3 ms·

> Most horror isn’t that scary, especially anything supernatural. I believe it all depends on whether one was raised with religion. The original creeypasta is

> Most horror isn’t that scary, especially anything supernatural. I believe it all depends on whether one was raised with religion. The original creeypasta is, of course, the New Testament (and I suppose we can be more specific: Mark 16, as the very original). There is nothing creepier than the Resurrection, thus the need for the internal instruction, "do not be alarmed." Any decent production of Godspell or Jesus Christ Superstar will exploit this creepiness in their respective Resurrection scenes. Go on, tell me you would not totally freak out if you saw a dead body come back to life.

ffhhj 4y ago
Well, Jesus revived a person before himself, and just asked him to wake up. The real and first mass terror story is The Great Flood.
nkrisc 4y ago
> Go on, tell me you would not totally freak out if you saw a dead body come back to life. Sure, if I actually saw it. But I don’t think that I ever will, nor is there any evidence anyone else ever has. So not really something I’m scared about.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > nor is there any evidence Not counting all those that were not entirely dead, just in some kind of state with reduced breathing and lowered heart rate, where others thought they were dead, but they ultimately revived... testimony, in fact, is a kind of evidence, and very often in a legal court and elsewhere, it is the only kind of evidence that is considered. Indeed, "gospel" itself derives from an Angelo-Saxon word meaning "good telling" or good testimony. Further, testimony is essential in science and cannot be reduced to other sources of justification. Testimony is a essential element of the scientific method, though we usually call it observation. But I think we must count those that were in fact medically and clinically dead (not breathing with no heartbeat, no life signs), yet were subsequently revived by warming, CPR, defibrillator[1], or through the spontaneous return of normal cardiac rhythm[2], as truly having died and been brought back to life, because, indeed, that is what has occurred countless times. Your assertion that there is not any evidence of reincarnation is not only unsupportable, it is clearly false on its face, regardless of whether anyone has ever been reincarnated or not. If it is one's belief that it is the case no one has ever been brought back from the dead, one must ignore a mountain of witness testimony and scientific evidence to the contrary. The very fact that life itself exists in any form is undeniable evidence that, at least once, life was induced from lifelessness, but I suppose that could not be reincarnation, but instead, incarnation (from the Latin incarnare: to make flesh). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50681489 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50681489 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    > Go on, tell me you would not totally freak out if you saw a dead body come back to life. Well I guess this is a case of imprecise language. When you wrote “dead body” I was not imagining someone was believed to only have just died and being actively treated or resuscitated through modern medical treatments. And of course, there is still debate in the medical world regarding what death actually is and when someone has “died” for the very reasons you stated. So when I read “dead body” I’m picturing someone who’s beyond the realm of possible resuscitation. Of course, what’s that means exactly has changed as medical techniques advance, and our understanding of what death is will change with it. And I’m sure it will continue to change. It also poses the interesting question of what exactly would a useful definition of “death” be? That said, I’m sure that window was much smaller 2,000 years ago when death was much more easily defined.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > So when I read “dead body” I’m picturing someone who’s beyond the realm of possible resuscitation. I think you are possibly attributing a much stronger definition to "dead," that is incorrect. Dead merely means lifeless, no longer alive, or deceased. It does not mean, "beyond the possibility of resuscitation," at least not in any definition I have seen. Many have in fact died and been resuscitated. Whether this is legitimately resurrection, being raised from the dead, is where I have probably been playing fast and loose, because I don't believe a body is required for resurrection, but a body is always required for resuscitation.
toastercat 4y ago
> I believe it all depends on whether one was raised with religion. Not at all, in my experience.
Delk 4y ago
It might have more to do with imagination, suggestibility, or whatever makes people get immersed in fiction.

ffhhj 4y ago

Well, Jesus revived a person before himself, and just asked him to wake up. The real and first mass terror story is The Great Flood.

nkrisc 4y ago

> Go on, tell me you would not totally freak out if you saw a dead body come back to life. Sure, if I actually saw it. But I don’t think that I ever will, nor is there any evidence anyone else ever has. So not really something I’m scared about.

Maursault 4y ago
> nor is there any evidence Not counting all those that were not entirely dead, just in some kind of state with reduced breathing and lowered heart rate, where others thought they were dead, but they ultimately revived... testimony, in fact, is a kind of evidence, and very often in a legal court and elsewhere, it is the only kind of evidence that is considered. Indeed, "gospel" itself derives from an Angelo-Saxon word meaning "good telling" or good testimony. Further, testimony is essential in science and cannot be reduced to other sources of justification. Testimony is a essential element of the scientific method, though we usually call it observation. But I think we must count those that were in fact medically and clinically dead (not breathing with no heartbeat, no life signs), yet were subsequently revived by warming, CPR, defibrillator[1], or through the spontaneous return of normal cardiac rhythm[2], as truly having died and been brought back to life, because, indeed, that is what has occurred countless times. Your assertion that there is not any evidence of reincarnation is not only unsupportable, it is clearly false on its face, regardless of whether anyone has ever been reincarnated or not. If it is one's belief that it is the case no one has ever been brought back from the dead, one must ignore a mountain of witness testimony and scientific evidence to the contrary. The very fact that life itself exists in any form is undeniable evidence that, at least once, life was induced from lifelessness, but I suppose that could not be reincarnation, but instead, incarnation (from the Latin incarnare: to make flesh). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50681489 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50681489 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
- nkrisc 4y ago
  > Go on, tell me you would not totally freak out if you saw a dead body come back to life. Well I guess this is a case of imprecise language. When you wrote “dead body” I was not imagining someone was believed to only have just died and being actively treated or resuscitated through modern medical treatments. And of course, there is still debate in the medical world regarding what death actually is and when someone has “died” for the very reasons you stated. So when I read “dead body” I’m picturing someone who’s beyond the realm of possible resuscitation. Of course, what’s that means exactly has changed as medical techniques advance, and our understanding of what death is will change with it. And I’m sure it will continue to change. It also poses the interesting question of what exactly would a useful definition of “death” be? That said, I’m sure that window was much smaller 2,000 years ago when death was much more easily defined.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > So when I read “dead body” I’m picturing someone who’s beyond the realm of possible resuscitation. I think you are possibly attributing a much stronger definition to "dead," that is incorrect. Dead merely means lifeless, no longer alive, or deceased. It does not mean, "beyond the possibility of resuscitation," at least not in any definition I have seen. Many have in fact died and been resuscitated. Whether this is legitimately resurrection, being raised from the dead, is where I have probably been playing fast and loose, because I don't believe a body is required for resurrection, but a body is always required for resuscitation.

toastercat 4y ago

> I believe it all depends on whether one was raised with religion. Not at all, in my experience.

Delk 4y ago

It might have more to do with imagination, suggestibility, or whatever makes people get immersed in fiction.