Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest end3]

You haven't answered how you can make the connection in your OP = you're backing away.  Running away's more like it.

 

And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/genetic-adam-eve-chromosome-men-man_n_3691084.html

 

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

 

Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.

 

---

Your bible is so far removed from that narrative that it's hilarious.

 

Your mind is so warped by your religion that you keep trying to tie all sorts of things together with it.  It's just the same as what Mormons try to do, or Muslims, or any other religion including your particular christian sect. 

 

You just can't see it, and it's sad and hilarious at the same time.

What's sad Roz is to present conclusions based on wonderfully limited science. If the Christian God is real, then you are potentially condemning people with ignorant conclusions.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

You haven't answered how you can make the connection in your OP = you're backing away.  Running away's more like it.

 

And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/genetic-adam-eve-chromosome-men-man_n_3691084.html

 

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

 

Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.

 

---

Your bible is so far removed from that narrative that it's hilarious.

 

Your mind is so warped by your religion that you keep trying to tie all sorts of things together with it.  It's just the same as what Mormons try to do, or Muslims, or any other religion including your particular christian sect. 

 

You just can't see it, and it's sad and hilarious at the same time.

What's sad Roz is to present conclusions based on wonderfully limited science. If the Christian God is real, then you are potentially condemning people with ignorant conclusions.

 

Lol, the xian god is not real...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

[Roz]

 

You haven't answered how you can make the connection in your OP = you're backing away.  Running away's more like it.

 

And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/genetic-adam-eve-chromosome-men-man_n_3691084.html

 

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

 

Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.

 

---

Your bible is so far removed from that narrative that it's hilarious.

 

Your mind is so warped by your religion that you keep trying to tie all sorts of things together with it.  It's just the same as what Mormons try to do, or Muslims, or any other religion including your particular christian sect. 

 

You just can't see it, and it's sad and hilarious at the same time.

What's sad Roz is to present conclusions based on wonderfully limited science. If the Christian God is real, then you are potentially condemning people with ignorant conclusions.

 

 

"If the Christian God is real"

 

That's the point, you have to PROVE that your religion's the correct one.  And you must also prove that your original claim -schizophrenia is linked to original sin- is factually accurate.

 

You really are too drunk on your religion.  The position I take is "I don't know."  This position is not jumping to any conclusion whatsoever. 

 

PROVE YOUR RELIGION IS THE RIGHT ONE BECAUSE YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.  And prove your statement in the OP along with it.

 

What's sad is that by running away from proving your logic, you are not sharing the gospel of your jesus, and you know that verse "whosoever does not acknowledge me before men, I will not acknowledge before my father"?  That's you right now.

[Guest end3]

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

[Roz]

If End3 were Muslim, this is what he would say:

 

Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. It is believed that Allah weighs an individual’s good deeds and against his or her sins on the Day of Judgement and punishes those individuals whose evil deeds outweigh their good deeds. These individuals are thought to be sentenced to afterlife in the fires of جهنم jahannam (Hell). The Quran describes these sins throughout the text and demonstrates that some sins are more punishable than others.

 

But Yeshitwa's End3 would say that his counterpart is wrong, it's belief and not a tally that's needed!

 

This is your brain on religion.  End3 assumes his god, the christian god of his own sect, is the real one.  Period.  He doesn't understand that he has to explain why his version of sin/holy book/god is correct and not the Muslim's sin/holy book/god.  Or any other religion's.

 

This is the effects of long term religion on a human, and when I look at it I'm glad I got out of that mindfuck.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

What rubbish.  You're just trying to shift the burden of proof now.  You made the claim that religious law means something, based on a premise that a god exists.  The burden of proof is on you.  But you know that.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

What rubbish.  You're just trying to shift the burden of proof now.  You made the claim that religious law means something, based on a premise that a god exists.  The burden of proof is on you.  But you know that.

 

Why do you holler PROVE IT, and when I say PROVE IT, somehow, it's more valid for you? Did you not read that I have acknowledged these as just relationships that point towards the Bible?

 

Rubbish back to you sister.

 

Edit: btw, this is standard for the site here....blah blah, you're the one making extraordinary claims, so you have to blah blah." As Roz says, go get funding for millions of hours of research and billions for instrumentation and go for it. Like I said, it's you that are condemning based on scientific certainty. The least you could do is prove the mechanisms we call life/soul.

[Roz]

Time to play "Where's End3?"  Here's a hint:  He's in 2 panels

 

[Roz]

End3's god:  (Jn 14):13"Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

 

Seems like the christian doesn't want to ask his yeshitwa for the objective method of testing that proves schizophrenia has links to original sin. 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

You're simply full of passive-aggresive bullshit.  Got anything better?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Why do you holler PROVE IT, and when I say PROVE IT, somehow, it's more valid for you? Did you not read that I have acknowledged these as just relationships that point towards the Bible?

 

Rubbish back to you sister.

 

Edit: btw, this is standard for the site here....blah blah, you're the one making extraordinary claims, so you have to blah blah." As Roz says, go get funding for millions of hours of research and billions for instrumentation and go for it. Like I said, it's you that are condemning based on scientific certainty. The least you could do is prove the mechanisms we call life/soul.

 

 

A soul is an imaginary religious construct.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

nat·u·ral law

noun

 

1. 1.

   a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. 2.

   an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

   "the natural laws of perspective"

 

Religion used to be okay with slavery.  Then religion changed its perspective.  Therefore, religious law IS excluded from natural law, which is unchanging.  I don't need science to separate the two; as they were never intertwined.  

 

And to keep yammering on without heed to this is disingenuous.  But you know that.

[Guest end3]

You're simply full of passive-aggresive bullshit.  Got anything better?

Sure, let's talk reality. All of you don't know the beginning nor the end yet based on some pieces pieced together you define the whole enchilada and are adamant about

 

Seriously, how can you

 

Why do you holler PROVE IT, and when I say PROVE IT, somehow, it's more valid for you? Did you not read that I have acknowledged these as just relationships that point towards the Bible?

 

Rubbish back to you sister.

 

Edit: btw, this is standard for the site here....blah blah, you're the one making extraordinary claims, so you have to blah blah." As Roz says, go get funding for millions of hours of research and billions for instrumentation and go for it. Like I said, it's you that are condemning based on scientific certainty. The least you could do is prove the mechanisms we call life/soul.

 

A soul is an imaginary religious construct.

 

The multiverse is an imaginary scientific construct.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

nat·u·ral law

 

noun

•  

  1.

   

  a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

   

   

•  

  2.

   

  an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

  "the natural laws of perspective"

   

   

Religion used to be okay with slavery.  Then religion changed its perspective.  Therefore, religious law IS excluded from natural law, which is unchanging.  I don't need science to separate the two; as they were never intertwined.  

 

And to keep yammering on without heed to this is disingenuous.  But you know that.

 

No, I am saying it would have remained unchanged provided Adam and Eve would have known the law or have obeyed. Perhaps morality is cycling based on getting blown about. Interesting that that definition discusses moral principles.

[Roz]

End3 puts out his premise in his opening post:

Just skimmed this, but one would speculate that we could make a case for loving everyone as we may be finding out that we may be predestined in some manner and even to "sin". Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards.

 

Great, he's got a baseball.  That baseball can tie schizophrenia to original sin.

 

92 posts later, he's reduced to yelling "All of you don't know the beginning nor the end yet"

 

Just because no one knows the answer yet does not mean you can claim you know the answer.  You posited that schizophrenia fits your book's fallen world narrative.  I know you won't get the fact that you're the one who made the initial positive claim.

 

It's so sadorable.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

You're simply full of passive-aggresive bullshit.  Got anything better?

Sure, let's talk reality. All of you don't know the beginning nor the end yet based on some pieces pieced together you define the whole enchilada and are adamant about

 

Seriously, how can you

 

Why do you holler PROVE IT, and when I say PROVE IT, somehow, it's more valid for you? Did you not read that I have acknowledged these as just relationships that point towards the Bible?

 

Rubbish back to you sister.

 

Edit: btw, this is standard for the site here....blah blah, you're the one making extraordinary claims, so you have to blah blah." As Roz says, go get funding for millions of hours of research and billions for instrumentation and go for it. Like I said, it's you that are condemning based on scientific certainty. The least you could do is prove the mechanisms we call life/soul.

 

A soul is an imaginary religious construct.

 

The multiverse is an imaginary scientific construct.

 

Who brought the multiverse into it?  Science doesn't imagine things, it observes and tests them.  A soul cannot be observed or tested.  It is imaginary.  The burden of proof is always on the person who is making the positive claim.  That's you.

[sdelsolray]

 

You're simply full of passive-aggresive bullshit.  Got anything better?

Sure, let's talk reality. All of you don't know the beginning nor the end yet based on some pieces pieced together you define the whole enchilada and are adamant about

 

Seriously, how can you

 

 

More passive aggressive bullshit.

[midniterider]

If we just believe in and pray to Jesus, he'll take away the schizophrenia...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

This is mental health: "A healthy brain is noted by these subjective qualities within society".

So, you've told us what we've told you; now provide me with a definition of "sin".  jesus god damn christ, End, how many times do I have to ask you?

 

Here's one right out of the book:

 

sin 1 (sn)

n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

 

 

Let me save you the discussion. I will pick religious law in this case with an emphasis on some absolute morality we can't define.

 

Ultimately you can't scientifically exclude religious law from natural law without providing me the mechanisms. And to keep yammering on without heed to this disingenuous. But you know that.

 

nat·u·ral law

 

noun

•  

•  

  1.

   

  a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

   

   

•  

  2.

   

  an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

  "the natural laws of perspective"

   

   

Religion used to be okay with slavery.  Then religion changed its perspective.  Therefore, religious law IS excluded from natural law, which is unchanging.  I don't need science to separate the two; as they were never intertwined.  

 

And to keep yammering on without heed to this is disingenuous.  But you know that.

 

No, I am saying it would have remained unchanged provided Adam and Eve would have known the law or have obeyed. Perhaps morality is cycling based on getting blown about. Interesting that that definition discusses moral principles.

 

Careful, End; you're coming dangerously close to making the same arguments I've made in "god Is A Liar", and "god's Mighty Plan For Salvation".

[bornagainathiest]

 

You're simply full of passive-aggresive bullshit.  Got anything better?

Sure, let's talk reality. All of you don't know the beginning nor the end yet based on some pieces pieced together you define the whole enchilada and are adamant about

 

Seriously, how can you

 

Why do you holler PROVE IT, and when I say PROVE IT, somehow, it's more valid for you? Did you not read that I have acknowledged these as just relationships that point towards the Bible?

 

Rubbish back to you sister.

 

Edit: btw, this is standard for the site here....blah blah, you're the one making extraordinary claims, so you have to blah blah." As Roz says, go get funding for millions of hours of research and billions for instrumentation and go for it. Like I said, it's you that are condemning based on scientific certainty. The least you could do is prove the mechanisms we call life/soul.

 

A soul is an imaginary religious construct.

 

The multiverse is an imaginary scientific construct.

 

 

The multiverse is a prediction of theories that are well supported by evidence. That evidence isn't imaginary.

[bornagainathiest]

End3 wrote...

 

"Didn't I notice an article where science traced humanity back to an "Adam and Eve"?

 

This perhaps?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

End3 also wrote...

"..if they can work back like that, then one would assume there is a remote possibility that to predict the "sinless" genome?"

 

No.  That would be a Retrodiction or Post-Diction, not a PRE-diction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction It wouldn't be the prediction of something previously unknown, undiscovered or undetected.  A retrodiction is the act of evaluating a scientific theory by predicting known rather than new events.  The catch here is that you haven't defined what Sin is, in any useable scientific way.  Therefore, until you do, you can't even perform a retrodiction.  The key word here is, known.  Until you define what sin is (scientifically) you can't know what it is today.  If you don't know what sin is today, you can't take that and compare it with any information about the past.  So both predictions and retrodictions are impossible until you have a workable scientific definition of what sin is, today.  Also, you'll note that whoever this Mitochondrial Eve was... "not the only living human female of her time."  (2nd paragraph down)

.

.

.

End3 also wrote...

"So then we would have to say that humans are just evolving without any freedom of choice?"

 

This question is flawed.  It rests on the following assumptions.

1. 

The assumption that humans do have freedom of choice.  Before we can find out if we do or we don't we first have define and understand what we mean by, 'freedom of choice'.  So, an objective definition of this is required and then an objective method of testing this definition is also required. 

2.

The assumption that if we could arrive at such an objective definition, we could also find a definitive way of discovering if this definition applied to the Mitochondrial Eve.  There are no written records going back 100,000 years that can tell us how she exercised her freedom of choice.  Apart from drawing vague conclusions from her skeletal remains and DNA, we have no way of knowing what her behavioural characteristics were and how she interacted with other pre-humans of her time. 

3.

The assumption that, if we could arrive at a working definition of freedom of choice and if we could also find a way of discovering if this definition applied to the Mitochondrial Eve, that the effects of the free choices made by her will be detectable in her DNA.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

[bornagainathiest]

Natural Law, # 1.
"A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."
 
Regarded as.
 
It depends on who's doing the regarding. 
A Christian would regard the Bible as a body of unchanging moral principles.  A Muslim would regard the Quran in the same way.  Something that can be regarded like this isn't absolute, objective, authoritative and binding.  It's subjective and a matter of personal choice.  So End3 is falsely and incorrectly trying to enforce his subjective choice upon us.

 

This kind of natural law is subjective.
.
.
.
Natural Law, # 2.
"An observable law relating to natural phenomena."
 
These are laws describing the behaviour of the natural universe.
There is no supernatural component involved.  These laws are absolute and binding on us.  They are also totally indifferent to our wishes. They enforce themselves upon us, regardless of any free choices we can make. 

 

This kind of natural law is objective.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

If we just believe in and pray to Jesus, he'll take away the schizophrenia...

 

No, Jesus needs for people to have Schizophrenia because he only reveals information to or speaks directly to people with mental illnesses.

[moanareina]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/21/schizophrenia-genome-immune/12947505/

 

Just skimmed this, but one would speculate that we could make a case for loving everyone as we may be finding out that we may be predestined in some manner and even to "sin". Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards.

 

End, why is it important to you to link things to original sin? What has that done good for the world? In the world I live in it only created agony because somehow it implies that sin is something people bring upon themselves. So if you have mental illness and link this to original sin it must be something that came onto you because of the sinful nature of man...and therefore is something to be ashamed of. Jesus supposedly died for that sin...so why is it there? Especially if you are a devout Christian...why can you be schizophrenic? And why can't you pray it away...or spiritually outgrow? And why is so and so having it and not so and so?

 

The concept of sin and original sin actually keeps people who buy into this stuff from getting treatment.

 

And as others have stated here there is no link from the article to original sin.

 

Another thing that I find interesting here: The genetic code of humans is about 90% identical with the genetic code of monkeys...but of course to Christians that is no evidence that humans and monkeys have common ancestors. But then you see an article about mental illness possibly lying in the genes and you try to link it to original sin. Can you see what you are doing here?

 

When I studied graphic design we used to have the phase of making a concept. Unfortunately this most of the times is not how a creative process works. So people just started to create and finally, when they had something they liked they where like: Oh, I need a concept. So you just created one...and then you made everything fit that concept.

With original sin it works quite that way. It is a concept and you can make whatever you find fit that concept. But it has been created to exactly do that. It is a clever concept for those who chose to believe in it. But it is a concept and it is a bad one too. Because it does lots of harm to people by telling them they where bad and in need of a savior etc. It devalues human beings and makes them shameful creatures. We have enough shaming going on on this planet. Why not coming up with something that puts an end to that?