No relationship between the living and dead

Mark He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

no relationship between the living and dead

A new solo art show pushes the viewer to join the finely charged dots in each work to become aware of the artist's far-reaching message. Non-living is the condition of never being alive. Non-living could refer to inorganic matter. Rocks, for example are non-living. They are not dead. The relations between the living and the dead could be divided into the This does not indicate, however, to an application for the active support from the part ways) and namely: (1) incomplete relationship with the word of the living and (2 ).

no relationship between the living and dead

Of course there is nothing new about necromancy attempting to communicate with the dead ; it is almost as old as death itself. There is considerable evidence in the Old Testament that even the Hebrews became involved in the practice. One who sought to communicate with the dead was called a necromancer; hence, the term refers to one who attempts to obtain supernatural knowledge from beyond the grave. That, of course, implied the death penalty v. Could certain perverse persons actually communicate with the dead in those ancient times?

And what of today? Some contend that during the Mosaic economy there were actually people who could contact the dead and thus, by supernatural knowledge obtained from them, they could predict the future.

Lecture: Relationships Between the Living and the Dead

They argue that capital punishment would hardly have been legislated against mere pretenders. We feel, however, that his argument is invalid. Even some today, who are strongly opposed to the practice of necromancy, feel that messages are being conveyed from the realm of the dead. There seems to be convincing evidence that some accurate information has been transmitted from beyond the grave, and that the mediums through which it was communicated could not have otherwise known about it Again, however, scholars are disagreed as to the meaning of this incident.

Some contend that this event was merely a hoax perpetrated by that evil woman. The whole transaction was a piece of feigning on the part of the woman. It was she who saw Samuel and reported his words; the king himself saw and heard nothing. It required no great skill in a practiced diviner to forecast the general issue of the battle about to take place, and the disaster that would overtake Saul and his sons.

Any Resemblance to Actual Persons, Living or Dead, is Purely Coincidental

Saul, in fact, was not slain, but killed himself. The incident, therefore, may best be ranked in the same category as the feats of modern mediumship The most common view, however, is that this incident did involve a real appearance of Samuel from the dead, effected not by the woman, but by Jehovah; hence, it was a unique event.

This seems to be supported by the fact that the woman herself was terrified by the presence of Samuel. Davis and Whitcomb note: Non-living is the condition of never being alive.

Non-living could refer to inorganic matter. Rocks, for example are non-living. They are not dead, because they were never alive as a rock, but they may contain chemicals that were once part of a living organism. Now, those may sound fairly clear definitions at first glance. However, they are often too simplistic. Viruses for example cannot be clearly placed in any of these categories.

A non-living object cannot, by definition, meet all of the requirements for being living, however they can meet SOME of the requirements.


Where to draw the line is the source of much debate. Similarly, the distinction between living and dead is not always clear.

Most people could tell if they saw a brain-dead and heart-dead person that the person was dead, but the issue becomes much muddier when we consider people who have lost all higher brain function, but retain the small amount of function needed to keep the heart pumping and the lungs working most likely with the aid of machinery. I chose to post this in the PCF rather than the SCF because it seems to me that the lines between living and non-living and between living and dead are ones we cannot draw scientifically at this point, because they are ones we cannot test.

Something is either living, dead, or non-living. Since we can't clearly define "dead," we can't use killing as a test for "living-ness. This question is of great interest to Biologists. I say it is philosophy, only because I believe that for the time being at least, the answer must be found through thought not experiment.

To me, that is the line between philosophy and science. Please, in composing your responses try remember that these are specifically-defined biological terms, and not colloquial ones. Also, please consider the possiblities of testing any hypotheses you put forth.

By this I don't mean that all hypotheses must be testable, but rather that if your hypothesis is testable, I would like some sort of idea of what tests could be done. As a component of me was it ever alive?

Can the Living Talk To the Dead?

I say this because I have considered these questions you are asking many times. It may always be beyond our capacity to understand. Sat Dec 30, You were talking about viruses. Althought they possess a genetic material, they are not able to reproduce alone, and all the viral structures is syntethised by the host.

So, from your pt.

no relationship between the living and dead

But, comparing rock and virus, we would find many differences, why they cannot be placed in the same category.