Schizophrenia And Genetics

[moanareina]

 

 

Yes I am guilty of mental jumps, leaving out the other participant to make the jumps for themselves. Apologies.

 

Working backward, it appears these conditions have genetic components that are identifiable. And it seems like we have identified these conditions as disease or abnormal to the point where we wish to help "find a cure" for those afflicted.

 

And we know that environmental conditions or how we treat people have a genetic effect.

 

And we know now that some of these effects are not reset at birth, but carried on.

 

So when we ask ourselves (Ravenstar), what is the cause of these conditions, we can say "it just happens" at no fault of the one that inherited the condition....which is true, and we can identify the history of that person's environment or treatment or even their past relatives environment and treatment to gather information regarding the origin and cause of these conditions. If people do not wish to define it by some action(s) through our choices and behaviors, that is being dishonest.....as it is based on decisions. Additionally, we do not know nor likely ever know how to live or where to live on this planet that provides the perfect combination to promote eternal life. So again, you take the mythic storyline of the Bible where it talks about a fallen world, and love your neighbor because none of us are outside of this condition and many more instances where the Bible just has a remarkably good guess at the human condition and do with it what you may. No one has all the answers.

 

The point is, yes, the inheritance may be absolutely no fault of their own, but it may have a lot to do with the past history of the group.

 

It's just interesting to me that the genetic change will revert apparently after a few generations as the Scripture seems to acknowledge as well.

 

I am sometimes taken back by how much many people here want to assign me as a terrible person for participating mentally in these topics. END3, fuck off for asking the questions....you are a bad bad person. You obviously are evil and an idiot to boot. Die, die, die.

 

Just because I discuss them, many don't know what I really believe. But truthfully, this one seems rather straightforward unless someone can give me reason to not assign behaviors with genetic change.

 

Defining it as "sin" is subjective I am thinking.

I can't see this any other way really. It's factual at this point.

 

We are constantly searching for ways to treat our children for the best possible outcome for them and their children. I don't think this is coincidence at all.

 

To the mental health drugs....went through many antidepressants, sedatives, per the MDs telling me I just had to find the "right one" for me. I don't deny they help some people, but one of them nearly made me kill myself. I think they have the capability to altering one's perception such that you think what you are thinking is viable, but it's actually not. In that, I am less than impressed with the guessing and efficacy of some of these drugs......not to mention the side effects.

 

end, I really do have a few question marks when reading your lines.

 

No one said that there is no correlation between environment inheritance etc. Genes get passed down to the offspring, that is a scientific fact. There is gens that are dominant, means you get the illness even if only your mom or dad had it or they are recessive, means you get the illness only if both your parents are carrier of the bad gene and you got from both the chromosome with the defect gene. So that leaves a whole lot of options for diseases to show up and disappear with coming generations. Nothing special, no original sin needed, no bible needed for that. That is why I suggest to study some real science like genetics. It is actually quite interesting. And I am aware that you might have studied those things but the way you form your answers etc. implies that you have not.

 

Then of course illness too has to do with decisions and environmental components. No one is denying that either.

 

 And then you go on and say the following: Additionally, we do not know nor likely ever know how to live or where to live on this planet that provides the perfect combination to promote eternal life.

I don't follow your train of thoughts there. What do you mean by promoting eternal life? Who promotes eternal life? I don't care about who believes in eternal life or not but research on illness, mental illness and other science is not about promoting eternal life. It is about making the best out of the one life we are given for granted. Because really, it is all we are granted.

 

Then this line also appears a little odd:

 

So again, you take the mythic storyline of the Bible where it talks about a fallen world, and love your neighbor because none of us are outside of this condition and many more instances where the Bible just has a remarkably good guess at the human condition and do with it what you may

I don't quite get what you want to tell us by that statement. It is a weird sentence saying nothing. I am lost here.

 

And I am very sorry the drugs did not work for you. That does not mean the won't work for others. And that therefore they are a farce.

 

So I have a question for you: Why is it important to you to believe in the concept of original sin, why are you looking for agreement on the matter? Why are you searching and trying to link stuff to your concepts? Are you trying to find an answer to your own mental problems and to have something you can hang your mind to because you are disappointed about the way the drugs did not help you? Just a guess and I apologize if that is offending. No offense meant. Just asking an honest question.

 

You just used the words bad and defect gene. Bad and defect relative to what, life? What is normal life? A long life, a short life? Don't we pat ourselves on the back for our new average life span? Would we like to extend that to living forever? Is "bad" and "defect" the same as saying "sin" I have made intentionally "bad" choices that will effect my lifespan.

 

Why is it not ok to even remotely speculate "to know Him, or those choices, that would lead us to a longer life span or even eternal life". Heck we actively move towards that each day with respect to our morality and natural bodies.

 

Because of the way I was raised, I have moderate disdain for people who "know" all the answers. It's important to me to keep my "knowing" faithfully open to things I might not yet know. So to a fault, it's a natural "fight" for me. And it's aggravating that people tout how much they know and then when pressed, they call on science to say we have the right to change our opinion, whilst beating people into submission with "temporary" knowledge.

 

 

End, I am sorry to say this but to me it looks like you try to entangle me into a whole other discussion because you are afraid (again...and this happened before if you remember) to admit that you have no evidence for your points. You claim to be open minded but you are not. You keep holding on to your position even though there is no real reason to do so. You seem to try to convince people into your thinking but don't allow yourself the openness to be challenged to overthink your believes.

 

No one here claims to know everything fully neither does science or anyone who is referring you to science. Why we refer you to science simply is because at least I get the impression from what you write here (and that is the only impression we have of you because it is all we can see of you) that you don't really understand how science works.

 

Now to the bad genes. I could have used another word like genes that give you cretinism. Would that work for you to understand what I meant to say? Or do we have to play word games now?

[moanareina]

What if I love science and science is my way of expressing my love for humanity in that I might find a cure for cancer or send a camera though a black hole and get spit out the other side into another universe?

 

 

Not sure what train of thought I missed here either.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Yes I am guilty of mental jumps, leaving out the other participant to make the jumps for themselves. Apologies.

 

Working backward, it appears these conditions have genetic components that are identifiable. And it seems like we have identified these conditions as disease or abnormal to the point where we wish to help "find a cure" for those afflicted.

 

And we know that environmental conditions or how we treat people have a genetic effect.

 

And we know now that some of these effects are not reset at birth, but carried on.

 

So when we ask ourselves (Ravenstar), what is the cause of these conditions, we can say "it just happens" at no fault of the one that inherited the condition....which is true, and we can identify the history of that person's environment or treatment or even their past relatives environment and treatment to gather information regarding the origin and cause of these conditions. If people do not wish to define it by some action(s) through our choices and behaviors, that is being dishonest.....as it is based on decisions. Additionally, we do not know nor likely ever know how to live or where to live on this planet that provides the perfect combination to promote eternal life. So again, you take the mythic storyline of the Bible where it talks about a fallen world, and love your neighbor because none of us are outside of this condition and many more instances where the Bible just has a remarkably good guess at the human condition and do with it what you may. No one has all the answers.

 

The point is, yes, the inheritance may be absolutely no fault of their own, but it may have a lot to do with the past history of the group.

 

It's just interesting to me that the genetic change will revert apparently after a few generations as the Scripture seems to acknowledge as well.

 

I am sometimes taken back by how much many people here want to assign me as a terrible person for participating mentally in these topics. END3, fuck off for asking the questions....you are a bad bad person. You obviously are evil and an idiot to boot. Die, die, die.

 

Just because I discuss them, many don't know what I really believe. But truthfully, this one seems rather straightforward unless someone can give me reason to not assign behaviors with genetic change.

 

Defining it as "sin" is subjective I am thinking.

I can't see this any other way really. It's factual at this point.

 

We are constantly searching for ways to treat our children for the best possible outcome for them and their children. I don't think this is coincidence at all.

 

To the mental health drugs....went through many antidepressants, sedatives, per the MDs telling me I just had to find the "right one" for me. I don't deny they help some people, but one of them nearly made me kill myself. I think they have the capability to altering one's perception such that you think what you are thinking is viable, but it's actually not. In that, I am less than impressed with the guessing and efficacy of some of these drugs......not to mention the side effects.

 

end, I really do have a few question marks when reading your lines.

 

No one said that there is no correlation between environment inheritance etc. Genes get passed down to the offspring, that is a scientific fact. There is gens that are dominant, means you get the illness even if only your mom or dad had it or they are recessive, means you get the illness only if both your parents are carrier of the bad gene and you got from both the chromosome with the defect gene. So that leaves a whole lot of options for diseases to show up and disappear with coming generations. Nothing special, no original sin needed, no bible needed for that. That is why I suggest to study some real science like genetics. It is actually quite interesting. And I am aware that you might have studied those things but the way you form your answers etc. implies that you have not.

 

Then of course illness too has to do with decisions and environmental components. No one is denying that either.

 

 And then you go on and say the following: Additionally, we do not know nor likely ever know how to live or where to live on this planet that provides the perfect combination to promote eternal life.

I don't follow your train of thoughts there. What do you mean by promoting eternal life? Who promotes eternal life? I don't care about who believes in eternal life or not but research on illness, mental illness and other science is not about promoting eternal life. It is about making the best out of the one life we are given for granted. Because really, it is all we are granted.

 

Then this line also appears a little odd:

 

So again, you take the mythic storyline of the Bible where it talks about a fallen world, and love your neighbor because none of us are outside of this condition and many more instances where the Bible just has a remarkably good guess at the human condition and do with it what you may

I don't quite get what you want to tell us by that statement. It is a weird sentence saying nothing. I am lost here.

 

And I am very sorry the drugs did not work for you. That does not mean the won't work for others. And that therefore they are a farce.

 

So I have a question for you: Why is it important to you to believe in the concept of original sin, why are you looking for agreement on the matter? Why are you searching and trying to link stuff to your concepts? Are you trying to find an answer to your own mental problems and to have something you can hang your mind to because you are disappointed about the way the drugs did not help you? Just a guess and I apologize if that is offending. No offense meant. Just asking an honest question.

 

You just used the words bad and defect gene. Bad and defect relative to what, life? What is normal life? A long life, a short life? Don't we pat ourselves on the back for our new average life span? Would we like to extend that to living forever? Is "bad" and "defect" the same as saying "sin" I have made intentionally "bad" choices that will effect my lifespan.

 

Why is it not ok to even remotely speculate "to know Him, or those choices, that would lead us to a longer life span or even eternal life". Heck we actively move towards that each day with respect to our morality and natural bodies.

 

Because of the way I was raised, I have moderate disdain for people who "know" all the answers. It's important to me to keep my "knowing" faithfully open to things I might not yet know. So to a fault, it's a natural "fight" for me. And it's aggravating that people tout how much they know and then when pressed, they call on science to say we have the right to change our opinion, whilst beating people into submission with "temporary" knowledge.

 

 

End, I am sorry to say this but to me it looks like you try to entangle me into a whole other discussion because you are afraid (again...and this happened before if you remember) to admit that you have no evidence for your points. You claim to be open minded but you are not. You keep holding on to your position even though there is no real reason to do so. You seem to try to convince people into your thinking but don't allow yourself the openness to be challenged to overthink your believes.

 

No one here claims to know everything fully neither does science or anyone who is referring you to science. Why we refer you to science simply is because at least I get the impression from what you write here (and that is the only impression we have of you because it is all we can see of you) that you don't really understand how science works.

 

Now to the bad genes. I could have used another word like genes that give you cretinism. Would that work for you to understand what I meant to say? Or do we have to play word games now?

 

From what I gather about everyone's frustration here is everyone is saying there must be an object to test before we speculate on a mechanism????? Be very careful here.

[Orbit]

(rear)End--They are saying if you base your views on the Bible you must first establish that the Bible is true, otherwise your argument is a house built on sand. There is no link between "sin" and mental illness because sin is a concept created by theologians; it doesn't objectively exist. Mental illness exists in tribal cultures with no notion of sin. The two are not related, and you need evidence other than the Bible to establish a link.

[moanareina]

Well end, if you want to speculate you might consider going to a conspiracy theory forum. Or to your Church. If you want to have a real discussion where facts matter, you are welcome to do this here. But then you need to follow through with it and not just back off by complaining about how we would not be open to your ideas.

 

Also I am not frustrated at all. I am more amused to be honest.

 

And what do you mean when you say: Be very careful here? I am quite careful, thats why I ended up where I am now and I am glad I did  . I am glad I did because I finally am able to improve my life quality and make the most of my one short uneternal life on this planet. And this is because of science and my unreligious mind that is not linking things to concepts of original sin etc.

[Ravenstar]

 

Equating mental illness and sin is disgusting.

 

The whole point of mental illness… to a certain degree, is that the afflicted do not have freedom of choice, they are not entirely in control mentally of their faculties. To make this a moral issue is incomprehensible, and abhorrent.

 

Fuck off.

Don't know why you can't comprehend that it may not be a function of the person directly but past generations and past circumstances. Don't think you are understanding. Matter of fact I expressly said "we are so far removed" from cause that it makes sense to love everyone.

 

And did you ever hear of have a conversation just for the exercise in asking the questions? If you want to get all emotional about it.....

 

My great uncle had paranoid schizophrenia.. he was also the gentlest and most intelligent person I have ever met. It's an imbalance and disorder of dopamine and serotonin uptake receptors in the brain… it's known to have genetic components but it does not always express itself in the disease. Nurture has as much to do with it as nature.

 

Please educate yourself before wild speculation designed to fit your crapshoot of a theology.

 

You must somewhat understand something (say.. science) before you can love it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Check you facts ma'am. I manage an analytical laboratory for a $100,000,000 corporation and own an analytical lab myself, have been so far in depression that I am educated enough to understand the meds associated with mental illness are a farce and am as qualified and anyone for religious interpretation.

 

What we might try is better communication, after all, these are relationship issues...

 

Argument from authority.  

 

After graduating with a 4.0 GPA in the field of Biotechnology, I cut my teeth in an immunological research laboratory and went on to spend years working as a bio-analyst.  I've had job offers from Moffitt Cancer Center and from Duke Medical.  I currently work for a multi-million dollar corporation which produces cancer treatment and am in the process of building a lab for my son, complete with full biological and microbiological staining capacity and, for now, a make-shift incubator for culturing bacteria and somatic cells.  I'm also sometimes sad; as a matter of fact, right now I'm very sad.  

 

I, therefore have qualifications similar to yours and I say you're wrong.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

I would advise against trying to get any sense out of end3 on these matters.  He is not qualified to talk about mental illness.  Or religion.  Or science.

Check you facts ma'am. I manage an analytical laboratory for a $100,000,000 corporation and own an analytical lab myself, have been so far in depression that I am educated enough to understand the meds associated with mental illness are a farce and am as qualified and anyone for religious interpretation.

 

What we might try is better communication, after all, these are relationship issues...

 

 

You are not qualified to talk about mental illness because you think it has something to do with a theological concept called sin, ignoring the enormous body of scientific evidence that it is caused by tangible, measurable biological and environmental factors.  Further, you ignore the enormous body of scientific evidence that medications are safe and effective in the majority of cases, vastly improving the quality of life of millions of people.

 

You are not qualified to talk about religion because you have god goggles on, therefore everything you say is affected by deep bias.

 

You are not qualified to talk about science because you have shown repeatedly that you have little understanding of the scientific method.  I have no training beyond high school level science but even I can understand the basic rules of scientific inquiry and can therefore readily see the errors you are making.

 

If you want to improve the communication of your ideas, you might want to start using logic and evidence instead of making unsubstantiated claims and suppositions.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Equating mental illness and sin is disgusting.

 

The whole point of mental illness… to a certain degree, is that the afflicted do not have freedom of choice, they are not entirely in control mentally of their faculties. To make this a moral issue is incomprehensible, and abhorrent.

 

Fuck off.

Don't know why you can't comprehend that it may not be a function of the person directly but past generations and past circumstances. Don't think you are understanding. Matter of fact I expressly said "we are so far removed" from cause that it makes sense to love everyone.

 

And did you ever hear of have a conversation just for the exercise in asking the questions? If you want to get all emotional about it.....

 

Grandpa was a smoker; I have schizophrenia.  

 

Makes perfect sense that the two MUST be connected, just not in any way that any scientific discipline could detect or demonstrate.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Oy Roz.

 

Let's take the multiverse for example. Science points to it. Perhaps you and many others say, oh, that's ok, we have a system to decide whether it's valid or not.

 

But when you say 3rd heaven, a Book and no system, well by god, that is ludicrous.

 

Neither can be proven, but your ok with one of them.

 

So when science and it's arrows point to many of the same things said differently in the Book, is it ever ok to acknowledge the Book?

We trust science because it has the ability to self-correct and has demonstrated a willingness to do so on a number of occasions.  Irrespective of what can be "proven" (however you choose to define the term), the ability to admit mistakes and correct them is far more trustworthy that an unsupported "truth" claim that will neither admit when it's wrong nor even consider the possibility of being wrong.

 

Science is questions that raise more questions than can ever be answered.  Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.  Religion is answers which may never be questioned.  

 

Which one would you trust?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

You just used the words bad and defect gene. Bad and defect relative to what, life? What is normal life? 

 

 

Trisomy 21, Trisomy 18, Crie du Chat, p51 mutation, thrombocytopenic purpura--any of these ringing any bells in that "analytical laboratory manager's" brain?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if I love science and science is my way of expressing my love for humanity in that I might find a cure for cancer or send a camera though a black hole and get spit out the other side into another universe?

 

What if I love jesus and jesus is my way of expressing my love for humanity in that I might pray for a cure for cancer or that god would reveal the mysteries that lie on the other side of black holes in parallel universes that don't exist because the bible doesn't mention them?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And this:

 

We reserve the right to change our minds through the scientific method, but adamantly state that this is the truth today.

 

With religion, I think this is the truth as I experience it, but the living Bible may give me another way to view truth as I mature.

As stated before, religion is not self-correcting like science is.  If you tend to change your mind as you mature, that points to the veracity of psychology and neurology, not to the validity of ancient texts.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And this:

 

We reserve the right to change our minds through the scientific method, but adamantly state that this is the truth today.

 

With religion, I think this is the truth as I experience it, but the living Bible may give me another way to view truth as I mature.

Of the several bibles I have owned over the years, I've never yet seen one breathe.  Thus to refer to it as a "living" organism is simply disingenuous.  I'll go check my son's "Brick Bible" for a pulse and get back to you if it has one.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Ok Roz, let's define what original sin is and I will attempt to proceed. I think it is those acts that lead to death, death being mental and physical disease.

 

Didn't I already try to go down this road with you?  Only I had to ask several times for you to define "sin"?

 

For the record, death may be a result of mental and physical disease, but that doesn't indicate that death IS mental and physical disease, as you posit here.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

From what I gather about everyone's frustration here is everyone is saying there must be an object to test before we speculate on a mechanism????? Be very careful here.

 

Unless there is a testable hypothesis, all we are left with IS speculation.  Care to speculate on why you can't accept that?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Sorry, End3.  I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you tonight.  But you are simply not making any sense, and I'm enough of a friend to tell you so.

[directionless]

(rear)End--They are saying if you base your views on the Bible you must first establish that the Bible is true, otherwise your argument is a house built on sand. There is no link between "sin" and mental illness because sin is a concept created by theologians; it doesn't objectively exist. Mental illness exists in tribal cultures with no notion of sin. The two are not related, and you need evidence other than the Bible to establish a link.

IMO the theories to be tested experimentally can come from anywhere.

 

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on benzene:

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

 

Using the Bible as inspiration for a theory is no sillier than using a dream. The key is to test the theory with experiments, peer review, etc. (I know others understand the details of the scientific method better than me, but that is what I think.)

 

Also, sorry if I'm missing the point that others are arguing about establishing the Bible before we discuss the idea that epigenetics matches some ideas in the Bible.

[Guest end3]

 

And this:

 

We reserve the right to change our minds through the scientific method, but adamantly state that this is the truth today.

 

With religion, I think this is the truth as I experience it, but the living Bible may give me another way to view truth as I mature.

As stated before, religion is not self-correcting like science is.  If you tend to change your mind as you mature, that points to the veracity of psychology and neurology, not to the validity of ancient texts.

 

No, not really, it points to salvation being a process rather than instantaneous.

[Guest end3]

 

And this:

 

We reserve the right to change our minds through the scientific method, but adamantly state that this is the truth today.

 

With religion, I think this is the truth as I experience it, but the living Bible may give me another way to view truth as I mature.

Of the several bibles I have owned over the years, I've never yet seen one breathe.  Thus to refer to it as a "living" organism is simply disingenuous.  I'll go check my son's "Brick Bible" for a pulse and get back to you if it has one.

 

Certainly you have heard the phase living Bible. Literal in not what I meant.

[Guest end3]

 

(rear)End--They are saying if you base your views on the Bible you must first establish that the Bible is true, otherwise your argument is a house built on sand. There is no link between "sin" and mental illness because sin is a concept created by theologians; it doesn't objectively exist. Mental illness exists in tribal cultures with no notion of sin. The two are not related, and you need evidence other than the Bible to establish a link.

IMO the theories to be tested experimentally can come from anywhere.

 

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on benzene:

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

 

 

 

Using the Bible as inspiration for a theory is no sillier than using a dream. The key is to test the theory with experiments, peer review, etc. (I know others understand the details of the scientific method better than me, but that is what I think.)

 

Also, sorry if I'm missing the point that others are arguing about establishing the Bible before we discuss the idea that epigenetics matches some ideas in the Bible.

 

Thanks, this is not any part of science in their opinion.

[Guest end3]

 

From what I gather about everyone's frustration here is everyone is saying there must be an object to test before we speculate on a mechanism????? Be very careful here.

Unless there is a testable hypothesis, all we are left with IS speculation.  Care to speculate on why you can't accept that?

 

 

 

Equating mental illness and sin is disgusting.

 

The whole point of mental illness… to a certain degree, is that the afflicted do not have freedom of choice, they are not entirely in control mentally of their faculties. To make this a moral issue is incomprehensible, and abhorrent.

 

Fuck off.

Don't know why you can't comprehend that it may not be a function of the person directly but past generations and past circumstances. Don't think you are understanding. Matter of fact I expressly said "we are so far removed" from cause that it makes sense to love everyone.

 

And did you ever hear of have a conversation just for the exercise in asking the questions? If you want to get all emotional about it.....

 

Grandpa was a smoker; I have schizophrenia.  

 

Makes perfect sense that the two MUST be connected, just not in any way that any scientific discipline could detect or demonstrate.

 

It said they might be. So yeah, it might be that Grandpa screwed the grandson...

[Guest end3]

 

What if I love science and science is my way of expressing my love for humanity in that I might find a cure for cancer or send a camera though a black hole and get spit out the other side into another universe?

What if I love jesus and jesus is my way of expressing my love for humanity in that I might pray for a cure for cancer or that god would reveal the mysteries that lie on the other side of black holes in parallel universes that don't exist because the bible doesn't mention them?

 

You lost me Prof....it's all about relationships. You can't speak the other, then it's hard to form the relationship. Why would you demand that everyone fit your mold?.....the science mold.

[Guest end3]

 

 

I would advise against trying to get any sense out of end3 on these matters.  He is not qualified to talk about mental illness.  Or religion.  Or science.

Check you facts ma'am. I manage an analytical laboratory for a $100,000,000 corporation and own an analytical lab myself, have been so far in depression that I am educated enough to understand the meds associated with mental illness are a farce and am as qualified and anyone for religious interpretation.

 

What we might try is better communication, after all, these are relationship issues...

 

 

You are not qualified to talk about mental illness because you think it has something to do with a theological concept called sin, ignoring the enormous body of scientific evidence that it is caused by tangible, measurable biological and environmental factors.  Further, you ignore the enormous body of scientific evidence that medications are safe and effective in the majority of cases, vastly improving the quality of life of millions of people.

 

You are not qualified to talk about religion because you have god goggles on, therefore everything you say is affected by deep bias.

 

You are not qualified to talk about science because you have shown repeatedly that you have little understanding of the scientific method.  I have no training beyond high school level science but even I can understand the basic rules of scientific inquiry and can therefore readily see the errors you are making.

 

If you want to improve the communication of your ideas, you might want to start using logic and evidence instead of making unsubstantiated claims and suppositions.

 

Listen goofball, bad behaviors are not in environmental factors???

[Orbit]

 

(rear)End--They are saying if you base your views on the Bible you must first establish that the Bible is true, otherwise your argument is a house built on sand. There is no link between "sin" and mental illness because sin is a concept created by theologians; it doesn't objectively exist. Mental illness exists in tribal cultures with no notion of sin. The two are not related, and you need evidence other than the Bible to establish a link.

IMO the theories to be tested experimentally can come from anywhere.

 

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on benzene:

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

 

Using the Bible as inspiration for a theory is no sillier than using a dream. The key is to test the theory with experiments, peer review, etc. (I know others understand the details of the scientific method better than me, but that is what I think.)

 

Also, sorry if I'm missing the point that others are arguing about establishing the Bible before we discuss the idea that epigenetics matches some ideas in the Bible.

 

1. Mental illness is not sin.

2. You can't find sin on a gene because sin is not a physical reality, it is a human concept.