. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do I have to believe in God and be a Christian to get that opportunity to go hang out with god? Or can anyone do it?

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    38. Re:What about going to heaven? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

      Mine doesn't. And don't call me Shirley.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    39. Re:What about going to heaven? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Some religions say that indeed we should. So is it suicide to deny yourself lifesaving treatment (or murder to deny it to your children)? Or is it a sin to artificially extend your life by accepting it?

    40. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rabies is a bad example--treatment helps very little with it. If you recover from it, it's your own body doing it one way or another.

    41. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Or can anyone do it?

      As a previously agnostic geek, my believer response has never been perfect. I'm always looking for a good way to reply to that comment without coming off as the typical Bible-thumping religious right wacko that I'm friends with :)

      The answer is everyone can do it, and it is the easiest thing in the world to do. I firmly believe that the only guaranteed way to feeling God's love for every is basically to hear the Gospel, believe in it, repent as commanded and confess that you believe in salvation. The final step (baptism) is not required as far as I believe.

      If you've heard the Gospel and take some personal time to give it real thought (I call it "prayer" but that's not an easy word for non-believers to understand), the other steps are really easy and I do believe that you'll feel an instant change after taking the other steps. Non-believers will say that this feeling is just our minds telling us that we need to feel good, but I'm sure that its more than that -- much more.

      If you're an atheist geek and you're depressed and constantly feeling lost and alone, drop me an e-mail if you want some guidance. I've been where you are today, and I'm not one of those guys trying to push my beliefs on the masses, but I also believe there are unique opportunities other there for those who have been led to try to find out more.

    42. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent funny. It made me giggle.

    43. Re: What about going to heaven? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations? Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated? Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial?

      FWIW, doctrine varies from sect to sect. I was raised in a denomination that taught that judgement is deferred until the end of time, so in that case it doesn't seem as though resuscitation would be theologically problematic.

      Other sects have other beliefs. I have a relative who didn't want her father cremated according to his will, because she believes in resurrection of the body - doctrine that has plenty of other problems, but doesn't obviously have a problem with resuscitation.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    44. Re:What about going to heaven? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      I think because singing "Happy Fuckday to You" just isn't very family-friendly, when you get down to it.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    45. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      i don't know what whacky definition of life you're going by but using "self-sustained mass of chemical reactions" i'd say life does begin at conception. and like he already pointed out, you don't usually know date of conception. and a lot a babies used to die before their first birthday, so as birthday celebrations are a tradition started in olden times, it makes sense that it would be a celebration of actual birth and the person still being alive since it started in those earlier times

    46. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe God doesn't follow silly human invented conventions about what constitues 'death'.

    47. Re:What about going to heaven? by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 1

      Christian burial has nothing to do with when the soul leaves the body, but rather when it returns. The idea is that at the time of the second coming, all souls not condemned will return to their resurrected bodies and ascend directly to heaven. That's why burial is a required practice, and cremation was banned until Vatican II.

    48. Re: What about going to heaven? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > > To which i normally reply "So does that mean in heaven we don't have any freewill"

      > Before I found my religious beliefs, this was a very tough question that I often asked believers. I've found the best answer I can give is that once I'm in heaven, the veil of uncertainty will be lifted.

      How come that didn't work for Adam and Eve?

      > Once I can see the consequences of an action, there would be no need to take any direction but the one with positive consequences. Does that mean free will in gone? Not really, but why make bad decisions when the good one is obvious?

      But it will be possible, in principle, for people to sin in Heaven?

      And if they do, will they get kicked out?

      And what would be the point of putting other people in Hell, since they too will have all certainty removed? Wouldn't they do just as well in Heaven as anyone else would?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    49. Re: What about going to heaven? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Do I have to believe in God and be a Christian to get that opportunity to go hang out with god? Or can anyone do it?

      Look at His bumper stickers, to see whether it's one of those "no ass, no grass, no ride" situations.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    50. Re:What about going to heaven? by idlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I hope I'll go somewhere more interesting.

    51. Re: What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I don't think a lot of Christ followers will necessarily agree with my replies. I came to believing from a background of logic and liberty :)

      How come that didn't work for Adam and Eve?

      Adam and Eve were created in God's image but with the intent to see how Man would be outside of heaven -- away from God. God wanted to see if Man would still be able to live without His direct love (or as I like to see it, feeling his light and his warmth directly). Of course He knew the answer, which led us down the road of the Old Testament and which brought us to Jesus' life. That's a long story to tell here :)

      But it will be possible, in principle, for people to sin in Heaven?

      Interesting question and one that I love to debate with Christ followers of all beliefs.

      I believe that heaven is basically living directly under the light of God (His Love as some would call it). Imagine that you're in your bedroom, it is pitch black. Someone gives you this ancient tome that has all of life's questions answered perfectly. When you read this tome, everything you've ever wanted to know makes complete and total sense -- you finally can understand everything. Unfortunately you're in complete darkness. You find a light and turn it on so you can read this tome. It would take eternity to go through the entire tome, but reading it gives you every answer correctly and completely. You find out you can turn your back on the light, but doing so means you'd take some time to not find more answers.

      God's Light (heaven) is the ultimate Wikipedia with infinite links and always correct answers. Why WOULD you turn away from it if you're there?

      And what would be the point of putting other people in Hell, since they too will have all certainty removed?

      I don't really believe in Hell. I do believe that those who never found salvation (even though they were given then option to at least hear the Gospel and refused it) will live knowing God's Light exists, maybe they can even sense some of the glow and feel some of the heat -- but they'll be forever removed from it.

      Note that I do believe there MIGHT be other opportunities after death to come to the Lord, but all my opinions are founded from gnostic text and parts of the Word that aren't considered Canon by Christ followers of almost every congregation. It still gives me great debate to talk about it :) I don't think it is wise, though, to give non-believers false hope when the reality is salvation is such a simple step to take and can change one's life so quickly. It surprises me that so many of my friends don't want to hear the Gospel and give it a chance, being as simple as it is.

    52. Re: What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Look at His bumper stickers, to see whether it's one of those "no ass, no grass, no ride" situations.

      Haha, I abhor religious bumper stickers. My only bumper sticker is my "Vote = Rape, Vote = Murder, Vote = Theft" one that I made about 5 years ago and needs a serious update!

    53. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know what you mean. I ask why he would allow there to be anything bad in the world. Free will doesn't cover it.

      People who say that aren't really thinking about that God supposedly created *everything*-- not just the Earth and its creatures, but dark and light, up and down, good and evil, happiness, laughter, spleens, hydrogen, etc. Why not just create the universe so that there is no bad, no evil, nothing to ever be upsetting?

      If one responds to this suggestion by saying that this would make the world seem dull or pointless... well... God didn't have to create dullness or boredom or pointlessness either. If one responds by saying that God only brings the righteous to Heaven and the Earth is our proving ground... why did God have to make wickedness and bad people? Why not make everything wonderful for everyone all the time forever? Everyone would be worthy of heaven... or heck, put everyone on there to begin with!

      I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control.

      In any of these cases, God wouldn't be what the Bible suggests, and also he wouldn't really be reliable to come through on this whole heaven thing.

      It's not that I don't want to believe in God... I'd love to know that there is a place I go after I die that is even better than living. But it makes no sense that God created a universe like this. It makes no sense that people like murderers and adulterers and rapists make God sad and angry... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe, they wouldn't even be there.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    54. Re:What about going to heaven? by AsparagusChallenge · · Score: 1

      "Why celebrate birthdays and not conception"

      Because most of the people celebrating were most probably not witnessing conception. At least I'd hope so. Parties are frequently on a day many people on it can relate to.

    55. Re:What about going to heaven? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you meant to say: I think you are an unthinking Waco!

    56. Re:What about going to heaven? by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      Er, if they have no brain activity, they're dead. End of story. Read up on the definition of brain death. Perhaps you meant persistent vegetative state?

    57. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's all according to his plan. You'll understand once you get to heaven and the Veil of Uncertainty ( +2 ) is lifted.

      So you best start believing!

      /sarcasm

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    58. Re:What about going to heaven? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      There have been a great many (necessarily) subjective reports from people who have been well on their way to dead and then resuscitated. Most involving bright light and seeing deceased loved ones, a few of just wandering about out of body (a number combining those two) and a few reports of hellish experiances.

      Atheists ascribe that to the strange half functioning of a brain shutting down, those with spiritual beliefs naturally see it as confirmation. A great many (including atheists) who experiance near death seem to find that it renews their spirituality. A fair number report being told it is not their time and being sent back from the light.

      With a nearly complete lack of data, science really offers no opinion on the matter. Though fully controlled experimentation is possible, it is not really ethical, so this state of affairs will likely continue.

      I imagine that this method of applying medical hypothermia will be just one more of several ways someone might have a near death experiance.

    59. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      By "treatment" I meant "vaccination just after the bite" ; that's how Pasteur proved himself right on the 6th of july, 1885, by curing young Louis Meister.

    60. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well maybe you could think of it as some sort of vacation. Does that fix your belief?

    61. Re:What about going to heaven? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Wow a religious question asked and lots of discussion ensues with no scriptures being used... typical.

      I'll throw this one in as food for thought. I'd do more but I gotta split right now. From Ecclesiastes 9.

      4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. 8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. 9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. 10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

      So are you SURE the soul is immortal and life continues after death? Actually a living person IS a soul Ge.2:7, Nu.6:6, etc... a "dead soul" is usually translated "dead body" or "dead person" depending on your bible. So we ARE souls, we do not HAVE souls. That's why you occasionally hear things like "5 souls perished in the accident". It's an archaic usage which points to the original meaning. In addition, animals also ARE souls Ge.1:20, 1:24, etc... the exercise is left to the reader to check the hebrew if their bible prefers to leave out the literal meaning instead of using the correct word "soul".

      Remember that modern day religions very rarely follow the beliefs and practices of the originals... after all, that's why there's so many kinds of "Christianity". (Luke 18:8)

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    62. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I ask why he would allow there to be anything bad in the world. Free will doesn't cover it.

      Yet I can see how "bad things happening" would be directly a reaction to choices made through free will. I can't think of any bad things happening in my life that weren't directly because of choices I made, even if it seems like a cop out. My belief that our veil of uncertainty will be lifted after death leads me to believe that in the afterlife, we'll know what decisions not to make (eve if they aren't sinful decisions).

      Why not make everything wonderful for everyone all the time forever? Everyone would be worthy of heaven... or heck, put everyone on there to begin with!

      Sure, until you understand that God is a jealous God. If we want to worship idols and other gods, we're free to. He never promised not to test us.

      It makes no sense that people like murderers and adulterers and rapists make God sad and angry... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe, they wouldn't even be there.

      You're right, but it is not something that I could explain. People who know me know that I am the most logical person you'll ever meet. The non-believers can't believe that I believe in God. The believers can't believe that I'm a Christ follower, either, as I don't follow the same path they do.

      My life changed when I accepted Jesus in one big way -- I felt I knew why I was here and it didn't conflict one bit with my login and liberty beliefs.

      I guess that's the big problem with "pushing" religion, though. No one pushed it on me, and to say that God led me towards salvation in everything I was reading and researching makes sense after the fact, but would I have seen it that way before the fact?

      As for rape and murder and robbery, I don't know if I'd feel so certain that I couldn't commit these acts before I believe in God and the Word. I know that I'm utterly disgusted by the thought of any of the above now, but I can't recall how I felt before hand.

    63. Re:What about going to heaven? by hazem · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life"). [sic]

      Which is the more dramatic occasion?


      Well, coming from an x-Christian position, I would say that the moment the soul enters the body (conception) is vastly more dramatic and important than the moment that body passes through a vagina. What could be more important than that moment that God gives you your soul? The date of birth is pretty much an irrelevant incedent - or it should be.

      That is, if you really believe in all that *stuff*. And of course, for this crowd, any part of their body passing through a vagina for a second time will surely rank as the most dramatic moment of their life.

    64. Re:What about going to heaven? by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think because singing "Happy Fuckday to You" just isn't very family-friendly, when you get down to it.

      Only in puritanical societies is sex a family un-friendly thing. Sex is the reason we have families. Without it, there's no offspring, and no families. It's ironic that people will adopt such deep close-mindedness that the very thing that is reponsible for their existence is deemed dirty and unworthy of being discussed in a family.

      It's that mind-bending lack clear thinking that makes me an x-xtian.

    65. Re:What about going to heaven? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

      For the same reason that Galileo's soul didn't go whooshing from Hell to Heaven when the Catholics decided to un-excommunicate him?

      I'm sure, if there is such a thing as a soul, those responsible for their disposition have figured out how to work in conjunction with modern medical technologies. Otherwise, from your stand-point, all people who have been medically dead have somehow lost their souls since it left instantaneously. And there's an awful lot of people who have been clinically dead and lived to tell about it.


      I expect that it only works on pigs, because they are dirty animals and don't have a soul.

      Why not? If God made pigs, then aren't pigs entitled to a little break here and there? I mean, surely if All Dogs Go To Heaven, the odd pig must be allowed in.

      Man, you people who believe in the Christian (*) god have the damnedest views of the world, and spend your time pondering the silliest things.

      (*) Note: Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same god even if they forget it from time to time.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    66. Re:What about going to heaven? by sunwukong · · Score: 1

      What about humming to the latest Camaro commercial or Motel 6 jingle?

    67. Re:What about going to heaven? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      First if you had a brain of your own, and did not follow someone's ideaology version of Christianity, ie Liberal Christianity which is almost Secularism, you might figure these things out for yourself. You also need to form a relationship with God/Jesus rather than use or abuse religion.

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").


      Traditionally one celebrates a birthday and not a conception day, because one cannot figure out the exact conception day even with using scientific equipment.

      Ironically Christians do celebrate the day that Mary conceived Jesus, so maybe Christians actually do celebrate conception days? If you were a real Christian, you'd know about that Christian Holiday named Immaculate Conception Day when Jesus was conceived and Good Friday when he died. There is also Assumption Day when Jesus went to Heaven. The fact that you do not know of these Christian holidays throws your Christianity into serious doubt and betrays your ignorance of what it is to be a Christian.

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      Huh? I was taught that we do not go into Heaven until Judgement Day at the end of the world when everyone is risen from the dead by Jesus and then judged. If you do not make it to Heaven, you end up in Purgatory until your sins are cleansed and then make it to Heaven, or if your sins are too much you end up in Hell. Anything else goes against Christian Dogma, as far as I know.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      Because one does not leave the earth until judgement day and if a body and brain can be brought back to life, the soul will return to it. Did you forget that Lazarus was dead for quite a while before Jesus rose him from the dead? That is Christianity 101. I take it you never actually read the bible, now did you? Lazarus obviously had his brain and body functions cease for quite a while, before being brought back to life.

      The answers to all three questions are basically: we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers. The Bible is pretty strict about holding other believers accountable for their actions, but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.

      Excuse me, what part of the bible did all of that come from? I thought we were supposed to help out the less fortunate, instead of just leaving the rest of the world alone. Granted we are not pushing our views on other people, but the views you claimed that Christians have, are views that I and many other Christians do not even hold. You seem to be quoting some crack-pipe version of Christianity with Secular roots, which seems to reveal that if that is what you were taught that Christianity was all about, that you are seriously wrong and need to do more research and analysis. I fully support your views and opinions, even if I do think that you are wrong and are a total nutcase and an Anti-Christian and a bigot. Next time I strongly suggest that you know and understand about what you are talking about before engaging such a heated debate. The truth and the facts are apparently things foreign to you, as far as I can tell.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    68. Re:What about going to heaven? by Tiro · · Score: 1
      If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial? Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?
      Interaction ritual theory in sociology explains this; the process of burial helps the dead's group of friends and family come together (and stay together) and put the loss behind them.
    69. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      The late Kerry Packer, Australia's richest man, said something like the following on television concerning the time when he was clinically dead and revived:

      The good news is, there is no devil. The bad news is, there is no heaven. There is nothing.

    70. Re:What about going to heaven? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as "death". Really.

      If you look at what has been considered as death, you'll notice that it keeps getting pushed father and farther away. Initially, a stopped heart was hopeless. Now we can fix that, but have trouble with brain damage. After some time, even if you restart the heart, there'd be mental damage or no meaningful activity at all. Now we're learning to preserve the body in such a way that we can delay death even longer.

      What happens is that death is not really an event that happens in any particular moment, but is just the point where we say "Ok, it's hopeless. We can't do anything else here". But since we keep pushing that back further and further, it's becoming quite obvious that eventually we'll be able to stop the damage by preserving the body, and we'll get better at repairing the damage that already exists.

      The idea of cryonics is that even though we can't do anything now, we can at least try to preserve things as they are, betting on the quite reasonable assumption that some day we'll be able to fix things we can't fix now.

      BTW, my knowledge is a bit fuzzy here, but my understanding is that "brain death" isn't limited to just plain inactivity, which apparently happens without ill effect during deep anesthesia.

    71. Re:What about going to heaven? by raoul666 · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control.

      He wants us to value life and not take it for granted? Life with no adversity would be pretty dull. Also, if life is so great, what's the point of heaven?

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    72. Re:What about going to heaven? by mcrbids · · Score: 1
      Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations?
      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial? Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?


      // OBLIGATORY SIMPSONS REFERENCE //

      Milhouse: Will there be cavemen in heaven?

      Sunday School Teacher: Certainly not!

      Bart: Uh, ma'am? What if you're a really good person, you get into a really, really bad fight and your leg gets gangrene and it has to be amputated. Will it be waiting for you in heaven?

      Sunday School Teacher: For the last time, Bart, yes!

      PAUSE

      Sunday School Teacher: Bart?

      Bart: What about a robot with a human brain?

      Sunday School Teacher: [at the breaking point] I don't know! All these questions!
      Is a little blind faith too much to ask!?!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    73. Re:What about going to heaven? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

      Um... No. Read the bible sometime.

      If you are a Christian than your soul sits around in limbo until Judgement day. So if they bring you back to life, you won't come back from heaven nor hell because you never went there.

      I think if you are Muslim you do get instant gratification though.

      I think in the Buddhist tradition you've got 49 days of being dead before you are reborn.

      However all of the above is bunk...

      However, if you really found the truth of what really happens when you die, you'd probaly shit your pants.

      Then again, there is a reason why dead bodies release their bowels upon death...

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    74. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      "Why God doesn't make everyone on Earth good ?" There are a couple of answers: 1. Humanities good (individually or collectively), is not His primary goal. 2. Only God is good. From human perspective, our good (individually or collectively) is our primary goal. When we make our good the primary goal, then we make ourselves into gods which competes with Him, the real God. Thus the conflict between humanity and God.

    75. Re:What about going to heaven? by icepick72 · · Score: 1
      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body

      That's is really interesting question (or assumption about what happens). When does the sould leave the body? What causes it to happen? Is it some kind of self-detach mechanism that fires when the heart and brain stop, which seems the most evident assumption to jump to ... or otherwise? I suppose if people are put into suspended animation and brought back from it, then indeed we have to look for other solutions. Of course it doesn't mean the human doesn't have a soul. That would be jumping to conclusions. But it looks like we could take the opportunity to re-evaluate the theory of how souls work. Super interesting indeed.

    76. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 1
      However, if you really found the truth of what really happens when you die, you'd probaly shit your pants


      If I'm lucky they will cut out as many organs as they can before they perish and give them to those who need them more than my dead body. Then at my request they will burn my body and grind up my bones and put them in a pot for a few years until everyone forgets about me and then sprinkle them in a garden or over a cliff top.



      I will be doing my part to continue the cycle of life and do as much as my dead body can not to hider it.



      Oh, and my conscious mind will stop recording memories shortly before I lose consciousness because of lack of oxygen, and if i'm luckly will cause a nice hallucination, which I will unfortunaly never remember



      If I'm an atheis, I believe I will just die.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    77. Re:What about going to heaven? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control.


      Before asking why God made the universe with evil in it, you should first ask why God made the universe at all. When you're an omnipotent, omniscient Diety, what is your motivation for doing anything? God could have just as easily just mentally calculated/simulated how a universe would work, down to the last atom, without going to the trouble of actually making one.


      So when you're omnipotent, and therefore anything you can think of doing is trivial to do and can be done with a snap of your fingers, what is the sole remaining problem in your life? boredom. Which leads us to the most likely reason for God having created the universe with evil in it... the universe is for His own entertainment, and he enjoys the drama.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    78. Re:What about going to heaven? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      I'll keep this in mind next time my kid walks in on me & the missus doing the horizontal tango....

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    79. Re:What about going to heaven? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Sort of. We (Yes, we. Flame me if you must prove unaccepting of other world views) believe that the soul which carries the actual 'person' bit of the person doesn't need a physical 'body' per-se to be resurrected in the next life.

      As far as I am aware there is no Christian requirement for whole burial, since the story of Revelations will likely rip up the first 7 feet of soil anyway. For a real intact body requirement, try various Ancient Egyptian belief systems.

      </research_theologist>

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    80. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      "I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control."

      (A) Nothing happens that God did not intend to happen.
      (B) God does not screw with us or want us to fail. We exist to have a relationship with Him.
      (C) God is in control.

      God desires a relationship with us and not one where he enjoys our failures. The relationship, if it exists, is defined
      by love. Love is never coerced. In fact, if something is coerced, it can't be love. Thus it's our free will to love God
      or not to love God with the consequences for the decision. The bad that you see is the result of all of humanity
      choosing to primarily love themselves instead of God.

    81. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These questions seem sincere, so I will try to answer them sincerely.

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      Because a birthday is when someone joins us in social interaction, albeit in a limited form...lol However, in Catholicism the conception of Mary, the so-called Immaculate Conception, is celebrated, but only because that was an unusual conception as it is held she was free from Original Sin.

      The question is kind of skewed since both sides are trying to control the definition of "life" in order to further their beliefs. For example, if most people believed that life started at the moment of conception, I would hold that they would view abortion differently. Maybe not, but I think there's a good chance most people don't want to kill another human. However, if they believe life started at the moment of birth only, then it's not killing another human.

      So, the answer to the question is one side is trying to protect what it views as unborn children, and the other side is trying to protect the rights of a woman to remove something from her body that is not yet human. In both cases, each side is trying to protect human rights as it views them.

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      The simple answer is from the Bible. For example when Christ is on the cross with the two thieves and the one thief admits his guilt. Jesus tells him that this day he will be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:43). There are other examples as well. It's not when a man says they are dead, but when they are dead. We're just assuming the doctor is right.


      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.


      Because the definition of life to a Christian is the union of the immortal soul with the mortal body. Unless one can prove that the soul leaves the body when brain activity ceases (and good luck trying to find a scientist to do that since many (most?) don't even believe in the concept of an immortal soul), then the default assumption is that the soul remains united to the body until all bodily functions cease, not just brain activity. From a Christian standpoint, if the soul remains united to the body, then by definition it is still a human and not just a corpse.

      I understand your point about not imposing a Christian view on others, but what about opposing a secular view on religious people? In my mind it works both ways, so this debate is not going to end. Best we can hope for is that it remains civil.

      Dominus vobiscum.

    82. Re:What about going to heaven? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      That one is very simple. It's incredibly easy to ascertain the birthday, and much, much more difficult to ascertain the conception-day.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    83. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dmala · · Score: 1

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      Well, everyone born in September can celebrate on New Year's Eve. Other than that, though, it'd probably be tough to nail it down to an exact day, unless your parents did it really infrequently.

    84. Re:What about going to heaven? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      From your theological ideas, you are a Jehova's witness (who else opposes birthdays? Birthdays are fun....that's why we celebrate them. It is allowed to do things that aren't in the bible, even if some other pagan group does it too, you know).

      Why do people believe that there is a soul? Because the bible mentions it. Jesus says to the man with whom he was crucified, "you will be with me this day in paradise." You disagree, and probably have another explanation for that scripture, and can find scriptures to prove me wrong; but I can explain away your scriptures and find more that prove you wrong.

      The point is, the bible is ambiguous on a great many points, and because of that ambiguity, you can argue forever and never come to an agreement.

      If you want to learn something from the bible, learn this, and you will be happy:

      Love your enemy.
      Bless them that curse you.
      Do good to them that despitefully use you and persecute you.

      --
      Qxe4
    85. Re:What about going to heaven? by rspress · · Score: 1

      But your heart is not stopped and your brain is getting air. They are fooling your body into thinking it is freezing to death. If you are not dead, you are not dead.

      This is much like the victims of war in WWII. They were often miles from medical care and because of dehydration their wounds stopped bleeding or at least slowed a great deal. Once helicopters, IV's and plasma were introduced to the medics the death rate went up until the learned that they were making the person worse be giving him what he needed. The body was taking care of itself, in order to prevent death.

      As far as those dirty pigs are concerned, they are mighty good eating. They gave their life so I could live.

    86. Re:What about going to heaven? by Alef · · Score: 1
      I ask why he would allow there to be anything bad in the world.

      Can there exist only good? Are you sure that does not implicate there is nothing?

    87. Re:What about going to heaven? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control.

      The simple answer is: He did make the Earth a paradise, and then Eve had to go and screw the whole thing up.

      The more complex answer is found in The Book of Revelations, if memory serves. It says the reasons for God creating everything are so very complex that we could not possibly understand it in our current forms, but we will all find the answer after death.

      I know that may sound like a non-answer to someone who has never read The Bible, but it is interesting to note that answers such as that are very, very uncommon. It doesn't, for instance, say we could never understand how we came to exist on Earth (ie. Evolution), figure out how to travel through space, destroy the whole planet, etc.

      The only other place I recal anything similar is in reference to seeing God's face. So, no matter what you think of that answer, you should understand that it really isn't used anywhere else.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    88. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigs certainly have souls. But unlike dogs, they lack personality.
      And personality goes a long way, ya know.

    89. Re:What about going to heaven? by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      Why would a "Just God" create a world where young children are sometimes tortured and killed? If God valued "free will" so much, why would there be slavery, unjust imprisonment, concetration camps, and other things that prevent some people from ever being able to exersize this all important "free will", this "free will" that is so precious some people have to withstand unjust tortures for it to exist for other people (such as their tormenters)?

      If I beleived in am omnicient, omipitent being, I would have to conclude that He/She/It/They was utterly capricious and amoral, and hence utterly undeserving of worship. But fortunately, I don't beleive in an omipitent, omicient being, so I'm not forced to take such a heretical stance. (I'm agnostic when it comes to spirituality in general, but I am unable to have any beleif in a Christian/Muslim/Hebrew type God.)

    90. Re:What about going to heaven? by RevRigel · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed you managed to post without using the phrase "anarchocapitalist". Congratulations.

    91. Re:What about going to heaven? by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      (A) Nothing happens that God did not intend to happen.

      Wow. So when a young child is tortured and murdered by a psychopath, God wanted that to happen? Do you really beleive God is that sadistic? And if God were that sadistic, would He/She/It/They really be deserving of worship?

    92. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Haha, one of my best friends is an atheist socialist and he likes to introduce me by saying "This is Dada, he's a judeoislamochristoanarchocapitalist. He doesn't vote."

      Even funnier is the e-mails I get if I bring up Christianity instead of anarchy :)

    93. Re:What about going to heaven? by krysolid · · Score: 1

      >> because the average Christian is so holier than thou when they answer it.

      The answer is "I don't know" ... "They don't know", "No one knows" and
      some people pretend to know to give other peoples some measure of false
      assurance.

      The question is, how do we all live together in this universe that
      we all share with common problems when some people are strong and other
      people are weak given the realities of said universe.

      That one we have some good ideas about, but no way to enforce them,
      so the religions think they are doing some good by bringing false
      assurance and denial to some people so that they will fight for, and
      thus steal from people not in the religion, making life a bit better
      and happier and more secure in their denial for the winner.

      No one knows, no one can say they know, and no written paper
      has cosmological origin.

    94. Re:What about going to heaven? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      "If you do not make it to Heaven, you end up in Purgatory until your sins are cleansed and then make it to Heaven, or if your sins are too much you end up in Hell. Anything else goes against Christian Dogma, as far as I know."

      That (especially the Purgatory bit) was invented during the Middle Ages in order to augment donations to the Catholic Church, and is in direct contradiction to "Christian Dogma":

      For God so loved the world That He gave His only begotten Son, That whosoever believeth in Him Should not perish, But have everlasting life.

    95. Re:What about going to heaven? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 2, Funny

      "or does god to "snapshots" of people just before they die, so he can "recover" them at the end of days...?"

      A series of save states that people get to pick from when they're restored would make more sense (if you believe in literal physical resurrection). Otherwise, he'd end up with billions of aged people barely able to walk.

      Transendence always made more sense to me.

    96. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      But it makes no sense that God created a universe like this. It makes no sense that people like murderers and adulterers and rapists make God sad and angry... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe, they wouldn't even be there.

      The Biblical answer is that evil was not part of Man's nature until Eve and Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The thought of performing an evil act wouldn't have crossed their minds before this point, with the exception of eating the fruit in the first place, which was Lucifer's idea. Note that God knows about (and sometimes uses) cruelty to impose justice, as the first thing he did after he confronted Adam and Eve about their disobedience was curse them and Lucifer, and the second thing he did was expel them from Eden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and becoming immortal creatures with the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., lest they become as gods).

      Where did evil come from in the first place? Well, later in the Bible, Jesus essentially boiled down "good" to one simple concept: Treat other people the way you would want to be treated. When you keep that in mind, most of the Ten Commandments (and for that matter, much of Biblical law in general) are just specific examples of the Golden Rule. The things we aren't supposed to do to each other arise from this concept coupled with the physicality of our universe and the anatomy of people; if we were all energy creatures without the ability to own things or to have sex, then adultery, rape, and theft would be meaningless, but the basic difference between good and evil would still be there. So, God didn't necessarily pointfully include murder, rape, etc., in our existence, but rather, people thought them up as ways to do evil things to each other.

      Other questions one might consider concerning the story of Adam and Eve: Why did God put the trees there? Why did God let Lucifer enter the world instead of holding him prisoner somewhere for all eternity? Who knows.

      The other answer comes from the wisdom of Beavis and Butt-Head: How would you know what was cool if you didn't have things that suck?

    97. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was there, just before the big bang, and had a good long chat with God about it.

      He when on a bit, but it boils down to:
      Creating autonomous beings with free will is the most dangerous and risky thing a deity can do, and everygod should try it at least once.

      Exactly why is it so troublesome? Well, that's the reason I was chatting with him.

    98. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      See, that's odd to me. I'm a Christ follower and the basic "uglies" of sex are not anything I see as wrong between consenting adults. When it boils down to me, I do believe that >I should be married to have sex, and when I did before marriage I would now consider it a sin (when it comes to me). I do believe that I can hold other Christ followers in my congregation accountable, though, but not people outside of my congregation or faith.

      To me, in marriage, anything goes when it comes to sex (as long as both husband and wife as consenting). I'm surprised at how puritanical some people can be.

    99. Re:What about going to heaven? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations?
      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?"


      Depends on how you look at it. If you think of the soul as a form of energy that is trapped in your brain, then the picture gets a little clearer. You might be dead in the sense that your heart isn't beating, but obviously something is still working in your mind when you're reanimated.

      I'm fuzzy on this topic, too. I saw a video of a man that had been in a coma since 1984. He woke up in... oh I want to say 04. He was not the same person. The way he talked, the way his memory worked, it was clear he had a lot of brain damage. If I imagine it like his soul disappeared, it makes sense in a weird way.

      "Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial?"

      I went to a Christian funeral a few years ago. The man who gave the sermon talked about how Mike was up there in heaven now and that his body was simply a shell. I wish I could quote his words verbatim, but that was so long ago. The ceremony seemed more about consoling the attendees than about doing the right thing with the body. I really feel like it was us he was giving all the attention to, not Mike. On the other hand, 'last rights' (or is it rites?) is delivered preferably before death.

      Apologies in advance for not having a richer education on this topic to answer your question with.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    100. Re:What about going to heaven? by Malestyr · · Score: 0

      Kerry Packer, an Australian businessman, had no heartbeat for (i think) around 9 minutes. That is pretty fucking dead.

      They managed to bring him back.

      He got interviewed, and he said that there was nothing.

      Also, that thing with the light, I read somewhere that you can also get it via drugs(that report exists somewhere, no idea where though.

    101. Re:What about going to heaven? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      And also, what if, like Kenny, the Hosts of Heaven have actually been waiting for you to join them so you can be Keanu Reeves and lead them in their upcoming battle with the Prince of Darkness? That would totally suck if you got revived right as Satan was about to attack the Gates...

    102. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have to say you are at least slightly wrong in your holidays. The day of the Immaculate Conception is when Mary was conceived by her mother without sin (one of only two people to supposedly be conceived without original sin, a third was born, but not conceived, without original sin, namely Jon the Baptist). Also, the day that Jesus ascended into heaven is known as the Day of Ascension (notice that ascend->ascension now?). This is a distinct holy day, separate from the Day of Assumption which commemorates Mary the mother of Jesus being assumed into heaven without dying (Jesus actually did die, don't forget, before going to heaven), she is one of two (that I know of right now) people granted this honor, the second being the prophet Elijah (taken into heaven on a fiery chariot or something I think). Bottom line, don't call other people ignorant lest you be discovered to be ignorant yourself.

    103. Re:What about going to heaven? by niXcamiC · · Score: 1

      but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.

      odd beliefs like this raise the question, if your a christian, can you support the justice system? what is the point of the justice system? can you be a christian and still be a policeman/judge? you basicaly just said that christians are for some reason the only people who have cause to be responsible citizens.

      --
      Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
    104. Re: What about going to heaven? by comcn · · Score: 1
      I don't really believe in Hell.
      ...
      maybe they can even sense some of the glow and feel some of the heat -- but they'll be forever removed from it.

      Surely, that is hell?

    105. Re:What about going to heaven? by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      I like to ask other Christians:

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").


      Many ancient cultures didn't even have a concept of a "conception day". Even if they did realize that an embryo is created in one instant, they wouldn't necessarily know when that instant was. We don't always know that today. But your question is a straw man anyway; not everything Christians do has to be a religious ritual, and the Bible does not say we have to celebrate birthdays.

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      Again, where does it say this in the Bible? The precise time of death is a civil matter, not necessarily a religious one.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      Answer me this: why would you consider someone in the deepest stage of sleep to be alive? They have no conscious brain activity. The answer is that you know that when they wake up, they will be very much alive (at least after they've had their first cup of coffee). As long as someone's body is still alive, there is perhaps a remote chance of them regaining consciousness and functioning semi-normally again. I'm not saying I believe in it, but that may be used as a justification for keeping someone's body alive as long as possible. Besides, not all Christians believe that brain dead patients should be kept alive.

      Now I have a question for you. How can you consider yourself a Christian and yet acuse all other Christians of having the beliefs you mentioned? You do realize that there are many denominations of Christianity with quite different beliefs and interpretations of the scriptures, don't you?

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    106. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Brain Dead, I'm quite sure that heaven is under the same laws of time/dimensions our universe is under. If you don't understand something, don't make yourself look completely stupid by speaking out.

    107. Re:What about going to heaven? by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Only in puritanical societies is sex a family un-friendly thing. Sex is the reason we have families. Without it, there's no offspring, and no families. It's ironic that people will adopt such deep close-mindedness that the very thing that is reponsible for their existence is deemed dirty and unworthy of being discussed in a family. I call bullshit. Unless you define "puritanical" in such a way that it applies to almost all societies on the planet, then you're just wrong. Sex is considered very private even in primitive tribal societies. It is not a appropriate topic to discuss at many occasians any more than defecation is. Would you throw a party for your grandfather because he had his first bowel movement in four days? The "puritanical" societies you refer to don't consider sex "family un-friendly[sic]", they consider it private.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    108. Re: What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Surely, that is hell?

      If you'd call it that. I believe "Hell" has more of the artistic fire and brimstone connotation to it -- which is why I don't like using the word. The Bible has had additional addenda added to it over the years by secular writings -- Dante's Inferno, for example, as well as what artists have rendered. We confuse the word of man with the Word of God sometimes, maybe even often times.

    109. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put em on a scale. If they lose 28 grams when frozen, they better not bring em back, cuz we'll have zombies on the loose. "And that ain't any kind of fun"

    110. Re:What about going to heaven? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

      Could you tell me exactly what day you were conceived on? Very few couples know what day the actual conception took place on, but the day of birth is very much defined and known. Thus, we celebrate the known day - the birth day.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      It is unknown exactly at what point death occurs as it is unknown to us when the soul leaves the body. Part of the reason this is so contraversial.
      The answers to all three questions are basically: we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers. The Bible is pretty strict about holding other believers accountable for their actions, but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.

      True - the Bible does say that we are not to hold non-believers accountable ourselves, but...

      FALSE in that "we should be leaving the rest of the world alone". When Christ was here did He leave the rest of the world alone? Absolutely not. We are to engage the world and challenge it so as to show it the truth found in Christ; not to leave them alone to wallow in their sin and spiritual-death. (True that many "christians" miss this point, and many more don't follow it out of fear (among other things); that, however, does not absolve us or them from this fact.)

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    111. Re:What about going to heaven? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial? Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?

      Christians believe in the resurrection when all true followers of Christ will be raised from the dead to join Christ in the sky (Heaven). It has been historically believed (rightly or wrongly) that the body should be buried so that it would be there for the resurrection. We know about decay (they did too), but it was still viewed differently.

      Additionally, many of the non-Christian cultures around the early church did cremation, and so it was also done as a means to differentiate themselves from the cultures around them.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    112. Re:What about going to heaven? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, why do you keep calling yourself a "Christ follower"? This is the second thread I've seen you use that term in. Is there anything wrong with "Christian"? ....or is it that you don't want to be associated with actual Christians for whatever reason, so you've made up your own misnomer for it?

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    113. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple fact of the matter is that god didn't create evil--because it doesn't exist. Can you make me a 'dark bulb' that spreads darkness throughout a room? Can you build me a freeze ray that makes everything cold? Nope. You can turn off the lightswitch and remove the light from the room. You can build a superconducting fridge that pulls the heat out of the food. But darkness and cold don't exist--they are the absence of light and heat. This is not just some distinction that I made up for the sake of argument. There is such a thing as light (it travels in particles and/or waves, argue it however you like). Darkness does not travel in either particles or waves. There is no darkness.

      In the same way, there is such a thing as good; it's not something I'm just making up for the sake of argument. But evil is simply the name for the state of not being good. It's not a thing unto itself.

      Basically you're asking God to invent a world of light where there is no darkness. I find this absurd, and not, as you propose, because it would be boring. It is absurd because it is impossible. How do you call a room 'light' if there is no darkness outside to compare it to? Would it really be 'lit'?

      To put it a different way, I am a great fan of Super Mario Brothers. It's a fairly simple game: if you press A, you jump. If you press A enough times, you saved the princess. But I would hardly call that a 'good' accomplishment. There's no button to rape the princess. You were given the choice of pressing A or playing some other game. That's not much of a choice.

      Some people can imagine a world much like Super Mario Brothers where you can either be the good little boy and press A or die; I cannot. If that were the case, to me, life would not be worth living. It's like Lord of the Rings with Sauron awarding the hobbits little candies after they destroy the ring. "Oh look at you precious little hobbits, trekking through my happy land of dancing and gaiety to destroy the ring of laughter!" Fuck no, nobody would buy that book.

      Consider the rock. A rock could conceivably fall on you and bring you to your death. A rock could conceivably allow you to climb it and escape a pit of lava. But I don't know of anyone that attributes either their death or their life to a rock. A rock cannot be either very good or very bad.

      But I know a few people that attribute both life and death to animals.

      And a several more that attribute their lives or deaths to ordinary people.

      And politicans/, well, we attribute hundreds/thousands/millions of lives/deaths to them.

      So in order for something to be very good, it must run the risk of being very bad. And if you'd like to complain to God that he shouldn't have given us abillity to do either good or bad, fine--just remember that it's the ability to do good and bad that He gave you that allows you to make such an argument. Such is the law in the corner of the universe we live in.

    114. Re:What about going to heaven? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      The term Christian has taken on a very disgusting meaning. When one thinks of a Christian, it seems one thinks of a right wing pro-war pro-Bush fascist who wants to control what you think, how you browse the web, what you watch on TV and how you spend your money -- all with the force of law.

      I believe that followers of Christ should seperate themselves from what I consider the false body and keep each other accountable while leaving the rest of society alone. We can testify our faith if they want to listen, otherwise we can't mandate that they live by God's law.

    115. Re:What about going to heaven? by glaucopis · · Score: 1

      I ask why he would allow there to be anything bad in the world. Free will doesn't cover it... Why not just create the universe so that there is no bad, no evil, nothing to ever be upsetting?

      The most satisfying answer I've ever heard for this question is in Dorothy L. Sayers' play The Devil to Pay. She quotes the following lines in her best book on theology, The Mind of the Maker, which examines the nature of God and creation by comparing him to an author and creation to literary works -- it's a fascinating analogy, and I recommend the book highly. It's not exactly light reading, and I haven't reread it too recently, so I'm not going to vouch for every word, but I remember it as being an unexpectedly and delightfully logical examination of the core of Christianity (the trinity, the nature of evil, etc. -- not specifically the Bible).

      Faustus: Who made thee?
      Mephistopheles: God; as the light makes the shadows.
      Faustus: Is God, then, evil?
      Mephistopheles: God is only light,
      And in the heart of the light no shadow standeth,
      Nor can I dwell within the light of heaven
      Where God is all.
      Faustus: What art thou, Mephistopheles?
      Mephistopheles: I am the price that all things pay for being,
      The shadow on the world, thrown by the world
      Standing in its own light, which light God is.

      The idea being that God created matter, and God created light, and when light fell on matter it cast a shadow. God didn't create evil; evil is a side effect of our being real. It's not a perfect idea -- it seems to suggest that all good comes from outside of us but that all evil is directly attributable to us -- but it has a beautiful simplicity...

    116. Re:What about going to heaven? by JesusPancakes · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?

      One of my friends just had to write a will because they were afraid he had cancer. Section 2, Paragraph 3 reads as follows:

      When I die, I want to be cremated because I don't want to be no damn zombie.

      It's good to have a sense of humor about death :-) His lawyer didn't appreciate it much though...

    117. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soul/Spirit coming originally from 'life breath'
        - any one who stops breathing and is Shocked back to life,
        well - their 'soul' left them.
      Thank goodness for CPR!

      But one's eternal life energy path is etched into time-space every moment of every day.
      That is the only eternal part of a human life, their past. Onced Etched into history, that lifetime is eternal...

      If they are revived and continue to etch more history among the human race here on earth, more power to them.

    118. Re:What about going to heaven? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      OK.
      I'm a Christian and I've studied comparative religion.
      In that discipline, life is based on the old testament concept that life begins when you were born or created: as Birth=Creation and NOT as we know it scientifically today that life begins at conception.
      Also, being Christian, it is the new testament that makes a christian a christian. It was the birth of Jesus that was heralded and not his conception. All life in the womb is powerless.
      Astrologers (Chaldians - the 3 wise men of Magog), also (in my opinion) make the same 'error'. Shouldn't conception be the mark of life when planetary bodies influence and predestine everything from birth to death? There are many cultures that accept conception as part of the birth cycle.

      One does not ascend to heaven when you are dead. The soul ascends to heaven via purgatory or hell if required, but eventually to heaven as all creatures will be. This will happen soon after true death, which may be hours or even days (hindu/buddhist/shaman worldviews) after apparent death.

      "Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth."
      Since, as all Western cultures are based on the old and/or new testaments, there is no death of the soul. The soul may inhabit a corporeal body (its own) until it cannot any more. No-one alive with any credibility can state when a soul has left the body, especially in this day and age and lack of faith. So it is Christian to maintain life, even though the brain is dead as the soul may still be there.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    119. Re:What about going to heaven? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree with your point, but I think that you are inadvertently creating an euphamism treadmill by doing this. Perhaps you should instead seek to be a positive example of what a Christian should be, so by effecting people that you know, you can help to "win" the term back...

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    120. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.


      Well, for one thing, I've never said that anyone goes to heaven immediately when they die. As far as I know, people don't do that; they just die. The whole heaven thing comes much later, when Jesus comes back the second time and raises the righteous dead. Then people go to heaven. And also, that purgatory stuff doesn't exist. Never has. The catholic church started that idea so people would give them more money. Satan's pretty happy about it too, because it gives people a second chance. A second chance that doesn't even exist.

      Oh, and yes, I do believe in hell. It's not here yet, and unlike what you see in cartoons, the devil isn't in charge of it. Hell is after the second coming and the 1000 years in heaven, when the New Jerusalem comes back to the earth. When God raises all the wicked dead, and then cleanses the earth with fire: That is hell.

      Check out Revelation some time. Really interesting stuff.

    121. Re:What about going to heaven? by downundarob · · Score: 1

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead. [sic]

      Who is to say the moment death occurs. I'm of the belief that the moment of death and the moment that doctors pronounce a person dead are not necessarily the same time. Which body part's death constitutes complete death? If it's the brain, are all terminal patients hooked up to EKG machines to get more precise measurements of time of death? ?

      It's when the silver cord is broken (Ecclesiastes 12, KJV)

    122. Re:What about going to heaven? by jibjibjib · · Score: 0

      ...you mean like windows system restore points? Maybe Microsoft will sue God for patent infringement.

    123. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to ask other Christians:

      . . .

      Actually, I take your advice. I ignore them and allow them to their beliefs. That's right. I shut my mouth, and if they spout, spout they will.

      "we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers." You see, such ideas apply to you as well.

      And here's the tricky part... I may just have violated it :) hopefully I'm just pointing something out.
      over and out

    124. Re:What about going to heaven? by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 4, Funny

      some girl on the street asked if i was saved yet
        i told her i saved at the checkpoint a couple minutes back
        and can reload from there if i die
        she was confused

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    125. Re:What about going to heaven? by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

      Also, in the olden days they really didn't know how long the gestation period was. They could sort of guess, but they thought it was a divine providence. Seemed logical to them, they had sex and one of those times God chose for the woman to become pregnant. Also, like you said, many babies died in their first years, so the "birthday" was a celebration that you survived one solar year, therefore proving the "toughness" to survive in all seasons. Also, sex has been somewhat of a taboo, therefore explaining to little kids why you are celebrating their "conception" day would be a little creepy. Besides, who ever wants to consider that their parents in fact had sex to be conceived. Also, "conception day" would be more of a pity for the father, like a rememberance of the 2 AM trips to the the only store open (inevitably Wal-Mart) so he could buy his wife ice cream, popsicles, or whatever other craving she had. I think that a birthday would be much happier for everyone. As for the whole "pro-life" thing, it's such a non-issue. There are so many other important issues like...NSA wiretapping anyone?

    126. Re:What about going to heaven? by jibjibjib · · Score: 0

      If god simulated a universe perfectly, it would be the same as if he made one. We would still be conscious in God's "imagined" universe, and it would essentially be no different to if he had made a real one.

    127. Re:What about going to heaven? by 777film · · Score: 1

      I'll answer the second two first, purely my opinion and not speaking for any other Christian:

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      We don't really know what happens when you die. But forgive us if, when we try and imagine it, we opt for the positive and comforting.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      While I would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances, I understand those (and the realtives of those) who do... Especially one who has faith in miracles.

      By the way, a certain case involving a certain family in Florida should not represent the whole of Christianity.

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days

      Because sex is dirty?

    128. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      In Genesis, God tells man "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen. 2, 16-17, NIV). Then, referencing what God told them, the serpent tells the woman: "You will not surely die" and that "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."( Gen. 3, 4-5. NIV).

      When they actually eat the fruit, they don't die, like God said they would, but they do acquire knowledge of good and evil, like the serpent told them they would.

      Did God lie to the first man and woman? Didn't the serpent tell them the truth? We know that he later makes them mortal as punishment for eating the fruit, but that wasn't a direct result of eating the fruit. So he didn't *have* to make them mortal; he seemed to decide that after they had already eaten the fruit.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    129. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "some girl on the street asked if i was saved yet i told her i saved at the checkpoint a couple minutes back and can reload from there if i die she was confused"

      And /. readers still wonder why girls won't talk to them

    130. Re:What about going to heaven? by clambake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet I can see how "bad things happening" would be directly a reaction to choices made through free will. I can't think of any bad things happening in my life that weren't directly because of choices I made, even if it seems like a cop out.

      Not from new orleans are you?

    131. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations? Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?

      We call them 'television audiences'.

    132. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would Christ put people on His foe list?

      If you're a follower of Him, why would you put some on yours? You actually had to make the conscious choice to label someone a foe - a concious choice to go completely counter to the core of Christ's teachings and ideas, even in a silly way like on some dumb web-blog.

    133. Re:What about going to heaven? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Actually, someone I know who studies this stuff once told me that the day of birth is celebrated not because of the beginning of life, but because of the transition from internally to externally supported human being (he had a better term for it, but that was the gist).

      Of this is a person who used to just make shit up and state it - convincingly as hell - in the middle of classes, just to watch everyone get puzzled, scramble for their textbooks and look for where the bombshell he just dropped was stated.

      One fun one was the etemology of "Christmas" - he says it was a term adopted during the Spanish Inquisition and means, literally "More Christ" in Spanish. I was shocked at how many people would nod and say "That makes quite a bit of sense - I'd always thought it was somethning like that."

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    134. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      Why would a "Just God" create a world where young children are sometimes tortured and killed? If God valued "free will" so much, why would there be...

      Okay, first of all, excellent point. Many Christians believe that everything we see around us, including the most evil things ever to occur, all of it is God's Will. This goes completely against what the Bible says.

      God gave all his intelligent creatures (heavenly and earthly) free will. The real question is, Did he instill a sense of evil therein or not?

      "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it". -- Genesis 2:17

      Adam and Eve had a built-in tendency to always do good. This is often referred to as being Perfect or Sinless. They would have to consciously work to overcome that tendency in order to do anything bad, and having the tendency to do good, they wouldn't really want to do that. But They Could (that's free will). That was the entire point of that command from God--indeed, the only one with any penalty. God did this out of love and out of his sense of justice, or fairness. He wanted any and all those who would serve him to do so of their own free will. (As a side note, Genesis 1:27 notes that humans were made "in God's image", or having the same predominant qualities, so it's evident that the angels have free will also, as we shall see.) The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad was a physical symbol of freedom of choice, eating the fruit of which would take away that built-in tendency to always do good, as God defines good.

      Anyway, the Devil (Satan) gave Eve the idea that God was withholding something. "At this the serpent said to the woman, 'You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.'" -- Ge 3:4, 5

      In other words, "Decide for yourself what's good and what's bad. You can do whatever you want to. You don't want this silly restriction on your behavior. God's being unfair to you. Oh, and he lied when he said you'd die for it." Now, why would Satan do this?

      "When under trial [to clarify, the scripture is here talking about temptation to sin], let no one say, 'I am being tried by God.' For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin". --James 1:13-15. The angel now known as Satan, originally as perfect as could be, started to want something that wasn't his to have, namely, the worship of humans. He cultivated that desire and allowed it to cause him to overcome his own inborn tendency to do good, and became evil. Now, he couldn't possibly argue that he was greater or more powerful than God. He couldn't even argue against the fact that, as the Creator, God is the Sovereign Lord of Everything, answerable to no one. So he challenged the rightfulness of God's Sovereignty. He said, in effect, "I'm a better ruler." Satan couldn't offer people anything good that they didn't already have: they already were perfect, would live forever in perfect health in Paradisaic conditions, and had some satisfying jobs to do (multiply and fill the earth with perfect offspring, extend the Garden of Eden worldwide, for example). But Satan could offer them the opportunity to rule their own lives, which interestingly enough would really mean serving him.

      Okay, so Eve thought about it. She decided to just go ahead and exercise her right to disobey, and Adam did the same, and they doomed us all, since in gaining the right to decide for themselves what was right and wrong, they lost Perfection. Nope, God wasn't lying. "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." -- Romans 5:12. And, "The wages sin pays is death." -- Romans 6:23.

      Well, God had a choice (free will, remember that humans were c

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    135. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      Did God lie to the first man and woman?...he later makes them mortal as punishment for eating the fruit, but that wasn't a direct result of eating the fruit.

      Actually, he did not lie. Hebrews 6:18 states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible for God to lie. So, what does this mean, the not dying within 24 hours of consuming the fruit?

      First, from God's standpoint, they *were* dead that day. There was no way they would live forever as he had intended. Second, God had already blessed them in Genesis 1:28 and told them to fill the earth with offspring. Third, Second Peter 3:8 states that from God's viewpoint, a thousand years is as one day. Psalm 90:4 is similar. Both Adam and Eve died well within that timeframe. Fourth, you may recall that the six creative "days" are together called one "day" at Genesis 2:4, so the term "day" does not always mean 24 hours, but can mean "epoch, age, time period". And finally, when you're looking at a lifetime that extends infinitely into the future, as Adam and Eve were (imagine being alive long enough to see and remember huge changes in the geology of the earth, even cosmic scale changes), nine hundred-odd years is no time at all.

      So, yes, the penalty for eating it was death, as God said, and no, God certainly did not lie.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    136. Re:What about going to heaven? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1
      Yet I can see how "bad things happening" would be directly a reaction to choices made through free will. I can't think of any bad things happening in my life that weren't directly because of choices I made, even if it seems like a cop out.


      Ok, so bad things happen because there is free will. Bad things can only happen to a person if they make a choice through free will? Don't you have that backwards?
      How about the baby that gets snatched from a hospital? What freewill choice could a newborn possibly make to have that happen, and don't say being born? That's not a free will choice (see ceasarian section).

      How about a tidal wave that kills thousands? Where does free will come to play there? While some people living in the path of destruction may have a choice to leave that area certainly not all of them do. Earthquakes? Volcanic eruptions? Meteors falling to Earth? Lots of bad things happen to lots of people everyday and they have no free will options that can be attributed to them.

      I'll admit that evil is a free will choice. Certainly, people choose to do evil unto others. But let's not blame the victims here. While in some cases they may have made choices that put them at risk, I doubt many did so on purpose.
    137. Re:What about going to heaven? by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      that's always been the problem for me. i can fully appreciate that if i leave my house monday morning to go to work and get struck by lightning, that my free will to decide to go to work led me directly to my own death, but i can't draw the connection to (G||g)od. sure, i freely chose my path, but that's kind of a cop out when it's a random act of nature. and saying that "it was his time", "it's God's way", etc. seems to be taking the free will out of the equation. or, to put it another way, imagine your mother getting abducted at gun point while loading groceries into her car, and raped. would you try to comfort her by telling her that it must have been part of god's plan? would you tell her she freely chose to go buy groceries, so she has no one to blame but herself? "don't worry mom, at least the bad man won't go to heaven"? i can't see myself saying any of the above.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    138. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't go to heaven based on how you lived your Life. There's only one way to Heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.

    139. Re:What about going to heaven? by mgv · · Score: 1

      Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.

      If you are brain dead, maybe. However, this article is not about brain death. Its about stopping brain death before it occurs.

      There is alot of discussion about this point, but most people are missing the point - the idea of this technique (which isn't terribly new by the way, despite what the papers say - its the application in trauma surgery that is new) is to prevent cell death from occuring.

      Your soul is no more likely to leave your body (if you believe in such things) than if you were knocked unconscious, or had an anaesthetic, or fell into the north sea and lapsed into coma. I think that even the most die hard christian would not argue that your soul leaves your body just because of one of these events had occured and you lapsed into coma.

      Its about saving people close to death, not bringing back dead people.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    140. Re:What about going to heaven? by rixkix · · Score: 1

      That is a wonderful and beautiful story. Unfortunately, the catchall that is free will seems to cast a rather wide net. People have natural tendencies to do all sorts of things, presumably designed by god. Omniscient? Apparently god knows we're all going to sin, so where does free will fit into that? Or is it a sort of restricted part time free will we only have partial control over? Omnipotent? Maybe. But what is he so worried about with the whole sovereignty issue? Why would god have to prove anything to anyone? I think his own existence might be a good start. And loving? He's 'personally' responsible for intentionally killing nearly everyone on the planet. By his own texts, he's jealous, hateful, intolerant and vengeful. Murderous. A father that actually follows through with the adage 'I brought you into this world and I can take you out.' Yet he sends his son down to teach us how we should be. So we can kill him, and by doing that we're cleansed of sin?! Maybe Jesus died for god's sins, since he seems to have mellowed out since then.
      It's really too bad that Christianity can only go so far when you think it through. I would like to know the reality about how things came about, but my need to believe is overpowered by my intent to avoid self delusion.
      I hope you find your happiness, if that is what you seek.

    141. Re:What about going to heaven? by Freexe · · Score: 1

      I only have one question for you:

      You seem to have alot a views that arn't really Christian but more of a amalgamation of experiences, why do you feel the need to attach yours views and morals to one archaic Organised Religion that has so many believes that contradict your own. And has a less than rosey history (money grabbing, war inciting, prejudice paedophiles)

      Have your moral and spritual believes but label them under your own religion. Stand up and be counted as a believer not a christian!

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    142. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The Christianity teaches that your physical body is going to resurrect:

      The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death.
      http://www.catholic.com/library/Resurrection_of_th e_Body.asp

    143. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first assumption is wrong. No soul exists and hence there is no difference between human and pigs in this sense. Only human brain is more developed than pig's one and we have concience.

    144. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Department of Creation Studies at Luton Baptist University has determined that this kind of death + resurrection can only be safely undertaken with the aid of an ordained Minister and a 100-voice choir. Otherwise the danger of a demon possessing the reanimated body is just too great. Thousands of people now walking the streets are demon-possessed cadavers brought back by unholy science (and activist judges!).

    145. Re:What about going to heaven? by Forge · · Score: 1

      I was raised Christian by fundamentalist Parents. BOTH my father and mother are pastors in the "Church of God". Largest Christian denomination in Jamaica. The country with the most churches per capita on earth. So I do know what I'm talking about.

      To answer the question asked earlier about "Christian burial".

      Christians do believe that on resurrection (At the end of days) you will be provided with a body not dissimilar to your original body in general appearance. this new body will be fundamentally different however. I.e.It will at least be more durable.

      Why do Christians bury the dead?

      Because corpses smell bad and provide a breading ground for disease.

      Also there is the symbolism of man being made from "the dust of the earth" and being returned. That symbolism is way up there with the communion.

      I know of Christian *funerals* where the body is not being buried but rather cremated.

      BTW: What's a funeral ? An opportunity for the pastor to preach to people who would ordinarily not attend church

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    146. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are taking everything from a Christian POV. I'll give you a short answer from the Jewish POV. You can find a very detailed version of the answer (in the Jewish world it is called responsa) by Rabbi M. M. Schneerson (the same person education and sharing day is in honor of), IIRC printed in the book Mind over Matter, base on Rabbi M. M. Schneerson's talks and responsa. An online version can be found here.

      Imagine you lived in the time of Leonardo da Vinci. And took a photo of Mona Lisa. Try selling it, today? You might be lucky if you get $10 for it. But a imprefect painting of it is priceless. The same with this world.

      Accorrding to Judaism and the Torah (the unedited version of "the 5 books of Moses") it is to bring Godlyness into this world and refine it. That is why you will see religous Jewish groups mixing in with the rest of scocity, because that's what the whole point of creation is.

    147. Re:What about going to heaven? by Forge · · Score: 1

      "-Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days?-"

      Because, in a normal marriage "conception day" is just a guess. My Wife is pregnant now and from the last couple of ultrasounds our original conception day estimate might be off by as much as a month.

      We also know full well that Jesus wasn't born in late December but we celebrate that date anyway since we don't know when he was born.

      "-Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead?-"

      Because they never read the Bible or didn't understand it. I won't quote exact scripture but the Bible is pretty clear that the dead are "sleeping" and "know nothing" of what's happening now and that there is a future sequence of Resurrection -> Judgment -> assignment to an eternal home, New Earth, Heaven or Hell. there were a few individuals who skipped that process however. Jesus who rose from the dead a mere 3 days after dying then "ascended" and Enoc, who ascended without bothering to die.

      "-Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth?-"

      You have me there. Christians are heavily divided on that one. As are the members of most other religions, including Atheists. (yes. "Atheist" is a religion. "Agnostic" is the one that isn't and I can explain why if you're interested). Could it be that layman reasoning has not caught up to medical knowledge? I.e. Until farley recently life and death were separated by Heart/Lung activity. Even now Doctors still pronounce you dead if there is no pulse and CPR doesn't produce one. They only check for brain activity in certain special circumstances.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    148. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with *how long* after eating the fruit they died. This has to do with whether or not they died as a result of eating the fruit, which God told them they would. God didn't say "If you eat this fruit, you will die in 24 hours" or "in one day" or " in 900 years", he just said "if you eat this fruit, you will die". Clearly they didn't die after eating the fruit; but they did become knowledgeable, just as the serpent told them they would. God lied to them, and more importantly, *the serpent told them the truth*. Then God killed them as a punishment for disobeying his command which he lied about. What a great being.

      At best, God mislead them. He could have told them, "If you eat this fruit, I will kill you". But no. He said, "If you eat this fruit, you will surely die". So maybe the first people could conclude that the end result of their eating the fruit would be that they would eventually die somehow, perhaps not directly related to eating the fruit. But that's pretty weasely. Why not be straightforward, instead of talking in circles? Why not just say "don't eat the fruit, or else", without making it seem like the fruit is poisonous? I would expect better clarity and straightforwardness from a Deity who is supposedly interested in justice and honesty.

      So if the book starts out with God lying, it's probably not a good idea to trust anything he says afterwards. So what if it says later on that "God cannot lie"? It shows right in the beginning that he lies, so why wouldn't he lie about his honesty? This God is obviously a shady character, and managed to schluff off blame onto the snake, who was the only one honest with the first people. If I were serious about the Bible, I would worship the serpent, not God.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    149. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ay, there's the rub! Let us see where this argument leads: as humans, we have no way to independently determine what objective "good" is (since only God is good, no matter how humans might try, singly or in groups, to be). If you claim, for example, that a particular book, say the Bible or the Qu'ran, tells us what God's goodness is, how could we be sure? If God's "good" is so ineffable, how do we know if it's the right God at all? We could not use our feelings as a measurement -- highest or best feelings would be a metric that could independently determine God's will! -- nor could we use logic. If (to use a Bible example) Satan were impostering as the God you claim, how could you possibly tell?

    150. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      No, I don't believe God is Sadistic.

      The actions of the psychopath are considered brutal by both God and man, and both condemn
      him/her.

      You've translated my term "intended" into "wanted". God's does not want this kind of brutality.
      However, he does want humanity to love Him, to relate to Him. They only way to do this
      is to give man free will knowing that man can use the will to love Him or not. The psychopath
      does not love God, and we see the devestating results.

      God could remove free will, but then humanity would complain about their lack of freedom and
      there would be no opportunity for love.

      Humanity can't have it both ways. Everything perfect and freedom.

      So God's does not intend directly for this brutality to occur.
      But God does intend to give man freedom to choose, and hopefully to choose to love Him.
      But man has chosen not love him. Man's intentions are to exploit other men. We see this all around
      us. God knew that this could be the result but provided freedom anyway because its the
      only way to have a relationship with God. A dictated relationship, is no relationship at all.

    151. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      Hopefully I can condense your paragraph into a single statement/question

      "How do we, humanity, objectively determine if God is good or not good ?"

      This is an extremely important question because it determines if we believe that God
      exists or not, and determines what we believe about the nature of God. These beliefs
      ultimately dictate how man relates to man.

      Fortunately, we don't have depend on feelings or opinions. We can depend on facts
      to determine if God is good or not.

      Here is the fact:
      Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

      If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
      then you believe that God is good because of the implications of this fact.

      You may not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That is your choice. Belief or unbelief is a choice, but does
      not change the fact.

    152. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      You should think about this question. This is a personal question. Not a hypothetical one.

      Is death, accidental or otherwise, a bad thing ?

      Your paragraph assumes that death is bad. What if death moved you into a life of perfect
      relationships with others who have died and God. Isn't perfect relationships what we all
      desire and work toward ?

      We should NOT desire death for ourselves or anyone, now, in the past, or in the future.
      But for those that love God, life will be much greater after death.

    153. Re:What about going to heaven? by Simple+Minded · · Score: 1

      "Christians generally bury their dead, because Christians believe in the resurrection of the body."

      If that's why Christians bury their dead, then they are confused about the resurrection.

      If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you should know the body
      after resurrection is only faintly similar to the body before resurrection.
      The resurrected body is a new body. A new, perfect, enclosure for the soul.

    154. Re: What about going to heaven? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe hell is when you get to use God mode, but nobody wants to play with you anymore, _forever_.

      --
    155. Re:What about going to heaven? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      There's another thing you should note.

      The tree of life was also in the garden.

      They were allowed to eat from any tree except one.

      I wonder how things would have turned out if they had started with the tree of life first and only then worked their way to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ;). D'oh.

      Anyway, yes they did not die immediately if you talk about physical life and death.

      But much of the Bible is about spiritual life and death - the relationship with God, etc.

      --
    156. Re:What about going to heaven? by hackus · · Score: 1

      Ok, I will bite:

      "Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life")."

      Because BIRTHDAY means exactly that. It is not named concievedday.

      "Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead."

      Because when the doctor says you have no brain activity, and your not breathing, you ARE dead.

      "Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth."

      Well this situation is created by Man, not God. You should ask the people keeping the person on life support or the Doctor.
      (Contradictions in nature usually result from people trying to play God or looking at the universe, and changing the order of things unnaturally...then wondering why shit happens or they can't makse sense of things.)

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    157. Re:What about going to heaven? by sjames · · Score: 1

      He got interviewed, and he said that there was nothing.

      And? That just means he is not a contributor to the 'many' reports. From that we can only conclude that either the near-death experiance is not universal, not universally remembered upon recovery, or that we don't know what exactly can trigger the experiance.

      I've seen many accounts of drugs triggering near-death like and other (potentially) transformative experiances. Since those reports are also necessarily subjective, they may or may not be the same thing. The Atheist will say it's likely the same mechanism in the brain that is triggered in the near-death experiance, the more spiritual may claim that these drugs give us access to the divine or may claim it is an illusion of wisdom created by Satan (or other devil figure).

      Though science can do more looking here with less ethical concerns, we still don't have much research or objective data. (for example, fMRI of someone having a drug-induced religeous experiance might be interesting).

    158. Re:What about going to heaven? by brainburger · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, but you are conveniently ignoring a *very* established Christian principle.
      Check out the Catholic encyclopedia:
      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
      The Vatican *emphatically* promotes the belief that the resurrected will (and did) inhabit their own physical bodies. Otherwise, why would the tomb of Jesus have been empty? (amongst other arguments).
      I wonder about cannibals who later turn to Christ?
      Who gets the atoms in their bodies? -They, or their food?

    159. Re:What about going to heaven? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Hello. I know that what I'm about to claim is not in line with "standard" Christianity... but from your posts you show an open-mindedness and preference for logic in your beliefs, perhaps this will interest you.

      I stated http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174656 &cid=14527870earlier that in the scriptures the soul really means the person himself and not some immortal energy force living inside the body. If you take a look at those scriptures as well as Ezekiel 18:4 (It says soul in Hebrew, you'll have to check various translations to find it, I suggest the Sword Project) you'll see that at death a person simply ceases to exist. Or as Jesus explained they are "sleeping" in death. I'd be glad to explain more if you have any questions, for now I'll answer from my beliefs your three questions.

      1. Birthdays are from a non-Christian background and were later assimilated, but the earlier Christians did not celebrate them. Expecting it to philosophically align with true Christian beliefs is expecting to much.

      2. As I previously explained and as the Hebrews once believed, a person when dead is simply that... dead. Belief that people immediately go to Hell after death ignore the fact that death is payment for our sins and there is no further punishment. (Romans 6:7,23) As for the resurrection, John 5:28,29 is a good place to start ... remember that if all are already in heaven or hell immediately following death the resurrection makes no sense. It is spoken of an event that WILL happen, not one that continues as people die.

      3. Yes many incorrectly assume that a soul exists independently of the fleshly body, but this ignores scientific facts such as brain damage and chemical imbalances. Once again, we ARE souls... as long as we are breathing (the root of the Hebrew word for soul is breath) we continue to live as souls, regardless of our mental capacities or functions being impaired.

      Of course I've simplified things a little bit, I haven't discussed heaven at all nor people who can or have gone there. That's another subject, and as food for thought on that... consider that in Jesus' time no man had yet ascended into heaven. (John 3:13) If there were only a heaven and a fiery hell as destinations after death, then where would Moses, Noah and others await their resurrection? It becomes clear if one is willing to look into the Hebrew word "Sheol" which explains where they are resting. Hope this helps. Your background leads me to believe that you wouldn't be inclined to dogmatic prejudice against differing ideas, these beliefs have brought death for centuries. Fortunately people don't get burned at stakes for disagreeing with the religious beliefs of those in power anymore. :-)

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    160. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations?
      Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?


      Death is clinically defined as a non-reverseable process. If you were "clinically dead but are then resuscitated", then you weren't, in fact, "clinically dead".

      If somebody figures out how to ressurrect Mozart, he will not have been dead my whole life. Weird, I know.

    161. Re:What about going to heaven? by pembo13 · · Score: 1
      I'll also give this a try. The bible does say that one should not be ashamed of God:

      Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life")

      As you note, conception days are vague (hence days) a birthday seems more precise and easier to celebrate. And through out the bibile, more attentions seems to be given to the birth.

      Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      That is simply not a Christian belief. I am no loyal bible student, but I know that much. It is clearly stated that souls only go up to heaven during the rapture. (ie. part of the last days). People just say that they know so and so goes went to heaven. This is more a manner of speech than a belief.

      Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

      I think again, this is more of a subjective idea, than a belief. I think it is fair to say that the technology which even makes this possible now was non-existant at the time of the bible, so there is no real example there to draw on. I leave that to God, he sure has a better understanding of that than any of us.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    162. Re:What about going to heaven? by pembo13 · · Score: 1
      I know what you mean. I ask why he would allow there to be anything bad in the world. Free will doesn't cover it.
      I have my own personal, non-supported ideas on this. I think that their had to be bad. And that for things to work, there had to be an opposite to everything. Light-dark, matter-antimatter, love-hate, good-bad. So God, in his devine Wisdom, allowed evil to be, so that it could be rooted out once and for all.
      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    163. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's (D) and probably many more explanations. The * was created by God in a way it is to give choice. If everything was to be good then where is the choice to be bad since everything is good. You can say so why bad things happen to good people . Mayby to make them better stronger to test them and if they die maybe to release them from their bodies sooner. And althogh I can be wrong abut this this is as good explanations as Yours and you did limit possible explanatons only to Yours denying any other so the conclusion of your post might be wrong.

      If you ask me (and you didn't ;] ) life begins in conception and thats not only that. Ask a priest about about condoms and "waisting" sperm and such things. As for death ... who cares about the exact moment maybe we shouldn't make timing important maybe the "after" death time is irrelevant and maybe it is irrelevant now.

      I think today we christians take faith the easy way sayng ok i belive in god im a christian but i'll do it my way because its more rational,easier.

      Cemrzb-p

    164. Re:What about going to heaven? by brainburger · · Score: 1

      I think everyone understands that a child-murderer is excercising his free-will. - But what about the child being murdered? - How does their free-will come into it?
      If they don't chose to be murdered, then why does God not protect them?
      Why do Christians feel that any omnipotent being that would fail to protect the innocent is worthy of worship?
      I have to say, that if it were scientifically proven tomorrow that there is a God - I would be hoping that it would also be possible to destroy it, and free mankind.

    165. Re:What about going to heaven? by Kadmos · · Score: 1

      I'm a Christ follower but I have many problems with Christianity and the overall Body of the church. Your questions are some of the more frustrating ones because the average Christian is so holier than thou when they answer it.

      Those are interesting questions, but sometimes I wonder if they are the right questions to be asking. Religion is for the most part not logical (eg A Woman having children without sex is not logical). I think it is pretty safe to say that religion is based on blind belief, not logic, and that any logical argument against religion is doomed to fail because of this.

      So perhaps an more interesting question might be: Why do people believe things which, if they took time to examine them, are obviously wrong? Are they just stupid to the facts? (I don't think so) Or, perhaps just as you or I are willing to supend belief when reading a sci-fi book or watching a movie so that we can enjoy it, are religious people willing to suspend rational belief to get the rewards that they apparently do from religion?

      Whatever the answer might be, I think that a lot of religious people are simply scared. Scared of sex, other people, the world in general and *especially* of death. I think they turn to a group which thinks like they do to gain the rewards of comfort and security. (I would apprecite any counter views to this so I can refine my thoughts).

    166. Re:What about going to heaven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl! That was sweet. +5 more funny if it'd have been possible man... bravo! :D

    167. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      As you say, it's not really about when they died. But they wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten it.

      He said, "If you eat this fruit, you will surely die". Correct.

      They ate the fruit, and God killed them as a punishment for disobeying his command. Also correct.

      They ate the fruit, and they surely died. God was telling the truth. They gained certain knowledge that the serpent said they would gain, but remember that the serpent was the one that said, "Thou shalt not surely die."

      As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    168. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      People have natural tendencies to do all sorts of things, presumably designed by god. Omniscient? Apparently god knows we're all going to sin

      Remember, though, that the first humans had natural tendencies to do only good. They decided that it wasn't good enough. Would it have been unrighteous of God to withhold it from them? No, since he, by definition, makes the rules. But, out of love and fairness, he chose to give them the ability to decide whether they truly wanted to serve him.

      He's 'personally' responsible for intentionally killing nearly everyone on the planet.

      Is God to blame when Adam and Eve are the ones that screwed us? Kind of like blaming the parent when some kid deletes the files on his own machine. God gave them their lives, and said, 'You can do what you like, but these are the consequences if you do this one thing.' They knew what would happen. They did it anyway. And we're still paying for it. It's a real good thing for us that God loved the rest of us enough to send his own son to make a way out, or we'd be eternally screwed.

      he sends his son...So we can kill him, and by doing that we're cleansed of sin?!

      You and I certainly didn't kill him. Those that killed him were wicked people anyway, and took many lives; if not by murder, then by keeping them from finding the way to eternal life. Jesus said: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Gehenna twice as much so as yourselves." -- Matthew 23:15.

      So what would it matter if it was them to carry out the sacrifice? Better that they commit the greatest single murder of all time than someone righteous.

      what is he so worried about with the whole sovereignty issue? Why would god have to prove anything to anyone?

      He doesn't. He chose to. He wanted to answer the question, he wanted to settle the issue. And because he chose to settle the issue, you and I and billions of other human beings actually do have a shot at eternal life in accord with God's original purpose.

      He also refused to give up on that purpose--a paradise planet filled with happy people living forever in perfect health, and love among all--including between God and humans (First John 4:8, "God is love"). Is it rational to criticize God for not being a quitter?

      I would like to know the reality about how things came about...I hope you find your happiness

      I too have been determined to avoid self-delusion. That is why I set out to know what the Bible really says. I have found out a great deal, and I have found much happiness. I can tell you more if you like, not just based on the Bible, but from the Bible itself (most Christian churches I've seen are 'based on the Bible' like some movies are 'based on a true story'). There's a lot more to the Bible than most people realize. But I think it would be better to discuss it off of Slashdot.

      My email is available; if you'd like to know more, just give me a shout.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    169. Re:What about going to heaven? by duffahtolla · · Score: 1
      --Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

      You're confusing cause an effect. A person says they are dead because they have determined that they have ascended to Heaven (or descended to Hell).

      I'm just guessing but maybe he's refering to the Christian belief in "Judgement day". You know, When Jesus returns, the "dead shall rise", and all are judged. Those worthy get an E ticket to heaven (at that point in time) and the rest are left here on earth to suffer horribly amoung the poisonous locusts and the newly crated lakes of fire.

      Please, someone who has a clue about this Judgement thingy please pipe up. It does seem to conflict with the "Mommy's in heaven now" statements you always hear from the clergy.

    170. Re:What about going to heaven? by Kirth+Gersen · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, Christians believe that dead people *stay* dead until Resurrection Day, when Christ raises the righteous from the tomb. They then live forever in their human form: no wings etc -- on Earth. (Cremation is not a problem.)

      Saints are a special case.

      People argue about whether New Testament Christianity really has a place for Hell at all.

      I don't know where the "going to heaven" thing came from. My impression is that it came in from another religion, probably Judaism. It may just be some sort of secular heresy, Shirley-Maclaine-style.

    171. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "As you say, it's not really about when they died. But they wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten it."

      That's pretty far down the chain of cause and effect. God tells them, 'If you eat the fruit you will die'. Not, 'If you eat the fruit, I will kill you as a punishment.' If a human being had said this, we would accuse him of being weasely. . At best, you have to admin God wasn't straightforward with people. At best, he's some kind of Galactic Riddler.

      "He said, "If you eat this fruit, you will surely die". Correct." Right. If any person said this, it clearly means that you will die as a result of eating the fruit. But for some reason, we have to make an exception with God, because he can't be open and honest with us.

      "They ate the fruit, and God killed them as a punishment for disobeying his command. Also correct."

      It would have been nice if he had warned the people that that's what he was going to do.

      " They ate the fruit, and they surely died. God was telling the truth. They gained certain knowledge that the serpent said they would gain, but remember that the serpent was the one that said, "Thou shalt not surely die.""

      Here's the funny thing -- according to the Bible, it looks an awful like God *decided* to kill the people after they ate the fruit. God later says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen. 3 21)

      Yes, I know that God told them they would die after eating the fruit. But they don't die as a result of eating the fruit -- God kills them as a punishment. God is exercising free will and *choosing* to punish them after they eat the fruit. Which is unfair, because if you strike a deal with someone, you have to lay out the terms in advance.

      An open-minded reading clearly shows that God mislead the people and then took out a punishment on them. If you disagree with that, you have to twist around the meaning of the passages with corny explanations like "One day is 900 years for God" or "God knew that in the end he would have to kill them to technically he wasn't lying". At best God is a shady riddler who can't be straightforward with us.

      "As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying."

      No, it really looks like he told us the truth. He told Eve that the fruit would give them knowledge, which God neglected to mention. He also said the fruit wouldn't kill them -- and it didn't. God decided *afterwards* to kill them as a punishment.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    172. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you are saying that God actually is fair, and Adam and Eve screwed over all of humanity. So you are saying that it was fair of God to create this Tree of Knowledge, which seems to serve no purpose other than being something that Adam and Eve are told to stay away from? Why did God create this tree, and if he really just *had* to make it, then if he really didn't want Adam and Eve to touch it, why didn't he make it inaccessible?

      Then, for some reason, God has created a world in which there is a Satan (in the form of a serpent) who can go around and trick people into doing things? And furthermore, it was fair of God to allow this evil serpent to trick Eve, who at this time has no concept of good or evil, and then hold Eve responsible for doing something wrong?

      The whole creation and beginning of mankind thing is probably the very weakest part of the Bible, in my opinion.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    173. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      But beyond what you're saying, there are a few other points about this story that don't make sense.

      One, is that God gave Adam and Eve free will, and then ordered them to obey his commands. What was the free will for? You have to wonder, with the tree just sitting there, and these two people living forever... wasn't it almost inevitable that at some point this would happen? Maybe not in the first million years, but we're talking eternity here. I mean... did God just want to make us feel responsible for all the bad things that happen to people, even though we couldn't have done it without his tree? Shift the blame a bit?

      Most importantly, though, God punished Adam and Eve for doing something wrong... although until actually carrying out the act, the two had no concept of good or evil. How were they to know that disobeying God was wrong?

      It seems that in any other case, when we as people determine the guilt of someone for a crime, we take into account if they were of sound mind, and were able to distingish from right and wrong. How can you expect someone who is incapable of knowing good from evil to make all the right decisions?

      It's kind of like... severely punishing your cat for staring at your while you are getting undressed. How is the cat supposed to know any better? Furthermore, if it was so important for the cat not to see you, why didn't you just keep the door closed?

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    174. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      Even if "for things to work", there had to be opposites to everything, that doesn't mean bad things had to exist. I mean, if there were a world where there was no good OR evil, there's no lack of balance there. We could just be happy or content or whatever, and we wouldn't miss good or evil, because there would be no such thing. Just like we don't mind that there is no "zobort" (along with its anti-zobort counterpart, of course). "Good" and "evil" could also be meaningless terms.

      But beyond that, I don't see why there would *have* to be the opposite of each thing. God "created" light. He didn't discover it or put it into our world. He made up what it is. He could have made something that didn't have a dark counterpart and called that light. That's my opinion... obviously it's about as far from provable as you can get.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    175. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that it was fair of God to create this Tree of Knowledge, which seems to serve no purpose other than being something that Adam and Eve are told to stay away from?

      What did the command to stay away from the tree stand for? Exercise of free will. Up until they ate the fruit, they were, shall we say, "instinctively programmed" do only do what was right. They didn't have free will to just go and kill somebody. They did, however, know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit, and they did have the free will to decide whether they would eat it or not (after all, they did choose to eat it, didn't they?). It made the whole issue of free will neat and simple. One rule, one consequence. Or would you rather we were all just robots? Keep in mind that that question affects the entire population. Basically, all of humanity could choose whether or not they wanted to only do good, in a very simple, easy to understand way. (It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.)

      Then, for some reason, God has created a world in which there is a Satan...?

      Slow down, cowboy! God created the perfect spirit person we now know as Satan, but did He really create him with evil inside? Let's see what *really* happened.

      Ezekiel 28:13-15: "In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrysolite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you." Jesus says at John 8:44 (and he should know) that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth". This shows us that the one now called Devil and Satan was "in the truth" when he was created, but he let a desire develop and grow for the worship that rightfully belonged to God, and he worked to overcome his tendency to do good, and began to sin. He totally changed. He was like a completely different person. He's been a manslayer ever since. He even convinced thousands--if not millions--of faithful angels to join him in his rebellion.

      Revelation 12:9: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him." So he and his spirit cohorts are helping people along the path of wickedness, influencing people, as much as they can, to do more wickedness than ever before, trying to see just how wicked they can make the world. The vast majority of humankind is being misled by them, and most people don't even know these wicked spirits are misleading them.

      it was fair of God to allow this evil serpent to trick Eve, who at this time has no concept of good or evil, and then hold Eve responsible for doing something wrong?

      Remember that Eve, while not having "the knowledge of good and bad", still knew it was wrong to take the fruit (see the statement about simplicity earlier). If God had stopped Satan from convincing Eve to eat the fruit, then the entire command not to eat it--indeed, the whole tree --would have been pointless. It's about free will. In other words, "You must not do this bad thing. You're gonna die if you do this bad thing." God didn't say he'd stop anyone from doing it. He told them not to do it, and he told them they'd die if they did it. They knew who God was, namely, their Creator, and they knew it was wrong. But notice something else. First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly dec

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    176. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      That's pretty far down the chain of cause and effect. God tells them, 'If you eat the fruit you will die'. Not, 'If you eat the fruit, I will kill you as a punishment.'

      Um...what's the difference how they would die? He said for them not to eat it, and he said they would die for eating it ("You must not eat from it, for...you will positively die", New World Translation; "thou shalt not eat of it: for...thou shalt surely die", King James Version). Where's the ambiguity?

      They knew it was wrong to eat it. But here's something interesting: Eve was totally fooled into thinking she wouldn't die for rebelling against God's command (which she knew was wrong). First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived."

      Okay, so she was fooled. But Adam was not fooled at all. He knew it was wrong, and he knew the penalty was death. He ate the fruit anyway, and they both died for it.

      An open-minded reading clearly shows that God mislead the people and then took out a punishment on them.

      An open-minded but accurate reading, however, shows that they knew full well the consequences, and that God did what he said he would do.

      "As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying."

      No, it really looks like he told us the truth. He told Eve that the fruit would give them knowledge, which God neglected to mention.


      What exactly did God call it, anyway? Genesis 2:17: "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat". Sounds like you missed that part, or neglected to mention it.

      He also said the fruit wouldn't kill them -- and it didn't.

      Actually, he said, "Thou shalt not surely die" (KJV), or "You will positively not die" (NWT).

      They died, Satan lied.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    177. Re:What about going to heaven? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      Listen, thanks for your comments and all... but I think it still doesn't address the main crux of what irks me about the creation story.

      I still say that if Adam and Eve had not yet learned good from evil, I don't know how they could be expected to make a judgment on whose words to trust regarding the tree... they needed to eat from the tree in order to understand that Satan was evil, God was good, and taking from the tree was wrong (as I see it).

      I still don't see why the tree was made accessible to Adam and Eve, if it was to never be messed with. If it were to test them, then I don't understand why they needed to be tested. And if they fail the test... God created them, so it seems like it should be his bad.

      Your point about Satan I understand; God only created the being that *became* Satan, however I still don't understand why God would even allow that to happen, being all-knowing and all-powerful.

      I'm not trying to just be argumentative, and I'm certainly not trying to prove anything false... I'm only saying that I don't feel convinced it is more likely to be true above other religions or philosophies about existence.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    178. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Um...what's the difference how they would die? He said for them not to eat it, and he said they would die for eating it ("You must not eat from it, for...you will positively die", New World Translation; "thou shalt not eat of it: for...thou shalt surely die", King James Version). Where's the ambiguity?"

      There is no ambiguity. That's the problem.

      If I said to you, "Don't drink the orange juice in the fridge; if you do you will surely die", you would conclude that the orange juice was somehow deadly. If you went ahead and drank it, and then said, "Hey Lawpoop! I drank that orange juice and I'm still alive!" and then I flipped out and said, "YOU DRANK THE ORANGE JUI CE?! NOW I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" -- don't you see how that is entirely misleading? Why should I kill you for drinking the orange juice? Just because I told you not to? In that case, why didn't I just say "Don't drink the orange juice or I'll kill you" ? Why does God have to mislead them and make it seem like the fruit will kill them? Why can't he just come out and say "Don't eat the fruit, or I will kill you as a punishment" ?

      There is no ambiguity. God straight-out mislead the first people.

      "They knew it was wrong to eat it. "

      How could they know that? Remember, this fruit was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Before they are it, they had no knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. So how could they know it was wrong before they had knowledge or right and wrong?

      "But here's something interesting: Eve was totally fooled into thinking she wouldn't die for rebelling against God's command (which she knew was wrong). First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived.""

      Red herring. If God lies in the beginning, we shouldn't trust him later on.

      "Okay, so she was fooled. But Adam was not fooled at all. He knew it was wrong, and he knew the penalty was death. He ate the fruit anyway, and they both died for it."

      How could he know it was wrong before he had knowledge of good and evil? He might have realized that after he ate the fruit, but there's no way he could have known it before.

      "An open-minded but accurate reading, however, shows that they knew full well the consequences, and that God did what he said he would do."

      How can I trust you to give an open-minded and accurate reading when you are claiming they knew right and wrong before they ate of the Fruit of Knowledge of Right and Wrong?

      Here's the best reading I can give it: God doesn't want people eating the fruit, because he doesn't want people to be like "them", i.e. having the knowledge of good and evil. So he tells them not to eat it, or they will die, I guess to make them afraid of it. However, the eating of the fruit actually doesn't kill them. It just gives them knowledge of good and evil. So God mislead them, perhaps for their own benefit, perhaps because he's jealous -- but still he wasn't honest and straightforward.

      Then the snake comes along, and says "Die? Of course you won't die. It's Fruit of Kowledge of Good and Evil, not Deadly Fruit." So then they look at it, and eat it.

      God then finds out and flips out. He gets real nervous about people becoming Gods like him, so he curses them to return to dust, and then banishes them from the garden so they can't get at the fruit of immortality.

      How was the serpent supposed to know that God would flip out and kill them when God found out what they had done? He just told the people straight up that the fruit wasn't deadly, it would just give them knowledge of good and evil.

      "As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying."

      In fact, the exact opposite is true. Eating of the fruit didn't kill them, as God told them it would. The serpent told them the truth, saying that the fruit would bring them knowledge of good and evil. He says "you shall surely not die" -- referring to eating the fruit

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    179. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      If I said to you, "Don't drink the orange juice in the fridge; if you do you will surely die", I could only conclude that you didn't want me to drink it. If you were my Almighty Creator, I would also take seriously your threat on my life. So would any reasonable person.

      How could they know that [it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit]?

      Because God gave them a command. They had no free will to do something wrong in any other case, but they had free will on this point, for the sake of simplicity. As the Creator, God made the rules of right and wrong. He imprinted upon their minds the tendency to automatically do good, but he gave them the free will to decide on one thing: the command about the fruit. It was up to them to obey or disobey. Disobeying a command made by one with authority over you is wrong by definition, from the beginning of creation, so they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit he commanded them not to eat.

      If God lies in the beginning, we shouldn't trust him later on.

      Red herring. God said they would die, and they died. God told the truth. Are you trolling, or what?

      However, the eating of the fruit actually doesn't kill them. It just gives them knowledge of good and evil...Then the snake comes along, and says "Die? Of course you won't die. It's Fruit of Kowledge of Good and Evil, not Deadly Fruit." So then they look at it, and eat it.

      Again, First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived." This shows that at least one of the serpent's statements was intended to deceive. Since we know that they did get the Knowledge of Good and Bad (in other words, free will in everything), the false statement could only be "You will positively not die", so the serpent (Satan) knew exactly what would happen to them. But Adam was not deceived, so he knew that he would die for eating the fruit.

      Why would you try to excuse something like that, especially coming from a man with a perfect mind, a man who deliberately worked against his inborn tendency to do good in order to do this? You think it wasn't Adam's fault? You wish the whole thing would just go away? You got some kind of grudge against God for making sure that when he says you'll die for something, he actually means it? I mean, it's not as though you ate the fruit.

      I don't know whether to think you're a troll or just scared that what the Bible really says will just shatter your comfortable life.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    180. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      if Adam and Eve had not yet learned good from evil, I don't know how they could be expected to make a judgment on whose words to trust regarding the tree

      Interesting point. The command came from the One who gave them life, and who therefore had authority over them. Having a death penalty on such a command only makes sense if they knew it would be wrong to eat it. Therefore, the Knowledge of Good and Bad could only refer to their everyday life. Remember, they were imbued with an instinct to only do good. They were physically and mentally perfect, so they would have to deliberately choose to eat the fruit, therefore they would not eat it accidentally (being perfect, they wouldn't just forget the command either). As pointed out at First Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived the very first lie in history, so he definitely knew who to trust regarding the command.

      I still don't see why the tree was made accessible to Adam and Eve, if it was to never be messed with. If it were to test them, then I don't understand why they needed to be tested.

      Another good point. As pointed out above, they had no conception of doing anything bad, except on the command about the fruit. Also, being perfect, they wouldn't eat the fruit except by deliberate choice, and with full knowledge of the consequences. Therefore, the tree wasn't there to test them, but to give them this choice: they could trust that God wanted what was best for them, live without choosing whether to do good or bad (having the instinct to always do good), and show that they served God by choice, out of love for him; or, they could say, "we don't like the restriction you've placed on our behavior, even though you are the one that gave us our lives", and choose for themselves what to do, good, bad, whatever they felt like doing, even knowing that they would die for it.

      And if they fail the test... God created them, so it seems like it should be his bad.

      They didn't fail a test, they made a choice, knowing that it would be wrong to do the only thing he told them not to do, and knowing it would mean death (Eve was fooled into thinking that disobedience wouldn't cost her, but Adam was not deceived).

      It's all about freedom of choice. God didn't want to be worshiped by robots, he wanted to be worshiped only by intelligent persons who loved him. So, he left it up to them to choose whether they really, truly wanted to serve him.

      God only created the being that *became* Satan, however I still don't understand why God would even allow that to happen, being all-knowing and all-powerful.

      Another good question. Genesis 3:22: "God went on to say: 'Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad'". So, then, the spirit creatures all knew what would be right or wrong in any circumstance. They had total free will, so any one of them could, if he so chose, decide not to serve God, no tree required. God granted them that choice (as for why he apparently skipped the 'tree' step with the angels, I'm not sure--in any case, he makes the rules, and by definition can't do wrong; furthermore, he has a perfect sense of justice--see Deuteronomy 32:4). He has a purpose, and even though he allowed Satan to try his best to mess up that purpose, Satan has utterly failed. Furthermore, there is nothing that Satan has brought upon us that God cannot undo. The only bad things that God will not reverse are the decisions of those people who have deliberately made an informed decision to reject God despite knowing the truth about him; so far, there have been fewer of those than one might think (besides, that's what the choice was in the beginning anyway: whether to accept or reject God as one's master). Satan has complicated things in the meantime, but God will fix that. He's not going to let 1 rebel or 10 billion rebels keep him from doing what he purposes to do. That's one way you can tell he's all-wise and all-powerful--he gave every person he created the ability to rebel against him, but he knew that his purpose

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    181. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "I don't know whether to think you're a troll or just scared that what the Bible really says will just shatter your comfortable life."

      I'm not trolling and my life certainly isn't 'comfortable'. I grew up in the Methodist church, and my family went to church every Sunday. All of my friends went to various churches every Sunday.

      Recently in my late 20s, I started reading the Bible, on my own, as I was encouraged to by every Protestant minister I heard. I didn't go in assuming it was the word of God. I didn't go in assuming that everything in it was true. As you can see, I choked on Genesis. What I found was that God comes off looking like an incredible hotheaded douchebag, and the serpent clearly is the only one looking out for us. That is the clearest, simplest, most straightforward reading I get out of it. Any other explanation requires a lot of twisting, bending, spinning, referring to other parts of the Bible, and plenty of "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is actually..."

      So I'm not trolling, nor am I in some mansion idly chatting on the internet. I'm just an average 28yo underemployed guy who gave the Bible an honest read, and this is what I got out of it. I see no reason to believe this crazy story over the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Louts Sutra, or even other Gospels that the church rejected centuries after Christ's life. All of them challenge my 'comfortable life', and ask me to believe some pretty rediculous things. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't need to believe in a rediculous fairy tale in order to be a decent person.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    182. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      "Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is actually..."

      But you see, that's exactly what you've been saying. The Bible says that God told Adam and Eve that they'd die if they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they died. Now, if you want to argue that that somehow means something different, twist away. But don't sit there and tell me you truly gave it an honest read. You may fool yourself, but you don't fool me.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    183. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "The Bible says that God told Adam and Eve that they'd die if they ate the fruit..."

      Yes, and my point is they don't die from eating the fruit, like God said they would. They do get knowledge of good and evil, like the serpent told them they would. After God finds out, he decides to kill them. So, God mislead them, and the serpent was honest with them. You are fooling yourself.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    184. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      God didn't say where the death would come from, and he didn't have to, being their Creator. He said they would die if they ate it. They knew they would die if they ate it. They ate it. They died.

      Go ahead, troll somewhere else. You don't have to waste any more time on me ;-)

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    185. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Because you haven't been able to argue successfully, doesn't mean that I am a troll. You have clearly lost the argument, and now calling me a troll is just a childish way for you to back out.

      God said, " but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

      At any other time, at any other place, the plain meaning of this sentence is that the fruit itself is somehow deadly, and it will cause you to die. The meaning can't be any plainer or simpler.

      But, according you, because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin, and refer to other parts of the Bible. What God actually meant was that "If you eat the fruit, later on when I find out about it, I will make sure that you die at some time in the future. " Notice that this meaning is different than the plain meaning of what he actually said. I don't think we should afford a Deity who claims to be interested in justice and truth that much slack.

      So, of course when the snake hears this baloney story, he tells the people, quite correctly, "No, the fruit won't kill you, you will simply get knowledge of good and evil. " Now the snake has no way of knowing that God will later flip out and kill them. We're not even sure that the snake is aware of God's commandment. The snake surely can't tell God what to do.

      So, the snake was honest with as much as he knew. The snake isn't omniscient like God. We have no reason to believe the snake even knew about God telling the people not to eat the fruit. Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit, anyways, so it's unfair for God to have punished the snake, and it's unfair for us to keep blaming the snake, when he clearly did nothing wrong.

      If God is all powerful, and claims to be just and fair, we have to hold him to a higher standard than he displayed in this outrageous episode. This shady character just isn't worthy of our worship. The snake was honest, and pointed us towards the knowledge that made us like Gods. Gods got all jealous and flipped out and made us mortal. Why would you want to be that guys' sucker?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    186. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      But, according you, because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin, and refer to other parts of the Bible.

      Okay, I'll play again, by your rules this time ;-)

      God said quite plainly that they would die if they ate the fruit. They ate the fruit anyway. They died. Notice that what actually happened is the same as the plain meaning of what God said (you know, like, dead, as in not alive). The meaning can't be any plainer or simpler. But according you (sic), because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin ;-)

      We're not even sure that the snake is aware of God's commandment.

      Eve told him the commandment immediately before he lied about it (check it out at Genesis 3:1-5).

      So, the snake was honest with as much as he knew.

      The snake told the first lie. What sharing does truth have with the lie? Besides, if he really didn't know, and was acting in all honesty, what motivation could he possibly have for trying to convince Eve to do something potentially lethal (totally lethal, as it turns out)? This shady serpent character just isn't worthy of our worship. Remember, too, that Adam didn't fall for it one bit. He deliberately ate, with full knowledge of the penalty.

      Come on, you're not even making it hard anymore. I think you afford your arguments too much slack ;-)

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    187. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      You're not playing by my rules at all. You're just taking the points I made against you, and saying them against me. That's no way to make a convincing argument. I think at this point you are starting to troll. Basically what you have done is just say "Nuh-uh, *you're* wrong!" without providing any argument.

      I'll repeat this for the fourth or fifth time. Here's how it went down, according to the Bible:

      "And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2, 16-17 NIV).

      This is plain and simple. Obvious. The only way you can read this is that eating the fruit will kill them. God *doesn't* say "If you eat this fruit I will punish you with death." God doesn't say "If you eat this fruit, it will set in motion a series of events that will result in me cursing you to return to the dust, amongst other things." God plainly says to them that eating the fruit will kill them. There is no other way to interpret this without getting away from the plain meaning.

      Now there has to be some facts behind this story. Either these fruit are deadly, like God indicates, or else God was misleading or lying to the people about the fruit.

      Enter the serpent:
      "He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3 verse 1 NIV)

      OK, the serpent has a question. So far, so good.

      "The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3 verses 2-3, NIV).

      OK, so the woman fills the snake in on what God said. Now, remember, there is some reality behind the fruit. Either they are deadly, like God said, or else God lied about the fruit and they are not deadly.

      "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. (Genesis 3 verse 4, NIV)

      Woah there, serpent! You better had be sure about the fruit! God said it would kill them. Are you sure they won't die from eating the fruit? Well, I guess the serpent is sure, because he did say "surely".

      "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3 verse 5, NIV)"

      In fact, the serpent knew the facts about the fruit, and he wasn't afraid to tell people the truth. The fruit aren't deadly; they are the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent tells them truth; that they won't die from eating the fruit, and that instead, they will have knowledge of Good and Evil, and he even goes as far as to call God out for his shenanegans. God lied to the people so they would be scared to eat the fruit and become like Him, with knowledge of Good and Evil. Why should we worship a jealous, insecure Deity, especially after he told this whopper?

      "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Genesis 3 verse 6, NIV)

      Wow, look at that! They ate the fruit and they didn't die. Wait -- why did God tell them they would die if they ate or touched the fruit...? Oh, that's right. He's jealous and doesn't want the people to be like Him, with knowledge of good and evil. But jeese, why did he have to lie? Couldn't he just have said, "If you eat this fruit, I will kill you?" But alas, He didn't. He chose to lie.

      " Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." (Genesis 3 verse 7, NIV).

      What's this? Not only didn't they die, but there eyes *were* opened to the knowledge of Good and Evil, just like

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    188. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      You're just taking the points I made against you, and saying them against me.

      Well, I can't help it if what you say contradicts the point you're trying to make. ;-)

      Let's expand our horizons, shall we? No sense restricting ourselves to only one translation, seeing that the rich Hebrew language has deep meanings rather difficult to convey using one set of English words: Genesis 2:17:

      "except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." New Living Translation

      "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." New King James Version

      "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." New American Standard Bible

      "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Revised Standard Version

      "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." New Webster Version

      "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die." Robert Young Literal Translation

      "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die." J. N. Darby Translation

      "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." American Standard Version

      "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die." Hebrew Names Version

      "de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris" Jerome's Latin Vulgate

      "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." New World Translation

      There is no way to interpret this other than that the consumption of the fruit from that tree will result in death. But when? The vast majority of translations take the Hebrew word here to mean "day". All through Genesis chapter 1, the term "day" has been used to describe lengths of time during which God created stuff. These time periods are generally believed to have been thousands, millions, even billions of years. The term "day" is also used in Genesis 2:4 to describe the entire period of time God spent creating things, therefore the term "day" is not necessarily literal. So when God says 'you will die in the day you eat from it', it's clear to us that he's not going to let them live forever, but that he might not necessarily have them die instantly.

      But hey, we could argue that Adam and Eve didn't know that. They may have thought they would die at sunset! So, then, when God told them about what was already going to happen to them, namely, DEATH, wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? Wasn't it NICE of him to POSTPONE the execution of the sentence 900+ YEARS, with no jail time? Why don't you criticize him for being nice and allowing them to have children (including you)? At least you'd have a point.

      He's jealous and doesn't want the people to be like Him, with knowledge of good and evil.

      Then why did he let them have the knowledge for 900 years? Come to think of it, why has he allowed billions of us to have it, all these 6,000+ years? You're not making sense anymore. Or maybe you just don't understand the Bible, but somehow still think you're right.

      I don't have to argue against your thesis, the Bible contradicts it. Not just the Bible, the whole Bible. First Timothy

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    189. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "There is no way to interpret this other than that the consumption of the fruit from that tree will result in death. But when? The vast majority of translations take the Hebrew word here to mean "day". All through Genesis chapter 1, the term "day" has been used to describe lengths of time during which God created stuff. These time periods are generally believed to have been thousands, millions, even billions of years. The term "day" is also used in Genesis 2:4 to describe the entire period of time God spent creating things, therefore the term "day" is not necessarily literal. So when God says 'you will die in the day you eat from it', it's clear to us that he's not going to let them live forever, but that he might not necessarily have them die instantly."

      This is exactly the spin I am talking about.

      First off, you agree with me that the sentence means they will die from eating the fruit. But they don't die from eating the fruit. If that were the case, God should have said, "If you eat this fruit, it will set in motion a series of events at the end of which I will curse you to return to dirt."

      Second, you go through all this rigamarole about how long a day is. You know what? It doesn't matter if a day is a million years for God. Some of the translations say "you will surely die", some say "you will die when you eat the fruit", some say "you will die that day". Notice how you have to do so much explaining to get this passage to mean something other than what it says? That is spin, my friend.

      "... we could argue that Adam and Eve didn't know that. They may have thought they would die at sunset! So, then, when God told them about what was already going to happen to them, namely, DEATH, wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? "

      That might make him nice, but it also makes him a liar, if what He told them was that they would die that day, or when they ate the fruit. It's not nice that he lies to them because he's afraid they will become like them, and then he flips out and kills them. That's pretty crazy behavior, actually. If God is so worried about being nice, how about not punishing people for disobeying his commandment when they didn't know the difference between right and wrong in the first place.

      "I don't have to argue against your thesis, the Bible contradicts it. Not just the Bible, the whole Bible. First Timothy 2:4..."

      You have two problems here.

      One, if it turns out God is a liar at the very outset, we certainly can't trust him later on. If you meet someone and the first thing they do is lie to you, you can't expect any more truth from them. If someone tells you, "You can trust me", you should immediately be suspicious.

      Second, those other parts of the Bible clearly spin Genesis just like you do. My reading is the simplest, plainest meaning you can take from the Genesis passages. Your interpretations take a lot of explaining about how long a day is for God, and outright misrepresentations.

      "God said that eating the fruit would mean death, no matter how you slice it. They ate it, no matter how you slice it, and they died, no matter how you slice it."

      You have not sliced it at all. You took two events that were far apart and stuck them together, when they don't belong together. God clearly tells them that the act of eating the fruit will kill them. In some translations, he even says it will kill them that day. But it doesn't kill them. They wind up dying some 900+ years later because God curses them, not after they ate this fruit.

      Why can't you accept that? Does that challenge your comforting notion of a loving and caring God? Why must you reject over and over clear evidence in the beginning of the Bible that God is jealous and unjust?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    190. Re:What about going to heaven? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Here's my best to provide the most definitive information I've heard, carefully trying to represent multiple points of view.

      The answer as standardly taught in my religious tradition is as follows:

      Upon death, a person's soul enters the "realm of the dead." In the Old Testament, this was referred to as the Hebrew word "Sheol," and in the New Testament (and Greek translations of the Old Testament), it is referred to borrowing the Greek word "Hades." In some Bibles, this is translated as "the Grave." It's used in such a way that it could refer to a real place (or at least something the inhabitants perceive as a "place"), but could also be construed to simply mean "you are dead" (and perhaps unaware). Most people in my faith tradition construe this to mean a place, but I personally am undecided between the two positions. (Descriptions of Sheol in the Bible describing it as a place in which the inhabitants are aware rather than simply a state in which the inhabitants are not could be construed as being symbolic rather than literal information.)

      Various accounts in the Bible are taken to indicate that both the righteous and the unrighteous are in Hades (which, in the Bible, is never directly equated with "hell"; misconstruing these as being the same has resulted in a massive number of religious people throughout history asserting the Christ sort of "invaded" hell when He died, as some kind of a liberation of its inhabitants, when in reality the Bible says He went to Hades, simply meaning He went to where the dead go). The word "Tartarus" (also borrowed from Greek) is sometimes used in the Bible for this place, but only for the wicked, and the context indicates it is a place of suffering. Meanwhile, at least one righteous person after death was described as being in "Abraham's bosom" (and actually present with Abraham), and it is indicated as being a place of rest. The definitive information about this comes from a parable of Jesus called "the rich man and Lazarus," and you may read it in Luke 16. That parable also indicates that there is an uncrossible "great gulf" between the wicked rich man and the place where the poor man, Lazarus, was with Abraham. Again, this is something that some people believe may not have been intended to represent the actual state of people after death.

      There are also passages that may use the word "Paradise" to refer to the Hades of the righteous. In particular, Jesus told the thief on the cross next to Him who repented and asked for mercy that "today you shall be with me in Paradise."

      In my faith tradition, most people take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to be an accurate description of the state of people for the time between their death and the Final Coming of Christ. Now, at the Coming, the following things happen: dead Christians rise (I Thessalonians 4:16), all of the dead will rise to a resurrection of either life or judgment based on the deeds they did (John 5:28-29), the living Christians and the resurrected dead Christians will rise to meet Christ in the air and live with Him forever (I Thessalonians 4:17), the earth and the universe will be destroyed by heat (II Peter 3:10), and all people will be judged by Christ (II Corinthians 5:10). Also, interestingly enough, Revelation says that Hades itself will be condemned to perish in the "lake of fire" or "second death" known elsewhere as hell (Revelation 20:13-14).

      So under that traditional understanding, "Mommy" actually isn't in heaven yet, but is in a beautiful place of rest, assuming she lived righteously, in Paradise at Abraham's bosom, awaiting the last Day when her soul will be reunited with her body for the resurrection.

      There are other understandings, but most of them fail to account for one or more pieces of information I included above. There's the "straight to heaven" idea, which seems incompatible with the final coming and with judgment, and doesn't have a passage (that I know of) that unequivocally supports it. And there's some other ideas that ge

    191. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      "wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? "
      That might make him nice, but it also makes him a liar

      Look, we've already been over this. But hey, let's just go back to the original Hebrew, then, eh? The Hebrew "yowm" (day), pronounced like "yome", means (Strong's Dictionary):
      1) day, time, year
      a) day (as opposed to night)
      b) day (24 hour period): 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1; 2) as a division of time; 2a) a working day, a day's journey
      c) days, lifetime (pl.)
      d) time, period (general)
      e) year
      f) temporal references: 1) today; 2) yesterday; 3) tomorrow

      So, then, "back in the day" (pun intended), Adam and Eve's own language used the term "day" pretty loosely. Remember how long it took God to create everything (one day, according to Genesis 2:4). Adam and Eve died in a much shorter period of time after eating the fruit, almost instantly when compared to the Genesis 2:4 definition of "day".

      the sentence means they will die from eating the fruit.

      They wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten the fruit, right? Right. They ate the fruit, right? Right. Did they die? Yes. They died. God clearly tells them that the act of eating the fruit will kill them. So, then, God didn't lie about anything.

      You have two problems here. One, if it turns out God is a liar at the very outset, we certainly can't trust him later on.

      You have failed to show that God lied anywhere. You're spinning and apinning, but God still told them they would die if they ate the fruit, and they died for eating the fruit.

      Second, those other parts of the Bible clearly spin Genesis just like you do.

      Or, could it be, possibly, that they merely form the basis for my beliefs, thus making my beliefs Bible-based? The entire Bible is a unit, internally consistent, and having internal harmony, despite having been penned by dozens of different people from vastly different backgrounds over a period of about 1,600 years. You can't blow that off so easily.

      They wind up dying some 900+ years later because God curses them, not after they ate this fruit.

      Actually, God cursed the ground because of them, so that it would be very hard to make food grow from it, which curse was lifted after the Flood of Noah's day (there's that d-word again)--see Genesis 8:21, 22. God also cursed Eve with increased birth pains and craving for her husband, and he cursed the serpent (Satan). But what did he say to Adam? Genesis 3:17-19: "And to Adam he said: 'Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it," cursed is the ground on your account...Thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."

      So, then, the curses from God were painful things in the meantime until they died. They were going to die anyway, and God reminded them (remember that Adam wasn't deceived at all, but Eve didn't think she was going to die). Another way the phrase "to dust you will return" could be read is that God here passes sentence upon them in accord with the penalty he already stated at Genesis 2:17. Either way, he told them they would die. Either way, they died.

      They wind up dying some 900+ years later...not after they ate this fruit.

      What, did they die before they ate it? You can't mean that.

      Have a nice day! ;-)

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    192. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "They wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten the fruit, right? Right. They ate the fruit, right? Right. Did they die? Yes. "

      This is the spin you are giving. God said that they would die as a result of eating the fruit. They didn't die from eating the fruit. They died from God's punishment for eating the fruit. God mislead them. Why can't you admit this? It's as plain as day.

      It would be like if I said, "Don't run with scissors, or you will surely die." So you go ahead and run with scissors, and you manage not to injure yourself. Then, when I find out you ran with scissors, I flip out and say "You ran with scissors? Now I'm going to kill you!" You can see how I was misleading you about the danger of scissors.

      Well, in Gods case, it was even worse. The fruit wasn't deadly at all. It was simply the fruit that imparted the knowledge of good and evil. But God mislead them and made it seem like eating the fruit would kill them. The serpent corrected the story, and tells them quite truthfully that the fruit surely won't kill them, which it doesn't, and that it actually imparts knowledge of good and evil. The serpent correctly informs them that God lied to them about the fruit because He is jealous, and doesn't want them to have knowledge of good and evil, like he does. Then the jealous, lying God flips out and punishes the people and the snake. What a douchebag.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    193. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      They died from God's punishment for eating the fruit.

      Exactly what was God's punishment? There are 2 ways to read it:

      1. God's punishment consisted solely of increased birth pains and craving for husband, who would dominate her, for Eve, and having to work super hard to get food out of the ground, and eating said food from the ground in pain and sweat until the day of death (notice also that in that cursing, the mention of death is specifically directed at Adam, not Eve);

      2. God's punishment consisted of all that, plus the penalty of death.

      If we take choice 1, then you and I have no disagreement, since it means obviously that they were already going to die (hence why he didn't even mention death when talking to Eve). So let's take choice 2.

      Let's just suppose for a moment that eating the fruit wasn't going to kill them. Then what? Everybody would call God a liar, since he told them they would die for eating it. So, then, God, in order to be completely honest (it is impossible for him to lie), carried out the death penalty himself. There is no difference between dead and dead.

      Look, I've seen people who will criticize anybody for anything. Heck, they killed Jesus for blasphemy! Was Jesus guilty? Of course not (in fact, he never sinned in his life).

      I mean, come on, if they hadn't died, you'd still be right here calling God a liar. Only thing is, you'd be right in that case.

      Oh, and by the way, billions of us have had--and still have--the knowledge of good and bad. If God really wanted us not to have it, he'd just take it away. In fact, he would not have even allowed anyone to eat the fruit. He left it up to humans whether they wanted it, but put a condition on it: death. Now if only they would have had some perfect children before they committed suicide... Jerks.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    194. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      This is the problem: God mislead them. He said "If you eat the fruit, you will surely die." The only way to read this is to come to the conclusion that the action of eating the fruit will make you dead. God *didn't* say "If you eat the fruit, I will kill you as a punishment." At best, he mislead them by speaking in a riddle, knowing that eating the fruit wouldn't kill them, but later on down the road he would wind up cursing them to mortality. How can we expect Adam and Even to understand this misleading riddle? At worse, He lied, telling them the fruit would kill them when in fact the fruit doesn't kill people. So God is either a misleading riddler or a liar. Either way, it doesn't look good for a Deity who claims to be interest in truth, honesty, and justice. In fact, the serpent was the only character who was honest -- he told them that the fruit would *not* kill them, and that God only told them the lie out of jealousy, to keep them away from the fruit.

      You do a lot of twisting, spinning, and translating Hebrew words in order to make the story mean something other than it said. I think it's very telling that you made a challenge to my personal comfort and called me a troll earlier in the thread. Clearly you see that you have lost this argument, because you haven't come up with any points to refute this logic. All you can do is turn my words against me in a childish manner, or call me a troll, or claim that the Bible somehow challenges my comfortable life. Well, it has become clear that an honest reading of Genesis challenges your beliefs, and you are unable to acknowledge it.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    195. Re:What about going to heaven? by mink · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always thought a funeral was to celebrate the life of the person who has passed on, not berate and rant at the family members for not praying hard enough.

      Maybe I go to the wrong funerals.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    196. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      The only way to read this is to come to the conclusion that the action of eating the fruit will make you dead.

      Well, they died. So what?

      How can we expect Adam and Even to understand this misleading riddle?

      Eat fruit == die. There's nothing strange about it. Down through the centuries and up to our day (that pesky word again), commandments (or laws) with penalties for violating them have had a similar structure, and nobody ever thought, for example, that murdering a fellow human is fatal in itself. Except you, I guess ;-)

      You do a lot of twisting, spinning, and translating Hebrew words in order to make the story mean something other than it said.

      It says in simple language (English, Spanish, the original Hebrew, any language you like),that God told them they would die for eating it, and it says they died for eating it. No twisting required.

      Clearly you see that you have lost this argument, because you haven't come up with any points to refute this logic.

      The Bible itself completely refutes your quite faulty logic, in multiple places. They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white. It has become clear that an honest reading of Genesis challenges your beliefs, and you, though quite able, simply refuse to acknowledge it.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    197. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Eat fruit == die. There's nothing strange about it. "

      Except that in reality , Eat fruit != die. However, Eat fruit == I will kill you later on downt the road.

      It is strange that God that would mislead the people like that, isn't it? Especially for a God who claims to be interested in justice and the truth. It doesn't make sense...

      Oh wait, the serpent clears it up for us. After he tells us the truth about the fruit, that it won't kill people, but will give people knowledge of Good and Evil, he tells us that God is jealous and doesn't want us to be like him. That's why God lied to us, telling us that the fruit is deadly. He's jealous and wants to scare us away from the fruit. He lied to us because he is jealous, and doesn't want us to be like him. However, the serpent was honest and straightforward with us. God, in a jealous rage, decides to punish the people, and also punish the snake. This is not fair nor just behavior.

      "It says in simple language (English, Spanish, the original Hebrew, any language you like),that God told them they would die for eating it, and it says they died for eating it. No twisting required."

      You're twisting the meaning even when you say you are not. You lie just like your God does.

      You have said that "God told them they would die for eating [the fruit]". However, the story tells us that they do not die for eating the fruit. They die because later on, after they ate the fruit, because God found out and decided to curse them to return to dust.

      "They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white."

      Really? Where does it say that?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    198. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      Except that in reality , Eat fruit != die.

      What, you're saying they didn't die? If Eat fruit == I will kill you down the road, then what is the result for you? Just like that song by The Old Dogs, "You're still gonna die." Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes. You have to do some serious twisting to get around that.

      Oh wait, the serpent clears it up for us. After he tells us the truth about the fruit, that it won't kill people

      Actually, the serpent is a little weaselly on the point of how they wouldn't die. He just said:

      "You won't die!" the serpent hissed. (NLT)

      Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die." (NKJV)

      The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!" (NASB)

      But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die." (RSV)

      At this the serpent said to the woman: "You positively will not die." (NWT)

      Et cetera. Whether from the fruit or from God's punishment for eating thereof, or from an Invisible Pink Unicorn Crash, the serpent just says there will be no dying. First Timothy 2:14 shows that she was thoroughly deceived by the serpent, but her husband was not deceived. Adam didn't think for a moment that he would not die if he ate the fruit.

      "They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white." Really? Where does it say that?

      Ho hum, time to knock the straw man down. Genesis 2:17 has the command, Genesis 3:1-5 shows the serpent's lie and the disobedient eating, and Genesis 5:5 documents Adam's death. "But why not Eve's?" I hear a whiny voice wheedle.

      Because the lineage/family heads were considered of prime importance. The wives' deaths are a given. You'll be hard-pressed to find the death of anybody's wife listed in Genesis 5 (or in many other genealogical sections of the Bible, like Numbers, for that matter), since it's about tracing lineage, as well as the time spans down through generations (for example, that's how we can tell that Adam was still alive nearly up to the Great Flood, and could see how far humankind had deteriorated from the Good Ole Garden Days). But hey, even if Eve were to live all the way up to the Flood, "Still Gonna Die" because Eve was not on board the Ark when came the rain.

      They ate the fruit, and they died, no matter how you twist it. Simple as that.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    199. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "What, you're saying they didn't die? "

      No, I am saying that the eating of the fruit did not kill them, as God told them it would. Why do you have to keep twisting this?

      "You have to do some serious twisting to get around that."

      No you don't. It's very clear in the Bible. God says, "... But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2, verse 17) [Emphasis mine].

      There it is, black and white, straight from the mouth of God. "When you eat of it, you will surely die."

      Not 900 years later, not one of God's 100-year-long Hebrew days, but when they ate of it. It doesn't get much clearer than that. You keep saying I am twisting, but I think at this point you know that you are the one who is twisting. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.

      "If Eat fruit == I will kill you down the road, then what is the result for you? Just like that song by The Old Dogs, "You're still gonna die." Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes."

      If that's what God meant, then that's what God should have said. Instead, he told the people that the fruit would kill them, which wasn't true.

      "Actually, the serpent is a little weaselly on the point of how they wouldn't die. "

      The Bible, which is biased against the serpent, does say he is weasely. The NIV translation says he is "clever" (Genesis 3 verse 1 NIV). But what do you expect from the word of God? After all, God is a liar, and the serpent calls him on it -- of course God is going to try to paint him in a bad light.

      In fact, the serpent wasn't weasely or misleading at all. Here is what the Bible says:

      " [The serpent] said to the woman,"Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3 verse 1-3 NIV).

      It's clear that they are talking about what would happen if the people ate the fruit. The serpent asked Eve what God had told her about eating the fruit. When Eve relays God's lie to the serpent, the serpent corrects her. When he says "You will surely not die", he is talking about if they ate the fruit. He is correcting God's lie.

      And guess what happens? They eat the fruit, and they don't die. This contradicts what God told them would happen, and confirms the serpents' correction of God's baloney story.

      You can say whatever you want about old Hebrew words, or quote verses from other parts of the Bible. What you are unable to do is to back up your beliefs with quotes from Genesis. The only thing you did was take the serpents' words out of context. They were talking about eating the fruit, and the serpent told them they wouldn't die from eating the fruit. Look, if the Bible starts out showing God to be a liar, we shouldn't trust anything that comes out of his mouth, or his supporter's mouths, later on.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    200. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      No, I am saying that the eating of the fruit did not kill them, as God told them it would.

      He merely said they would die if they ate it, and they died. Now if you want to talk about what God meant when he said that they would die if they ate the fruit, you can speculate all day, but your opinions will be just that--speculative opinions.

      for when you eat of it you will surely die.

      Well, now, that depends on which translation you use. I've noticed that you keep using the one that says "when", since it's a little less unfriendly to your claims. I've got one that says: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." And I've got another that says: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." So if you want to play word games and actually expect me to go along with it, we'll have to do it in Hebrew.

      Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes." If that's what God meant, then that's what God should have said. Instead, he told the people that the fruit would kill them, which wasn't true.

      Good try, but it didn't work this time either. He said they would die for eating it. They died. I don't know why you keep going back to that when it contradicts the point you're trying to make.

      The Bible, which is biased against the serpent, does say he is weasely.

      Well, as we've seen, God was telling the truth, so this serpent guy is either criminally negligent/inept or is a murderous liar (more on that later). It's hard not to be biased against either kind of person, especially when they are partly responsible for the death of every human being in history.

      of course God is going to try to paint him in a bad light.

      But, seeing as how you and I weren't there, I wonder if it's just possible that--maybe--Genesis is just reporting on the facts, and the fact that this serpent guy was rather sneaky just happens to be pertinent to the situation? I mean, you have to admit that it could be read that way by someone with an open mind and no axe to grind.

      It's clear that they are talking about what would happen if the people ate the fruit. The serpent asked Eve what God had told her about eating the fruit. When Eve relays God's lie to the serpent, the serpent corrects her. When he says "You will surely not die", he is talking about if they ate the fruit.

      Well, as we have seen, those that ate the fruit did indeed die, so God's statement 'you will die if you eat the fruit' was the truth, so either the serpent has no clue or he's deliberately lying. Seeing that the spirit person now known as Satan was in heaven for a long time, he had to know what was going on, so the most likely explanation is that he was lying outright. Does this check with the Bible? Let's see here. Jesus tells the Pharisees at John 8:43-45: "Why is it you do not know what I am speaking? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from you father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie [emphasis mine]. Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, you do not believe me."

      So, then, Satan, being the father of the lie, was the first one to tell a lie. So, then, what God told was the truth.

      And guess what happens? They eat the fruit, and they don't die.

      They've been dead for thousands of years. That means they died. *punches straw man down again*

      You can say whatever you want about old Hebrew words, or quote verses from other parts of the Bible. What you are unable to do is to back up your beliefs with quotes from Genesis.

      Okay, let's have some more fun, eh? 2:17: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." 3:4: "'You won't die!' the serpent hissed." 3:6: "So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, w

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    201. Re:What about going to heaven? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      This is your fatal error, one that you have consistently made throughout this entire thread.

      We both agree that God said "You will die if you eat this fruit." We both agree that they died later on.

      It matters why they died. It matters because God told them they would die as a result of eating the fruit. This is important because they do not die as a result of eating the fruit. This makes God a liar, because God told them they would die when they ate the fruit.

      You oversimplify when you say "they ate the fruit, and they died". Those two events were not causally related. The only connection between those two events were God's jealousy and retribution. They didn't die from eating the fruit, God just decided to make them mortal after he found out.

      It would be like me telling you "If you play guitar, it will be deadly to you." You decide to go ahead and play a little guitar anyways. Then 50 years down the road, I come to you and say "Remember that time 50 years ago when you were playing guitar? Well, now I'm going to kill you!"

      You see how that doesn't make any sense. Those are the actions of an insane, jealous person. And God admits many times in the Bible that he is a jealous God. That's why he curses us and the serpent. He's not interested in fairness, truth, or justice. He's just a jealous megalomaniac with too much power.


      I'm not trying to convert you to satanism. Frankly, I don't care what you think or believe. As long as you don't hurt me or anyone else you can do what you want. I am simply pointing out your errors in logic and your faulty arguments. But a word to the wise: you shouldn't put your blind faith in a liar, whether they are on the street corner, on TV, or up in Heaven somewhere.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    202. Re:What about going to heaven? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1
      We both agree that God said "You will die if you eat this fruit." We both agree that they died later on...It matters because God told them they would die as a result of eating the fruit. This is important because they do not die as a result of eating the fruit.

      Then why do they die? Let's see. Genesis 3:17: "And to Adam he said: "Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating form the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it,"...'" So, there you go. That's why they died: they ate the fruit.

      You say that the whole dooming to death happens when God pulls a cosmic "WHY YOU ROTTEN I'M GONNA KILL YOU!!!" Isn't it interesting, then, that he doesn't mention death at all when talking to Eve? He sounds displeased with her, but doesn't say she will die. Well, we both agree that Adam and Eve died, so your argument about God's "flip-out" is fundamentally wrong. It's good, however, that God reminds Adam that yes, he's gonna die. He's passing sentence on someone who has been convicted of a crime, just so there's no ambiguity about what's going to happen to him.

      Those two events were not causally related...They didn't die from eating the fruit, God just decided to make them mortal after he found out.

      Let's examine that possibility for a moment. Suppose God had said, "Oh, hey, everybody makes mistakes; let's just sweep this one under the rug." Okay, then what? Then God is a liar, because he had said that those who ate that fruit would die. If eating the fruit itself truly isn't fatal, then there's only one way for God to keep his word: kill violators himself. So, then, in order not to be a liar, God carried out the penalty he had promised for all violators.

      It would be like me telling you "If you play guitar, it will be deadly to you." You decide to go ahead and play a little guitar anyways. Then 50 years down the road, I come to you and say "Remember that time 50 years ago when you were playing guitar? Well, now I'm going to kill you!"

      Besides the huge difference between interpersonal relationships and deipersonal (sp?) relationships (you know, relationships between people and the Infinitely Almighty One), that's a bit temporally inaccurate, I'm afraid. Genesis 3:7, 8: "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." We know what happens next. The interesting thing is that, in contrast to your scenario, God didn't beat around the bush. He saw when they ate, and he evidently gave them enough time to cover up their now-indignity. He confronted them in a very timely manner indeed.

      Those are the actions of an insane, jealous person...That's why he curses us and the serpent.

      Most of the scenarios you've described are indeed rather insane. Unfortunately for your argument, however, they are glaringly orthogonal to the events being discussed herein. Notice, by the way, that he didn't curse us, but Adam and Eve. Once they ate the fruit, they were incapable of producing perfect children. That's why we all get sick, grow old and die, even though the mechanisms for self-healing are deeply embedded in us, and even though our brains can store many lifetimes' worth of memories. The human being is designed to live forever, but we can't do it in and of ourselves, because our parents debased themselves and gave up perfection and with it everlasting life. We had no say in it, and that's why God made a way out for us (which is faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, a perfect human life given to repay the value of what Adam gave up).

      God is willing to give us everlasting life if we try our best to l

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    203. Re:What about going to heaven? by duffahtolla · · Score: 1

      Appreciated, Thanks!

    204. Re:What about going to heaven? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Oh, good; thank you! I never know when I post about religion if I'm going to get flamed, or what! :)

  2. Not quite suspended by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, it is not quite suspended animation as the subjects have been cooled to about 10C (50F), so some biological processes do indeed still occur. However, it is below the temperature for most coherent biological processes to continue to function. Furthermore, it has been known for some time that with certain traumas involving CNS or CNS function, cooling has been an effective means of controlling continued damage related to the CNS. For instance, in many CNS traumas such as stroke (ischemic or haemorrhagic), there are cascade reactions that follow the initial insult. These cascades involve Ca+2 mediated events that often result in or are the result of cellular apoptotic pathways being induced which causes further damage. Cooling of the body in a trauma unit tends to limit such damage for reasons that are not completely understood at the basic science level and the free radicals discussed in the article are not the only possibility for damage as there are many protein pumps whose physiology is dramatically altered by temperature and pH changes.

    It's too bad that the NIH budget was cut this year (effectively below the rate of inflation) by the Whitehouse and further cut by Congress who, while managing to take care of their own salaries before going on vacation, could not work in the NIH budget to their schedule. As a result, many labs here in the US this year have had to slash this years budget by 12-20% which has a dramatic effect on the success of bioscience research such as this suspended animation work.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Not quite suspended by starless · · Score: 1

      there are many protein pumps

      I believe you mean "proton pumps" don't you?

    2. Re:Not quite suspended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they are made of proteins, it doesn't really matter. Also, it makes more sense to use the word "protein" since he's referring to the denaturing process of proteins.

    3. Re:Not quite suspended by BWJones · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean "proton pumps" don't you?

      Proton pumps are also "pumps" made of proteins. By saying protein pumps, I am referring to the multitude of membrane bound proteins that assist in the transport of various ions, molecules etc...etc...etc....

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:Not quite suspended by nairb774 · · Score: 1

      What do CIS and NIH stand for?

    5. Re:Not quite suspended by dr.+loser · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's too bad that the NIH budget was cut this year (effectively below the rate of inflation) by the Whitehouse and further cut by Congress who, while managing to take care of their own salaries before going on vacation, could not work in the NIH budget to their schedule. As a result, many labs here in the US this year have had to slash this years budget by 12-20% which has a dramatic effect on the success of bioscience research such as this suspended animation work.

      Look at these budget numbers here.

      While I have sympathy for the NIH, their overall budget was only cut by about 1%. Adding in inflation, that's about 4% or so in real dollars. Now, that's sucky, but NIH's budget has doubled over the last 10 years or so, in real dollars, and is around $25B/yr. If a 1% cut makes labs cut their budgets by 12-20%, those labs are either unlucky or poorly run.

      By contrast, the NSF, which supports much of the rest of basic science research in the US, has had real $ cuts for the last several years, and has remained largely flat in real $ during the NIH doubling. NSF's total annual budget is about $5B/yr, or, in more interesting units, about three weeks of the Iraq conflict. So, as a physical scientist, forgive me if I don't get tooooo upset about NIH's situation.

    6. Re:Not quite suspended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNS == Central Nervous System
      NIH == National Institutes for Health

    7. Re:Not quite suspended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be edgy to have a go at Congress for increasing their own salaries, but those salary increases never take effect until the next session. So if they want the pay raise they have to get re-elected.

    8. Re:Not quite suspended by flewp · · Score: 1

      Well, it is not quite suspended animation as the subjects have been cooled to about 10C (50F), so some biological processes do indeed still occur.

      I know very little biology or anything medical (having never taken anything beyond high school biology), but is this why it works as opposed to cryogenics? The fact that it's not quite frozen? IIRC, the reason cryogenics doesn't work, is that the freezing actually ruptures the cell membranes, am I correct?

      Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops so much for every 10 degrees C the reason why the brain can "survive" without oxygen being pumped through via blood? If the metabolic rate slows, does it lessen the need for the brain to take in as much oxygen, and thus allowing it to be able to return to normal after this kind of procedure? Sorry if I sound stupid, but like I said, this stuff is beyond my knowledge, hence the questions.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    9. Re:Not quite suspended by BWJones · · Score: 1

      If a 1% cut makes labs cut their budgets by 12-20%, those labs are either unlucky or poorly run.

      The 12-20% cuts were across the board as a result of Congress not deciding on a budget for this year as are a consequence of the NIH not knowing where the pay lines are going to be. Basically, the NIH went to everyone's grants and said "we are taking 20% off the top unless you can justify a less dramatic cut." We took a small hit, but many, many labs took a big hit. The problem with this is that most labs plan their budgets according to their grant funding and now are having to fire people or not hire them as a result of the budget cuts. These are real highly skilled jobs we are talking about here. It has nothing to do with how well (or not) lab budgets are being run or luck for that matter. It has more to do with politics and Congress accomplishing their jobs.

      We are bridging multiple disciplines (bioscience and computer science and engineering), in an effort to get our work done. Because of this, we are also open to multiple funding sources and I do feel for you as being funded through the NSF as most of our computer science based grants are achieved through that mechanism.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    10. Re:Not quite suspended by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      but is this why it works as opposed to cryogenics? The fact that it's not quite frozen? IIRC, the reason cryogenics doesn't work, is that the freezing actually ruptures the cell membranes, am I correct?

      You are partially correct. Cell membrane rupture due to ice crystal formation is certainly a huge part of the problem. However, it should be noted that there are organisms that manage to overcome this by including within their circulating fluids, an "anti-freeze" compound of sorts. Deep ocean cod are one type of organism that does this. The other issues have to do with genetic and protein integrity. Small molecules tolerate freezing quite well, but the larger a molecule is (peptide, protein), the more sensitive it is to large temperature alterations and freezing. If too much damage is done to proteins and/or genes, cells induce a termination sequence that essentially causes them to commit suicide (apoptosis).

      Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops so much for every 10 degrees C the reason why the brain can "survive" without oxygen being pumped through via blood? If the metabolic rate slows, does it lessen the need for the brain to take in as much oxygen, and thus allowing it to be able to return to normal after this kind of procedure?

      This is certainly a major part of why it is thought this technology works. It turns out that many metabolic processes have a cost. Oxygen is actually a little dangerous and the higher the partial pressure of oxygen, the greater the chance of damage by free radicals. Those pesky free electrons can cause all sorts of havoc and that is exactly why people should be careful with those air cleaners that "clean" through ozone generation. If oxygen is toxic, ozone is even more so.

      Sorry if I sound stupid, but like I said, this stuff is beyond my knowledge, hence the questions.

      Actually, the very act of asking questions demonstrates a degree of intelligence that is sorely lacking among far too many folks so, there are rarely any stupid questions and I am most happy to share any information I have here on Slashdot.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    11. Re:Not quite suspended by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Scorpions are cold blooded animals that can survive being frozen.
      http://www.museums.org.za/bio/scorpions/biology.ht m

      --
      Please sign the native Flash player for FreeBSD petition:
      http://www.petitiononline.com/flash4me/petition.ht ml

    12. Re:Not quite suspended by brianf711 · · Score: 1

      Biological processes often have temperature quotients (called Q10) that are near or greater than 2.0 (that is the reaction rate roughly doubles with every 10K or 10 oC [sorry for lack of degrees symbol] change in temperature; one example reference: http://www.rod.beavon.clara.net/Q10.htm ) Pure physical or chemical processes are usually closer to one, sometimes 1.5 or around there. From this you can see that there is a disconnect between the rates of processes when you cool down an organism. Diffusion may slow down by one rate, whereas enzyme function may slow down by another rate. Cooler temperatures could even reverse some reactions while merely slowing the majority. This can lead to a variety of effects and it depends on the tissue, etc., so it is pretty complex to model or explain. This may suggest that cooling is a better treatment option for some pathologies than others (maybe bleeding vs. stoke, but I'm just guessing). As for your example about calcium, ion channels that allow calcium to enter the cell may open significantly less well (i'm suggesting open probabiltiy, but it could simply be the result of lower conductances) at cooler temperatures. Neuronal apoptosis is usually dependent on NMDA-type glutamate receptors, and given the significant alterations in membrane fluidity with temperature, the signaling through these receptors may be reduced to subthreshold levels for excitotoxicity at cooler temperatures. Regardless of the exact mechanisms, this is an interesting approach to treating pathologies and could be significantly improved in the future.

      Secondly, some signaling events have critical temperatures. For instance, protein vesicle transport out of the Golgi (Golgi export) is blocked at 20 oC. Synaptic vesicle release has another temperature (though I'm not sure what it is). I'm sure there are numerous other critical temperatures above 10 oC. Perhaps in the case of poisoning, one may want to cool the patient, while administering an antidote to increase the liklihood an antidote could reach the target before the poison, if the poison relies preferentially on biological processes to work and the antidote relies more heavily on physical processes-just an imaginary example, but it could be functionally equivilent to going back in time and pretreating with an antidote. Obviously, this can't go on indefinately, but cooling can slow down or even stop some critical processes that can give doctors more time to treat the patient. I imagine the 10% risk is better than 90-95% (perhaps) for patients who are not cooled.

    13. Re:Not quite suspended by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      NSF's total annual budget is about $5B/yr, or, in more interesting units, about three weeks of the Iraq conflict.

      How much is that in Libraries of Congress?

  3. I was hoping for a bit longer... by rob_squared · · Score: 1

    Maybe a few years, decades, to get us to other planets/stars.

    Next stop, cryogenics.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:I was hoping for a bit longer... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No ... next stop, Planet of the Apes.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:I was hoping for a bit longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cryogenics or cryonics?

    3. Re:I was hoping for a bit longer... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Maybe a few years, decades, to get us to other planets/stars.

      Next stop, cryogenics.


      The planets in our solar system are already reachable, if only we want to put the resources into it. We've had humans up on space stations for periods as long as it takes to reach Mars at least. Mars would be the prime candidate and that's about 8 months away. The other planets are a bit further and humans couldn't do much on them, so whoever was going would be pioneers who don't mind spending some years of their life getting there. All of them are reachable and back within a lifetime, though going to Pluto would take most of it. Strange using lighthours? Well, because I want to compare it to the nearest star, which is 4.22 lightyears away.

      If we travel at the same speed as Voyager, we could reach the nearest star in 75000 years. Even if you could cut that to a tenth or a hundredth, it wouldn't matter. It is simply out of reach with any technology we know. Cryogenics is really a solution to a problem we don't have - what's short we don't really need it for, what's long it's not enough.

      Unless we can find a way to do faster-than-light travel, the best theoretical spaceship we can build with a antimatter drive would take 20 years and any paylod will easily increase that to hundreds if not thousands of years. If we're populating other stars, it is likely with frozen fertilized eggs where the first generation is raised by robots and computers.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been doing this for years now with humans.

  5. 90% effective? by Trigun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have ten peoplethat I'd like to nominate for clinical trials!

    1. Re:90% effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that when I visit that link, my first inclination is to look at the CD-humping rabbit?

    2. Re:90% effective? by Trigun · · Score: 1

      CD-humping rabbit?
      What are you talking about?

    3. Re:90% effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry bout that, I accedentally pressed the wrong reply link. I ment to post that for the post below you, which links to a page with an image of a CD-humping rabbit.

  6. How nice by NaeRey · · Score: 0

    of them to test it on us Humans who would 'probably die'..
    90% on pigs, that could be 80% on humans, maybe not. but still, 90% is not the very best...
    I think they should first work a little more on it then ask us humans.

    1. Re:How nice by xiphoris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      90% on pigs, that could be 80% on humans, maybe not. but still, 90% is not the very best...I think they should first work a little more on it then ask us humans.

      The purpose of their proposed clinical trials is to give patients who will almost surely die with conventional methods some limited hope with this "experiment". Yes, perhaps it only has a 90% success rate, but modern medicine has no effective techniques to handle catastrophic blood loss, such as in car accidents and other traumas.

      The purpose of asking for these medical trials is to bring the chance of survival up from maybe 5% with conventional techniques to something higher.

    2. Re:How nice by msh104 · · Score: 1

      depends... 80% survival might still be higher then what you would have got if that bullet stayed in your body a little longer.

      if the chance that you survive a gun bleeding is 15% and this method gives you 65%, then surely it is worth the risk.

      but I agree that they should continue to work on it.

    3. Re:How nice by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      I also think they should continue to work on it.

      Im sure stabilising a trauma victim must be difficult at even the best of times, but if they can use the bodies own 'shut down' mechanism it may make it that much easier to operate without having to juggle other factors such as drug reactions in.

    4. Re:How nice by peterwally · · Score: 1

      I would agree with that but the alternative to doing the operation is dying. So its potentially a lose lose situation. Im not sure many doctors will say "Well he might die if we dont perform the operation, I think he has a better chance dying on his own." Remember this is a last resort type of procedure.

    5. Re:How nice by Upsilon+Andromedea · · Score: 1

      The purpose of their proposed clinical trials is to give patients who will almost surely die with conventional methods some limited hope with this "experiment". Yes, perhaps it only has a 90% success rate, but modern medicine has no effective techniques to handle catastrophic blood loss, such as in car accidents and other traumas.

      I'm curious as to how they plan to administer the technique as an experiment. Are designated doctors going to hand a detailed release form to incoming ER patients who are bleeding to death? I wounder if it would even be realistic to seek permission of relatives in the short and urgent time periods involved.

      The only way would seem to designate the treatment as the default for a massive hemorrhage (or whatever) at ER X, or at least during Dr. X's shift.

      That seems a lot to ask of Joe Shmoe living in the ER's neighborhood. Some might want to know which Ers those are.

      --
      freeman
    6. Re:How nice by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there's a risk of you dying, you expect, even require, the doctors to do whatever they think will give you the best chance. So I would have no problem with this being the default for people whose chance of surviving without it is sufficiently low.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:How nice by Upsilon+Andromedea · · Score: 1

      So I would have no problem with this being the default for people whose chance of surviving without it is sufficiently low.

      Perfect logic that I would likely concede to were I bleeding to death.

      But it remains a person's right to be stupid. Actually, stupid people get a lot of protection in the law and from government agencies--sometimes protection from their worst decisions, but usually protection of the right to make bad decisions in the gray areas.

      At least as far as medical techniques deemed experimental, I think personal freedoms in this country still require consent. Maybe there is an emergency room precedent that allows the doctor to decide when there is no other viable option.

      --
      freeman
    8. Re:How nice by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Let's say that half of all critical patients don't actually make it to advanced medical facilities. Given that the patient is critical, there is ultimately no way to know before they get to an appropriate treatment centre if they will actually make it or not, so the default process would be to induce suspended animation if the patient was that critical.

      Now 90% of all these people make it to the facility alive. This is good.

      However, for the 10% that don't.... fully half of those would have in fact statistically made to the destination if suspended animation had not been induced.

      While you might say that there's no way you could have known that in advance, human lives should not be considered interchangeable... that because you can save so many more, you should be allowed to condemn people that don't fit into your success curve. The probability of success should be dramatically higher before it should be tried on humans... probably 99.9%, at least.

      Of course, this is just all IMHO.

    9. Re:How nice by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to how they plan to administer the technique as an experiment. Are designated doctors going to hand a detailed release form to incoming ER patients who are bleeding to death? I wounder if it would even be realistic to seek permission of relatives in the short and urgent time periods involved.

      They won't really need a release form since the proposal is to do this on patients who have ALREADY blead out and are now flatline (that is, as good as dead). Essentially, rather than waiting a minute or two to name the time of death, administer this procedure as a last hope treatment. Consent for life saving procedures is considered implied unless explicitly witheld.

    10. Re:How nice by xiphoris · · Score: 1

      The probability of success should be dramatically higher before it should be tried on humans... probably 99.9%, at least.

      The probability of success would indeed be likely much higher on its own if the procedure was solely suspending and re-animating. That is not the procedure, however.

      The procedure they are testing is within the context of existing, severe damage to the body. There is no way to expect a procedure to work 99.9% of times when already (say) 25% of the patients are going to die anyway. This is a procedure you're only going to use if a person is losing so much blood that their heart will stop pumping before they make it into surgery.

      Suspended animation is not a separate and distinct procedure that is independent of the injuries; even if the procedure itself were perfect, complications can cause problems. It's merely a way to buy time.

      that because you can save so many more, you should be allowed to condemn people that don't fit into your success curve

      Ideally, as with every medical procedure that happens in an ambulance, someone's best judgment determines whether applying the procedure actually raises the chance of survival. No one is suggesting that this be used on everyone (e.g., "Uh oh, broken clavicle, better put him in suspended animation!") -- only on people whose chances are likely to be improved.

      Every decision a doctor makes, whether to operate or not, etc. is all based on guessing whether the procedure will do more good than harm. This is no different.

    11. Re:How nice by xiphoris · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is an emergency room precedent that allows the doctor to decide when there is no other viable option.

      Yes, there is. If a doctor believes that a medical procedure is necessary to save a patient's life, he may perform it in ER when he might otherwise need family consent. I think the criterion is a consensus among some number of other doctors and department heads.

      Or maybe I just saw that on "ER" :)

  7. Obligatory Link by dada21 · · Score: 1

    Look out for hypothermia! by Three Brain.

  8. Dead Treatment by poeidon1 · · Score: 1

    So, can doctors operate on us as if our organs are like a dead human and they donot have to take extra care for vibrations etc which are a real problem in critical operations.

    --
    They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
  9. Major hurdle to overcome by rts008 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Brain death occurs in 4-5 minutes Brain can survive for 90-120 minutes"

    If they can get past this, they may be on to something here- shame research funding for this was cut.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  10. succes rate by brenddie · · Score: 0

    So suspension will stop further damage from ocuring, but the success rate will drop depending on how much damage was already done

    --
    The best test environment is production. - Me
    chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
  11. Hmmm by squoozer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how many times you can undergo this treatment and still be fine. Perhaps one could undergo it several times a night thus lenghtening the time you could potentially live by maybe 30 or 40%. I for one would welcome our new 160 year old overlords.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:Hmmm by pdbogen · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if this would be feasible. Sleep requires your metabolism to be active while it's ongoing, in order to flush toxins, rest the psyche, etc. Now, if someone could invent a pill you can take that simulated a full night's rest in a few minutes-- money.

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Putting your body through massive hypothermic trauma will almost certainly not extend your lifespan.

    3. Re:Hmmm by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      If someone could invent a pill like that, then I would not need cryogenics to expand my life. I could spend all 24 hours a day on activites. An extra six hours a day translates to 5 extra years of activity for every 2 decades of life. One would only need to get over the habit of sleeping.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    4. Re:Hmmm by raoul666 · · Score: 1

      With a 90% success rate every time, I don't know if it'd catch on. Most people would be dead in a week.

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    5. Re:Hmmm by Kasis · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just my human side, but the thought of never sleeping is quite unsettling to me.

      I wonder if it would compromise your sanity? Especially in this day and age when we're constantly bombarded with stimuli.

  12. The linked article break down to nonsense.. by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    The linked in the story sort of breaks down at the end... I think that the New Scientist might be more informative. However, I don't have a subscription.

  13. 90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 10%? by zanderredux · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Should we suppose that the remaining 10% died a horrible, cold death?

    Too bad they couldn't figure out a way to do it safely yet, we could use for manned long-duration space travel or just to stick around and get defrosted, Futurama-style.

    I wonder how the world will look like in, say, 100 years, but do have the patience (or the stamina) to wait. Maybe Bin Laden will finally have been caught? Maybe Brazil becomes the next world superpower? Who knows?

  14. Hear Ye Hear Ye... by hzs202 · · Score: 1

    Give unto Us your sick and elderly and We shall yield a cure for thee.

  15. Obligatory Flatliners Quotes by Doomedsnowball · · Score: 2, Funny

    Memorable Quotes from
    Flatliners (1990)
    Nelson Wright: Hello, I'm nice, he's nice, we're both fucking lunatics. Can I come in, please?
    David Labraccio: He said ... he said it wasn't such a good day to die.
    Nelson Wright: Thank you.
    Nelson Wright: Today is a good day to die
    Nelson Wright: You bring the equipment, I'll bring my balls.
    Joe Hurley: I don't know. Not thinking about the past or the future. I don't know it's difficult to explain, maybe impossible.
    David Labraccio: Yeah, dying is quite that way.
    Randy Steckle: I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be.
    Nelson Wright: Everything matters, everything we do matters.
    Nelson Wright: Somehow we've brought our sins back physically. And they're pissed.
    Randy Steckle: Good thing I didn't flatline. My 350-pound babysitter would be chasing me for the half-eaten pastrami sandwich I stole from her.
    Nelson Wright: C'mon, Billy Mahoney. C'mon... Gimme your best shot. I dare ya. I fuckin' dare ya.
    Nelson Wright: Wake up you little shit, you got company!
    Rachel: See you soon.
    Nelson Wright: Philosophy failed. Religion failed. Now it's time for medical science to try.
    David Labraccio: You should have told us, Nelson.
    Nelson Wright: You wouldn't have done it.
    David Labraccio: At least we would've had a choice!!!
    David Labraccio: [screaming at a religious stained-glass portrait] I'm sorry.. we *trespassed* on your... *fucking* territory. God! I'm *sorry*!

    --
    7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
  16. Didn't I see this movie already? by GWSuperfan · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, that's right- I *have* seen this movie once before. Or maybe it's twice.

    --
    Fight psychopharmacological mccarthyism. http://www.norml.org/
    1. Re:Didn't I see this movie already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe even three times?

    2. Re:Didn't I see this movie already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing a film -- Forever Dung, that awful Mel Gibson clunker, was preceded by a similar, but far better, small film called "Late For Dinner" which manages to avoid insulting the audience the way Mel likes to do: http://imdb.com/title/tt0102279/

  17. Congratulations! by lee7guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will send them a copy of Dean R Koontz "Hideaway" as a congratulatory gift. :)

    --
    Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  18. Three Cheers!!! by sciop101 · · Score: 0
    Those Clever Koreans//Area 51 Scientists//Evil Geniuses have done it again.

    Today Cryogenics! Tomorrow the World!

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  19. If I was about to die... by Wisgary · · Score: 0

    I'd ask for my body to be frozen, and then thawed periodically every 100 years, just so I knew humanity's history before I die. Then again a lot of people would want to do the same thing and we'd have a body storage problem on our hands.

    1. Re:If I was about to die... by MikeFM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why we put their brains in little jars and throw away the bodies. Much more compact. Create a nice VR world and give all the brains WiFi access and you're set.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:If I was about to die... by NaeRey · · Score: 0

      Not a bad idea but then I have some doubts on the machine being able to read people's mind...

    3. Re:If I was about to die... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Some of us prefer to live it and influence its course, not just watch it go by.
      Regards,
      Steve

    4. Re:If I was about to die... by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      Create a nice VR world and give all the brains WiFi access and you're set

      I think I'd want a robotic avatar for the real world. It would be an R/C Me. Advances in materials science, computation, and wireless data transmission would allow me to control my avatar and experience the real world just as if I were there, but if anything happened to my avatar I could just get a new one, because my brain was safely stored in a vat in a vauld deep inside a mountain in Colorado or something. :)

  20. Saving brain cells by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Reminds me of an article I read about a month ago in a magazine. It was about cooling down the blood of someone who had a heart attack to prevent brain cells from "commiting suicide", a process that normally starts when the brain didn't get much oxygen in the last 5 minutes. However, they said that they wouldn't get the body too cold, I think they said not under 35 degrees, or was it 33.

    I wonder how this new technique might improve the own of saving the brain from destruction after an heart attack, as if now it could be safe to get the body much cooler for much more improvement.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Saving brain cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American... meet your new friend the Celcius scale. 10 degrees Celcius is warmer than the temperatures you cited.

    2. Re:Saving brain cells by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I'm french, and I was talking about Celcius degrees the whole time. Can't resist calling you a dumbass :-)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  21. Gotta Love Indirection by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

    A story is posted on Slashdot (US)
    Of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
    Reporting a story in the New Scientist (England)
    Of a bunch of scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (US)

    Can we add a few more levels of indirection here??

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blogs. I love when Slashdot posts a link to a blog, that posts a link to another blog, that posts a link to another blog, that posts a link to a regional newspaper article about an article written in the WSJ or NYTimes. Sometimes it takes 10 or more clicks to find the real source of information posted about in blogs.

    2. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Well, we probably could if we strarted doing stories in an object oriented way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by thatshortkid · · Score: 1

      A story is posted on Slashdot (US)
      Of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
      Reporting a story in the New Scientist (England)
      Of a bunch of scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (US)


      Who performed a procedure that reminds everybody of a movie starring Kevin Bacon.

      natch. in 5 degrees, no less.

      --
      The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
    4. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Sure! Feel free to link to this slashdot article from your lameass blog!

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    5. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Can we add a few more levels of indirection here??

      Well, you could try posting the full article in a comment, in case it gets slashdotted...

    6. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "Can we add a few more levels of indirection here??"

      Sure, just translate it into English++.

    7. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by stuuf · · Score: 1

      Just give control of slashdot to Sun's Java team...

      --

      Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

    8. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 1

      Ouch.
      That wasn't a very nice thing to say.

    9. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by flynns · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it takes 10 or more clicks to find the real source of information posted about in blogs.
       
      ...which was in the Google News headlines I checked before getting to my Slashdot fix. Yeah, I know.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    10. Re:Gotta Love Indirection by Kopretinka · · Score: 1

      sure can add more indirection: 5 somebody in Germany blogs about the slashdot post
      6 somebody in Japan blogs about the blog post from 5 7 blog post from 6 gets submitted by a Japanese reader of blog 6 and posted on slashdot

      --
      Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
  22. Wonder when the Church will get involved in this.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1, Insightful

    . as the definition of 'dead' will likely need to be defined in as much turmoil, stupidity, ethnocentricity, and intellectual dishonesty as the definition of 'life' is as regarding pro-creation.

    I mean, the first person to survive zero brainwave activity will have questions to answer...

    --
    Loading...
  23. Drowning people in icy waters... by IAAP · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm trying to remember where I've seen this, but IIRC, this has been done by accident when someone falls into icy waters. I think it was a kid who fell into an incy pond and was eventually rescued. Because of the temperature, he was fine. Appearently, it slowed his metabolism down enough that it didn't deplete all of the O2 in hsi blood.

    I'm sifting through all of the Google hits from my search terms now.

    1. Re:Drowning people in icy waters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I grew up in Minnesota and there is very old a saying that goes something like:
      "They ain't dead until they are warm and dead"

      Especially with children falling through the ice.

    2. Re:Drowning people in icy waters... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      I recall a documentary on television- I think it was on the Discovery Channel- about how they are considering these kind of things in emergency medicine. The documentary claimed that doctors were debating how emergency response medical teams immediately give intravenous fluids and blood, because it possibly caused blood clots to break by raising blood pressure, and injuries that would normally start to heal with the clotting process would end up causing more loss of blood and eventually death.

      They had statistics that brought into question the steps trauma teams take from the Vietnam and Falkland wars. In the Vietnam war, responses to injuries were very quick, whereas in the Falkland war, they took extremely long. They found that more soldiers with more serious injuries survived during the Falkland war than in Vietnam. Another factor they thought could explain this was the cold temperature the soldiers had to endure during the Falkland war.

      In the documentary, one doctor applied cold to help a emergency patient who was in danger of brain damage. I recall it was mentioned that some type of brain cells actually self-destruct around damaged cells, and that this reaction didn't occur at lower temperatures. The patient was a woman who incurred a serious head injury from a horse riding accident. It was claimed that because the doctor decided to keep the woman's body temperature low while they operated on her head injury, she actually recovered without any brain damage. And it was the type of injury that would normally cause brain damage if the patient managed to survive.

    3. Re:Drowning people in icy waters... by repvik · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine (No joke!) fell into a river and hit the back of his head against a rock. He passed out and drowned. Fortunately for him, the water was very cold, and it chilled him down. He was dead for almost 45 minutes before the paramedics revived him. The doctors said he wouldn't wake up from the coma. He did, although with brain damage.

    4. Re:Drowning people in icy waters... by Teddy_Roosevelt · · Score: 3, Informative

      In northern parts of the U.S., wintertime drowning victims are often revived up to 40 minutes later if their body temperature dropped rapidly while drowning. Emergency room doctors have a rule for this: When it comes to cold water drownings, "You're not dead until you're warm and dead".

    5. Re:Drowning people in icy waters... by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 1

      The lack of medical knowledge displayed on these pages is astounding. Stick to computers. In the ER, it doesn't matter if you'll "lose energy", "suffer frostbite", or contract any other condition. The first law of the ER is to keep you alive. This is exemplified by the ABC (Airway, breathing, circulation) mnemonic taught to every emergency medic from physicians down to the lowly first responder. I can defibrillate your heart all day (with WAY less than an 90% success rate) but it doesn't matter a damn if you don't have a patent airway. Controlled hypothermia works because it stops the compensatory reactions in your body that may cause more harm than good - in particular, it slows your heartrate and constricts your blood vessels to prevent you from losing all your blood. You can't do a whole lot to somebody who's bled white. Hypothermia works in nature, because, when it occurs quickly enough, it stops the bloodstream from circulating heat right out of the body and it slows cellular metabolism enough to prevent the buildup of toxic wastes. It's the buildup of toxins that will kill you long before the lack of oxygen. Controlled hypothermia can postpone the body's attempts to heal itself until conditions are more conducive to success. This is an incredible medical achievement and one that has the potential to save thousands of lives.

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
  24. Fry's dog Seymour unavailable for comment. by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

    Because he's stiff as granite. Get it?

    joke. waste your mod points elsewhere.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:Fry's dog Seymour unavailable for comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a joke? My word...

  25. Re:Wouldn't that... by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

    actually, my understanding is that it's intended exactly as you said - for situations where someone will clearly die before help arrives or they arrive to help, but where there might be time to get them to a suspended state which would let them last until it does, even if 1/10 that would kill them.

  26. Such as.. by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. 'Er, why do you want to eat my brains?'

    1. Re:Such as.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Quality... LOL.

      --
      Loading...
  27. What about going to Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three hours is not nearly long enough to get to Mars. What were those Alien movies trying to pull?

  28. Dirty animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    What do you mean by "dirty"?

    I'll agree that pigs are dirtier than other animals if by "dirty" you mean non-hallal, non-kosher or whatever name you give to your dietary restrictions.

    What about elephants, that like some mud from time to time? Are they dirty as well? Or fish in an aquarium that constantly swim around their own excrements? Are they any cleaner?

  29. There was a horror movie based on this concept... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life

    I remember back in the 80s seeing a movie on TV (so the movie was probably made in the 70s) about a guy who was put in suspended animation because he has some incurable disease. Years later, there was some accident/malfunction that caused his chamber to revive him unexpectedly. Doctors were able to bring him back without a hitch or so they thought. He came back without a soul and became a serial killer. Only his christian mother and her priest suspected the truth.

    Anyone out there know what this movie was called?

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  30. Interesting by lxs · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is interesting, but not quite new. I remember hearing about Soviet surgeons cooling down and effectively shutting down patients' bodies to perform open heart surgery without having to use a heart lung machine. (which were very hard to come by in the Soviet Union)

    1. Re:Interesting by SlashN · · Score: 1

      You should start by freezing their balls, I know because this works for me.
      -SlashN

  31. That was the plot of 'John Doe'.. by Channard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    .. a sci fi/mystery series that got axed. The story revolved around a guy who had no memory of who he was but apparently knew everything and went to wacky adventures every week, hoping to find out what really happened. His Ultimate Knowledge (TM) made him a whiz at tracking down serial killers and so forth, as you'd imagine.

    One of the shows creators revealed in some TV guide or other that had the show got an extra series or two, it would have been revealed that John was in fact the result of an experiment by a mysterious group to gain all the knowledge of the universe. They believed that such knowledge was revealed at the moment of death, hence John was killed and brought back again. But the series got axed before any of that could really be explored.

    1. Re:That was the plot of 'John Doe'.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a rerun of John Doe going on on SCiFi Channel-- the 1st episode aired yesterday

  32. The movie was directed by Wes Craven and was calle by Channard · · Score: 1

    ... Chiller

  33. Pragmatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Birthday question: Birthdays are WAY more practical to time.

    Saying someone is dead: Impossible to prove otherwise. Believing so simplifies a lot of things.

    Brain activity: Again, hard to prove otherwise, but there should be some room for miracles, right?

    1. Re:Pragmatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think keeping braindead people alive "to leave room for miracles" doesn't give God enough credit - if He can restore a dead brain to a working state, then repairing the damage caused by the heart stopping for a few days, or however long He feels it necessary to wait, should be child's play to Him.

    2. Re:Pragmatism by dada21 · · Score: 1

      If you're not a believer, your reply is a good one to offer most believers.

      If you are a believer, the proper answer is that God already answered the miracle question: Matthew 4:7

  34. I have a business idea by mnmn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll start a company that will freeze people and keep them in safe storage for a defined period of time for a maintenance fee. People could keep money in their savings account and freeze themselves for 10 or 100 years, and wake up to collect their money. It'd feel like a long nights sleep and winning the lottery afterwards.

    But they'll have to make sure the money is in the right place, with enough interest to pull them ahead of the rest of the country/world, else its all in vain. Therefore we provide long-term financial services too. :)

    I suggest customers buy lots of real-estate around cities with major natural resources and good weather. Hopefully they wont wake right after WWIII to realize their lands cost nothing.

    Invesing in gold is not a bad idea either for the long term.

    My freezer can take 2 persons. Who wants to be first??

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:I have a business idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...so I wake up, stagger down the corridor to the nearest payphone and ring my bank for a balance:
      "Your balance is .." (tremble)
      "two hundred ..." (what? - only a measly two hundred..)
      "... and sixty three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars 32 cents." (wow..)
      "BEEP BEEP BEEP Please insert one million dollars for the next three minutes ..."

    2. Re:I have a business idea by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      That doesn't sound as stupid as it seems. If you take some considerations aside (like, for instance, your relatives and friends, who will likely see it as your ultimate egotistical act; or working your way to make your you do not become the unfortunate 10% from TFA), we're left with the problem of finding a reliable long-term investment.

      Monetary assets are at risk, since you don't know for how long your currency will be valid. The worldwide financial system could implode due to several causes (war with China? Bird flu epidemics? The stupendous US foreign debt?) and, well, let's rule curency out, for simplicity's sake.

      Now, real estate would be useless in a Mad Max scenario. This one is out, too.

      Finally, Gold. Who cares about gold in the Mad Max scenario? However, if the post-apocalyptical era never comes to fruition because the world suddenly got into an era of peace and global cooperation, then you might have a problem because we'd be mining other planets and asteroids not only for gold, but any other minerals. For the good of makind, obviously. And I really do not think money will be an issue at that point, since everyone would be happy, productive, egalitarian and peaceful, without the individualistic urge to show off. Looks like a Star Trek economy. Except for the Star Fleet uniforms.

      So, here's my humble suggestion: invest your money in (actually, hoard) a lot, a lot of cigarettes. Have you ever noticed that, in every prison movie (or other movies that depict people in a post-monetary society), cigs become a very important asset? Fiat currency de facto! If you have cigarettes, you've got anything, if you know what I mean....

  35. Done since the 1940s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember seeing an old movie on archive.org in which the Russians were conducting similar sounding experiments with dogs, in the 1940s.

  36. Sure! by zanderredux · · Score: 1
    A story is posted on Slashdot (US)
    Of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
    Reporting a story in the New Scientist (England)
    Of a bunch of scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (US)
    With a comment by OzPeter
    That got a reply from zanderredux

    More?

  37. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1

    Read the article first.

    These process is recommended for people who would die without treatment. It is intended to keep them alive long enough to get them to a trauma center. Lots of people die from accidents, strokes, heart attacks and the like who could be saved if they could be brought to a level I trauma center fast enough.

    So given the choice of 100% or a 10% death rate before you even reach the hospital, which would you choose?

    --
    -EvilMagnus
  38. Natural Selection by johncadengo · · Score: 1

    Assuming that the 10% dies because of genetic weakness and an innate disposition towards the procedure, if we were to conduct this on entire populations many times over, the success rate would soon approach 100% because the 10% would always be dying and since their number dwindles, would no longer exist. Excellent idea US doctors.

    --
    My page.
    1. Re:Natural Selection by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, assuming that the 10% who die automatically go to heaven to enjoy paradisiacal life forever, we can use the technique safely, on everyone! ...What? My fact-free assumption is just as valid as yours :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  39. what about the remaining 10%? by twitter · · Score: 1
    Answer: Saline + Pig = Pork.

    The other 90% will have to wait.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  40. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by woolio · · Score: 1

    perhaps he's just frozen and will run for usa pres in a few hundred years...

  41. 90% effectiveness is good enough by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    For the suggested use, critical patients, 90% getting to the hospital where 50% can be saved is better than 50% getting there in the first place.

    As to space travel, and assuming the method can be scaled up quite a bit longer than a few hours... I hate to say it, but 90% is still good enough. There are people out there willing to take the risk for exploration, or better yet colonization. Put 10 people in stasis for a 50 year trip to [Whichever] Centauri. One of them won't wake up when they get there, and one won't survive the trip back. 2 and 3-fold job redundancy means that cant ruin the mission. Or 100 people for a year to start a colony on Mars. 90 will make it. Those odds arent acceptable to most people, but they are to some, enough to make a plenty large enough candidate pool. I would do it for sufficient compensation to my family.

  42. Forget freezing me! Phencyclidine! by msimm · · Score: 1

    I always thought it would be funny to get one of those medical alert bracelets that reads "in case of stroke please administer PCP". But then being old, disoriented and in the thrall of a medical emergency might not be the ideal time for your first, mind-altering experience. Heh.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  43. Effects on brain functions? by Spaceburger · · Score: 1

    Metaphysical issues aside, they still need to investigate the effects of the procedure on memory and cognitive capacity (could try mice and their maze solving before and after hypothermia). Then there are possible long-term effects.

  44. More interesting headline would have been: by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Doctors from 1742 Claim Suspended Animation Success"

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. Neuroprotection by aschoff_nodule · · Score: 1

    This concept is not relatively new. Randomized clinical trials, involving trying to protect the brain, in surgeries like CABG (Coronary artery bypass graft) are taking place for more than 10 years now. 5 years ago, a review of many such trials found that though stroke related deaths decreased by inducing hypothermia, they faced other non-stroke related mortality in operations and overall there was no difference between hypothermia and normothermia. This article http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB002138 .htm goes over it in more detail. However, they don't go into the details of to what temperature was the hypothermia induced. Since CABG is a preplanned procedure as opposed to trauma, I guess inducing hypothermia is different in both settings, and I hope we get some positive results in humans.

    1. Re:Neuroprotection by mgv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This concept is not relatively new. Randomized clinical trials, involving trying to protect the brain, in surgeries like CABG (Coronary artery bypass graft) are taking place for more than 10 years now. 5 years ago, a review of many such trials found that though stroke related deaths decreased by inducing hypothermia, they faced other non-stroke related mortality in operations and overall there was no difference between hypothermia and normothermia.

      However, there is some evidence of benefit in non traumatic head injuries (eg post cardiac arrest) where cooling does provide improved neurological outcomes.

      Hypothermic circulatory arrest is used routinely for certain types of aortic arch surgey where it would be difficult to maintain cerebral circulation (eg for aortic arch dissection) using conventional techniques.

      If you cool someone down to something in the range of 15-24 degrees you can get 20-40 minutes of cardiac arrest without major consequence.

      The articles seem to present this as something new - its really more an extension of a known technology into trauma surgery.

      I suspect that the biggest problem with this level of extreme hypothermia is that blood coagulation essentially fails at these temperatures - so in the case of trauma, they are going to have to sow everything up and even then nothing will seal over - which leads to the need for massive transfusion requirements as everthing bruises up extremely badly. Massive transfusions (> 10 units of blood) are likely in themselves to cause multi organ failure, and a downward spiral of death.

      This is just a technical hurdle to be overcome, but at the moment the odds of surviving this will be very low - so low that I don't think you would do it for anyone who has even a slight chance of surviving the injuries by conventional measures.

      My 2c worth

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  46. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    > Too bad they couldn't figure out a way to do it safely yet, we could use for manned long-duration space travel or just to stick around and get defrosted, Futurama-style.

    Or, like in Gene Wolfe's "New Sun" novels, dumped out unceremoniously by treasure hunters, no differently from the way mummies have been treated.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  47. You're not going to heaven. You will be paged out by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    The only thing you should get modded down for is that you adhere to the concept of linear time, i.e. "what does the soul do when it is in suspended animation"? That question has already been asked (and channeled :-) ) a couple of times and the answer is usually the same as what does a process or task do when it's not on the CPU. Nothing. Just like a program running in a process (without querying some sort of clock) can't tell whether it's been paused for a million years between two instructions neither can you (you as in your soul I mean). Once you're in suspended animation you're off "the GREAT CPU". Once you're dead you're off it too and time (which is just the set of changes the GREAT PROGRAM calculated on the GREAT DATASET (aka the Universe) while you were part of the GREAT PROGRAM, time just doesn't apply anymore). You might get some more CPU time as you're placed afterwards in other simulation environments (heaven, hell, your pick really) but that's conjecture because as far as the GREAT PROGRAM is concerned there is no trap to a hypervisor API I know of that would allow to query what other processes may be on the system.

  48. CTRL-Z your body and jump ahead in time by quokkapox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if going into suspended animation for short and/or extended periods became common practice for everyone (or maybe only the elite)? Assuming that the process was safe, reliable and inexpensive? Imagine if you could skip winter every year, or sit out an unfavorable situation until enough time has passed that things would be different when you woke up?

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:CTRL-Z your body and jump ahead in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Imagine if you could skip winter every year, or sit out an unfavorable situation until enough time has passed that things would be different when you woke up?
      Define "unfavorable situation".

      Life is a learning experience, and none of us are smart enough to start skipping grades.

      Nuclear winter, fine. Mass extinction event, okay. Dennis Rodman movie, maybe. Getting your girlfriend pregnant, no.

  49. 3 hours + FTL = Interstellar Travel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suspended animation for up to three hours? I hear suspended animation, I think space exploration. All we need now is faster than light travel that can get the crew between stars in those three precious hours. Half way to insterstellar travel.

  50. MItochondria by realilskater · · Score: 2, Informative

    If I remember my intro biology correctly they are inducing a state where the mitochondria are the only cells in the body producing any ATP. This has been seen before in people that have been chilled quickly by falling in an icy river for instance. All body functions cease but the mitochondria make enough energy to keep everything alive.

    1. Re:MItochondria by cnettel · · Score: 1

      As the mitochondria are the main producers of ATP (like 30 out of the 36 ATP in total per glucose molecule), this sounds kind of wrong. We also have to remember that most of the mitochondrial activity IS requiring oxygen (hence aerobic), while the anaerobic processes take place in the cytoplasm. Then, the question becomes: will there be enough oxygen, just being depleted at a very slow rate, or will the anaerobic process be enough for a prolonged time, thanks to everything being slow?

    2. Re:MItochondria by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      You mis-spelled midichlorians dude, everybody know they're what keeps everything going.

  51. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by blincoln · · Score: 4, Informative

    Should we suppose that the remaining 10% died a horrible, cold death?

    Even assuming the article weren't talking about terminal patients, death from hypothermia is one of the least horrible ways to go. Your higher brain functions stop working, you become very calm and stop feeling cold, and then you go to sleep.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  52. I've been doing this for years by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just open browser preferences and check "Disable GIF animation".

  53. Re:Wouldn't that... by sjames · · Score: 1

    but I would think trauma victims need all the energy they can get to survive.

    In cases of massive injuries, the patient may be bleeding out faster than replacement blood can be pumped in. This procedure could give a surgeon long enough to repair the damage (at least enough to stop the bleeding).

  54. Could this have an impact for life extension? by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

    So if we were to encapsulate the whole process into an embedded system to drain/cycle our blood automatically to be done on a daily basis could we extend our lives by 1/3 (the time we should be sleeping?)

  55. Re:You're not going to heaven. You will be paged o by Freexe · · Score: 1

    you have gotta love:
    Moderation +4
        30% Flamebait
        20% Underrated
        10% Troll

    I only posted as a joke and to have a dig at religion.

    And you analogy to "being paused" is valid, if God did exist it's not like we can trick him.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  56. Done with dogs by mar1no · · Score: 1

    They've done this with dogs successfully before. I think it was posted here on Slashdot too.

    http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/4668289/ detail.html%20/4668289/detail.html

    --
    "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
  57. Why birthdays? by TCQuad · · Score: 1

    Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

    Because the mental image of your parents performing the act that led to your conception is icky.

  58. Discovery of Hibernation Gene by hypertor · · Score: 1

    These guys injected AMP into mice, which dropped their body temperatures by 10 degrees in just 10 minutes, triggering hibernation. Sounds like the ultimate sleeping pill! http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=32 93&Section=DISEASE

  59. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    this is all about what you might call the "code blue clock" if your heart stops for 2 hours? then you are D E A D and talking with the monty python parrot. using this method i would guess the clock stops (unless you thaw)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  60. Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by pbhj · · Score: 1

    Bear with me here, this is a direct response to Dephex_Twin's post.

    Imagine you bear a child of your own flesh and blood. You delight in them smiling at you (when you can be reasonably certain they are acting in a cognisant manner) .. you get a buzz because they are demonstrating freely that you have made them happy.

    Now imagine if at birth you'd had that child operated on so that their face displayed a permanent smile. Would that mean you'd take the same delight?

    Another simpler parallel is for those of us who live in places where the weather is bad a lot of the time ... we enjoy far more the hot weather than if it was just hot all the time.

    My view: God gave us a mind, that we can choose - I don't claim to understand the manifold layer between freewill and determinism but I think we live in it - if we choose to acknowledge him and his ways, he delights in us; if we choose to shun him and/or follow a path of evil he's not so happy with us. But he wouldn't be any happier with us if he just made us into robots without a mind to choose our own path.

    Another few thoughts:

    "God didn't have to create dullness ..."
    Well perhaps he wanted to create a system in which some change occurred; eg dark and light; matter no matter; heat and absence of heat ... if we were excited by everything we'd just be an automaton programmed to giggle and beam with glee.

    "I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone ..."
    No, you're not omniscient are you. Perhaps God should have just made a single mind that delighted in greyness, and only one thing for that mind to perceive and that thing being itself greyness ... then the world would be a wonderful place of sweetness and light ...???! Doh!

    Seriously though, you have a good point, why God would allow mankind to turn their backs on him, and then come to them in the form of a man and die so that men could return to a right relationship with Him - baffles me too.

    "It makes no sense that people like ... rapists make God sad ... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe ... "
    Assuming God made man to procreate by intercourse: that's all the equipment. Then if man has freewill ... need I go on?

    1. Re:Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by Metasquares · · Score: 1
      "It makes no sense that people like ... rapists make God sad ... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe ... " Assuming God made man to procreate by intercourse: that's all the equipment. Then if man has freewill ... need I go on?
      For some reason, that made me think of the blink tag :)
    2. Re:Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      A similar analogy is: Would you rather create another Eliza clone, or would you rather create true AI?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      Imagine you bear a child of your own flesh and blood. You delight in them smiling at you (when you can be reasonably certain they are acting in a cognisant manner) .. you get a buzz because they are demonstrating freely that you have made them happy.

      Now imagine if at birth you'd had that child operated on so that their face displayed a permanent smile. Would that mean you'd take the same delight?
      No, but that is because I'm stuck in the rules of this universe, and I'm not a God. So I'd have to do something like have the child operated on to create a false smile. Now, if I could make my child always be happy, always make positive decisions, and have eternal joy and peace... um yeah, I'd do that. But I can't do that because I don't have total control of every aspect of the entire universe.

      And that is what I wonder about God, because he is supposed to be in control of it all.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by pbhj · · Score: 1

      But it wouldn't be joy, joy requires an absence of suffering, if there's is no notion even of suffering then I can't truly be joyfully ... and how joyful must I be? Do I have to be wetting my pants with glee _all_ day??

    5. Re:Perhaps he wants his children to love him ... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      Well, in the universe as we know it, joy has an opposite, and so you can move along the spectrum of super blissful to despair. So yeah, going on the idea that God created everything and controls everything, he could have made something the is good like joy, but call it whatever you want, it wouldn't be the same thing as "joy" as we know it. It's just the good without the bad. There wouldn't necessarily have to be "more joyful" or "less joyful". Just... perfectly happy, and nothing else. It doesn't have to be logical in the universe as we know it, in fact, it can't be.

      Talking about this one thing is kind of nitpicking... really what I ask myself is, why is anyone not happy 100% of the time, and why do people spend their lives dreading death and suffering?

      I also don't understand how all the bad in the world can be attributed to the fact that we have free will. Besides natural disasters and other things out of our control, it also doesn't explain why, among the things we are free to do, we even have the option of doing gruesome, horrific, and cruel things. Why not make us free to do what we want, but none of the choices are bad? I mean, right now, people don't morph into animals or teleport or make beer come out of their fingers... because it isn't possible. Why not have murder, theft, lying, etc. also be impossible?

      It's not something I actually expect an answer for. It just baffles me, that's all.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  61. Happens all the time .. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Kids falling into cold water and surviving happens quite often.

    There is something to kids which makes it easier for them to survive this than for adults. Now that would be a research topic ;-)

    Anyway, I believe it would be wise to first get heart and breathing of a rescued person going before wrapping them in a warm blanket.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    1. Re:Happens all the time .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is something to kids which makes it easier for them to survive this than for adults.

      I'm thinking it has to do with the fact that kids are smaller - a larger skin/body ratio, so they chill down faster.

  62. Short answer by keosak · · Score: 1

    > Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").

    Celebrating birthdays is almost universal human custom, it has nothing to do with "definition of life" or christian belief at all.

    > Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.

    This is not a part of christian belief. Some people calling themselfs "christians" might believe it but it doesn't mean it is a church dogma.

    > Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.

    I suppose it is based on presumption that brain activity in living body could be somehow reinitiatied. However, if the body is dead the brain is dead as well (it has no activity) i.e. the human is dead.

    (Excuse my poor English, please)

  63. Happy fuckday to you... and many more! by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

    Happy fuckday to you!
    Happy fuckday to you!
    Happy fuckday, dear John!
    Happy fuckday to you!
    ...and many more!

    --
    News for merdes. Shit that matters.
    Ask me about my sig.
  64. This is nothing, dogs were *resurrected* recently by syukton · · Score: 1

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17649225-1376 2,00.html

    US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.

    Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.

    The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.

    But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.


    There's a difference between "inducing hypothermia" and "inducing and then reversing the effects of clinical DEATH"

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  65. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

    Should we suppose that the remaining 10% died a horrible, cold death?

    Would be somewhat funny if they only tested it on 1. (hmm... it was `ok'; sort of... maybe 90% ok).

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  66. Re: Cremation vs Burying by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    Christians generally bury their dead, because Christians believe in the resurrection of the body.
    If a person can be resurrected from a few bits of bone and (depending on environmental conditions and how long the person has been dead) some rotting or dessicated flesh, then why can't a person be resurrected from ash?
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  67. Re:There was a Star Treak NG episode about that... by vertinox · · Score: 1

    I'll start a company that will freeze people and keep them in safe storage for a defined period of time for a maintenance fee. People could keep money in their savings account and freeze themselves for 10 or 100 years, and wake up to collect their money. It'd feel like a long nights sleep and winning the lottery afterwards.

    I can't remember it off the top of my head but Captain Picard was talking with a guy they revieved from the 1990's and he said:

    Frozen Guy: Well I bet all my investments have made me a killing!
    Picard: But we don't have a monetary system in the Federation. More or less we don't have money anymore. Everything is provided by this nifty replicators. Earl gray please!
    Frozen Guy: Oh my... Um... Yeah...

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  68. Cryogenics by maGiC_RS · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this might important for cryogenics, further research in this direction might allow for revival of cryogenically preserved patients.

  69. If ever ... by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    If there was ever a time when I was glad I'm not a pig, it's NOW! Sheesh. Put them out of their experimenal multi-gunshot simulated injury misery and just salp them alongside my eggs.

  70. I can answer the first one. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they’re so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of “life”).

    Because that is none of your damn business!

  71. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but you sure won't be impressing any of the (female) nurses once that hypothermia hits, if you know what I mean.

  72. loss of skills by zen-theorist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    does the subject retain memory, cognitive skills and motor skills after this induced hypothermia? maybe someone with access to the new scientist article could respond. people would fear this mode of treatment as much as chemical anaesthesia if these are not analyzed in their entirety.

  73. Ted Williams Head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfreeze him! Pleeeeeease the Red Sox need him back in the lineup!

  74. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by mav[LAG] · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can vouch for this experience 100%. After a long, cold and very wet route march across the South Downs (a particular Brit Army training exercise), I plonked myself down in a window seat on the bus to take us back to barracks and passed out from exhaustion. Some moron opened that window while I was sleeping with the result that I experienced 50mph windchill for the next two hours in wet clothing while completely immobile - no need for snow or 30 below zero weather.

    When we go to the other end, I vaguely remember feeling warm and comfortable but strangely unable to move. I also remember being surrounded by clearly panicking instructors who were bellowing at me not to go to sleep while they manhandled me to the hospital. It was very surreal - like you're watching yourself from outside with a mixture of detachment and fascination. Mountaineering tales I've read describe the same thing: a sort of pleasant warmth even while you're looking at your frostbitten fingers and a very strong desire to take a "short nap."

    Death by freezing would have felt pleasant I'm sure. On the other hand, being warmed up slowly was the worst experience I've ever had bar none because then you start feeling how cold you really are - and the feeling continues for days. I can't remember what my core temperature had dropped to but it was dangerously low.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  75. my god, they've done it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they've created republicans in a laboratory!

  76. This would be terrible.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..., the Wi-Fi reception in my apartment is abysmal. How will my consciousness access Fark and Slashdot?

    -Steve G

  77. Re:There was a Star Treak NG episode about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was also an episode of House where Dr. House chilled a girl down, drew out all her blood, and then reinfused to find the
    source of a tumor. Worked like a charm.

  78. Soul on Ice by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    There was a short story by this title that covered this idea many years ago. A woman had her late husband frozen until his disease could be cured, and technology allowed him to be revived from cryogenic suspension. He was brought back...and immediately started crying like an infant. He quickly began 'relearning' language and other skills, but it became clear that the mind in his body was somebody else's, someone who died the instant he was brought back to life. Obsessed, she decides to keep freezing him and bringing him back until she can get her husband's soul back in his body. Her best friend objects, since she is effectively killing someone every time she brings her husband back. A struggle ensues, and she is accidentally killed. The friend allows the husband to thaw, dying permanently. The story ends with him months later, drawing up papers to adopt the child born at the instant the wife, who he had always loved, died.

  79. Thats why vietnam had high deaths by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    This is why soldiers in combat in cold regions such as Falklands war didnt die fast, and survived lots
    of bullet wounds, even tho in vietnam, much lighter injuries caused death faster.

    It makes sense though, coldness is like the slowing of 'time' but slowing chemical reactions.

    Even cold surgery can be done, to have a higher success rate.

    This is the new medical equivelent of 19th century anesthetics/drug treatments (makes me quiver at the live amputations they did in the 18th century - totally sick, and they had heroin from asia that they could have used , what idiots)

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Thats why vietnam had high deaths by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      While I do not disagree with your basic premise, I think that your specific examples are badly chosen. The better survival rate in the Falkland War was most likely due to the significant advances in medical technology that occured between 1965 and 1982.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  80. Theres a chance the ambulance will crash too by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Dude, even partial cooling is better than dieing.

    Just beacuse there is a 1% chance the ambulance will crash doesnt mean we dont use them. Just like a 747, all safety is based on probabilities.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  81. They're doing this the hard way by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    When I want to suspend animation I simply press the PAUSE button on my VCR remote.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  82. There was a Sciam article on this. by bdwoolman · · Score: 1
    The team that contributed to Sciam used (as I recall) H2S to displace some of the the oxygen in the blood before the cooling solution is added and the blood removed. Since low oxygen is far more deadly to the brain than no oxygen. The H2S bound to the receptors and protected the CNS tissues, which self destruct in low oxygen. The whole process was low tech, but grew out of a deeper understanding of why the brain dies as a result of blood loss or stopped heart. They killed and revived a dog. I was stunned when I read the article. Hope I represented the details correctly. Apologize in advance if I scrambled my rehash. Of course since it is Sciam you have to buy it if you want to read it. Buying Time in Suspended Animation; Scientific American June 2005; by Mark B. Roth and Todd Nystu

    Q)2001 A Space Odessey Trivia. What was the temperature that the three Scientists HAL let die (killed) were suspended at?

    A) +3 C
    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  83. lol by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    lol... that is what i was thinkin'

  84. And 6 bullet holes isnt stressfull? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Dude, you are comparing feeling a little chilly to having a dozen bullet holes or a limb missing by a shark or having
    your legs blown off by a bomb.

    I think damn - if I swa my legs looking like mince meat and blood oosing out, ill be extremly stressed , chilling me down
    would slow the decay - stress - mode of the body. Next give me a VR head gear with 100 nude playboy centrefolds to ease
    any pain too, that will make forget im about to die of blood loss/shock and might save me.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  85. Re:Wonder when the Church will get involved in thi by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    pfft... lots of people in the church already have zero brainwave activity....

  86. OLD NEWS???? by sjs132 · · Score: 1

    Hold the presses, this has got to be old news!

    I remember seing a Discovery Health or some type of media show about a woman who had a brain anurism... Problem was that she'd bleed out if they tried to remove it.. So they killed her... by running her blood through a cooler system and brought her body down to hyperthermic temps (high 60's-f or low 70's-f I think...) it cooled her whole body down and she basically "died"... (experienceing the light tunnel, voices, visions, effects and such associated with brain death and attributed to NDE or Near Death Experiences.) Anyways... after death, about 15 minutes to operate on the brain anurism to remove and bridge it.... Then they warmed the blood while circulateing it and brought her back up to "regular" temps (98f?) and then Electro-shocked her heart to start it back up, and it did and she eventually recovered with no brain damage or any complications.

    All this based on the idea of children that would fall under the ice in northern climates and would loose conscientiousness for 20 to 30 minutes under water with no oxygen while being searched for... a number of these "miricle" children were found after the extremem temps had put them in a hyperthermic (a real word?) coma they eventually would warm and be resesitated with little or no brain damage! It seems linked that the brains oxygen consumption could be slowed by the extreme temps, and not cause normal brain damage that would result from oxygen depervation for such an extended period of time...

    Now... I can't remember WHERE I saw this, it had to have been a medical documentation show... NOT SCI-FI type crap... So I know it was actually used at least once before years ago... so the pigs vs. human trials may just be to get some type of FDA approvial for the methods and or procedures.

    A COOL procedure if it really works. (Sorry, Pun intended... :)

    --
    --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  87. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep, that's almost exactly how it was for me. The main difference was that I knew I would die if I fell asleep. That was a surreal experience, going to sleep and not expecting to wake up.

    I only had frost nip in one of my toes, but the sensitivity-to-cold thing was definitely a hassle. I think it was at least a week before my sense of temperature was back to normal.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  88. At least then you can drink and drive.!!! by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Once outside earths orbit, crank out the vodka, and booze up! no law, no govt, no regulations

    No PO-LEEZE!

    Why do people wear clothes in space stations? they should all be naked.

    If your 3.9 lt away, earth cannot tell you what to do, start a new race on a an empty planet, tell earth to STFU

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  89. BTRT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    How many issues ago was it in Discover|Scientific American|MIT's Technology Review?


  90. not what the Bible suggests? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1
    Actually, the real question there is what *does* the Bible suggest God is like?

    Ignoring the fact that the Bible contradicts itself on different occasions, there are many points where God does not appear to be omnipotent. He is truly, and very often, surprised at things humans do, so he can't tell the future. He is sometimes surprised by things he laters finds out humans did, thus he doesn't know everything that's going on *now*, (the example that comes to mind is that he didn't know that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge until later when he noticed Adam was aware that he was naked). He also gets angry at things that happen, but never, EVER considers turning back time to fix it. There are plenty of things that God appear to not be able to do in the Bible.

    I also wonder what happened with the ridiculous shift between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The God in the Old Testament wasn't very nice. What is up with the whole Tower of Babel incident? "These people are working well together, we can't have that!"

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  91. mmmm SLURM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Par-Tay all the time with SLURM!

  92. Re:Wonder when the Church will get involved in thi by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    Apparently stupid people modded the original as flamebait when by stupid I mean BOTH SIDES of the argument over 'when life begins.' LOL. They must have identified themselves as the target of my statement and felt that only they were 'stupid.' ;)

    --
    Loading...
  93. Old technology: In Russia the ice is abundant by buckles · · Score: 1

    Seems I read about this in the NY Times many years ago. After the collapse of the USSR surgeons there lacking heart-lung machines and anesthetics would ice down ( Really chill them out ) the patients in order to perform major surgery and then gently revive the patients.

  94. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow.

  95. Faye Valentine not impressed by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    I think the subject of this post explains it all. I don't need to go any further than that.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  96. A question of when by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

    "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1. Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
    To me, it seems like born again belivers will sleep in the grave until the event mentioned here. If a dead man is revived (like Lazarus), there is no problem: he was just like asleep, and would have stayed that way until the time was right.

    --
    Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
  97. death is irreversible by definition by cedspam · · Score: 1

    nobody can define what is death .
    one possible and simple definition is based on the notion of irreversible state.
    so while you can get back youre not dead.
    sorry for nde, heavens and jesus...

  98. Bible admits that God creates evil.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
    (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

  99. Mammalian Dive Reflex by MZoom · · Score: 1

    I believe you are describing Mammalian Dive Reflex

    --
    Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
  100. Correction by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "The fact that you do not know of these Christian holidays throws your Christianity into serious doubt and betrays your ignorance of what it is to be a Christian."

    One does NOT need to know about Christian holidays in order to be a Christian.

    The main part of being a Christian is knowing and following Christ. Everything else can be derived from that.

    Not knowing when God's Son's birthday was actually (I doubt most Christians know roughly when it was even), does not exclude you from being part of the family.

    You become/are part of the family not because you strictly follow the rules of the family (but of course following the rules would be nice ;) ) and not because you memorize and observe all the customs and practices of the family.

    --
  101. Suspended Animation! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Suspended animation? Dr. Nick was suspended after this little accident:

    "The kneebone's connected to the... something. The something's connected to the... red thing. The red thing's connected to my wrist watch... Uh oh."

  102. Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

    OK, you were in a situation where hypothermia was a clear risk (hiking? mountain climbing?) and could be aware of the onset of symptoms. I thought I had escaped to a safe environment! Not...

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  103. Re:OLD NEWS???? - Well known- Mammalian Diving Rfx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  104. That's why we need YOU... by IAAP · · Score: 1
    Dr. MD! This is a site, afer all, for geeks. There are computer geeks, physics geeks, and biology geeks here. We could use more MD, JD, and PhD geeks too!

    I just wish you would have jumped in sooner. Of course, you're busy - being a MD and all - but correct us instead of slamming us.

    You don't want to perpetuate the myth that Doctors are arrogant know-it-alls that know nothing, do you?