Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Roz]

"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."

 

In another thread, you were the one who made the claim that genetics could've been the reason your god had to give the order to exterminate infant boys.  That act in your book was evil, and you were defending it through genetics.  You have not met the burden of proof that genetics were the reason those infants had to die, or even that your god was real.

 

Still in another thread, you claimed that you would do what your god ordered you to do if he commanded you to do it.  That claim was made in light of your god's orders to the israelites to kill those infant boys and their mothers.

 

Stop your "oh, i'm so persecuted, I don't know why they say mean things about me."

 

These were your claims, and now you present yet another claim that genetic abnormalities are linked to your holy book's original sin.

 

And you think we won't forget your past statements?  You are that christian preaching to ex-c's that genetics could be linked to original sin, when you have not presented any proof otherwise.

 

You haven't even presented any proof that your religion containing your original sin notion is even real, which is required in order to demonstrate a possible correlation between genetics and said 'sin.'

 

Stop retreating with your victim complex.

[Roz]

"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."

 

You are talking to Ex'Cs about the bible, so prove that the bible is the true word of god.  Present your evidences.  Don't just say "oh here's the bible, we should take it seriously, because we don't know." 

 

You think we should take "the bible" for granted, why?  Present your damn evidence why we should, because all you're doing right now is preaching and demonstrating your ignorance with your unsubstantiated claims.

[Roz]

I should provide proof of my claims of you on the record, so here they are.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61575-would-you-do-it/?p=935462

The context is my original post in the above thread

 

As to him trying to tie his bible to science, here's the threads:

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/?p=959168

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63204-free-will/page-16#.U9VLimOTCa8

[Roz]

"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."

 

And the Muslims have scientific proof of their holy good as well.  http://www.scienceislam.com/

 

The point is that you have just as much evidence in proving your god as they do.  You can't see it, you get angry when asked for evidence and when called out for your statements in defense of your god. 

[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.

[Guest end3]

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?

[Roz]

Because you have just as much credibility with your positive claim that your book's 3rd heaven = multiverse as this girl:

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63737-the-2nd-heaven-revealed-to-mankind/#.U9VOCGOTCa8

 

The multiverse that BAA's expounded on is one thing, and your book's 3rd heaven is another.

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

 

You are the one trying to tie them together.  Try to get this through your head.  No one here in Ex-C is presenting any notions that any multiverse theory could be wrong, but YOU are the one trying to link it to your holy book.  This is the same as the Muslims linking the confirmed shape of the earth with their "egg shape earth" verse from their Koran.

[moanareina]

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?

 

End, science uses telescopes, satellites, math and other methods to understand more about the universe and when science says there might be a multiverse then it can be observed otherwise science does not make such a claim. That's the difference of your book, the bible that just claims things with no way to actually investigate the truth of it. To understand the claim about a multiverse maybe you need to study some basic science to understand how science works?

[Roz]

For the record, I am saying that you need proof of your link between your 3rd heaven book verse to the multiverse theories, just as you need to provide proof of your link between original sin and genetic predispositions.

[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.

[Guest end3]

 

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?

 

End, science uses telescopes, satellites, math and other methods to understand more about the universe and when science says there might be a multiverse then it can be observed otherwise science does not make such a claim. That's the difference of your book, the bible that just claims things with no way to actually investigate the truth of it. To understand the claim about a multiverse maybe you need to study some basic science to understand how science works?

 

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?

[Roz]

"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." --End3

 

You came to Ex'C's Den with your 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."

 

You then abstain from giving proof of your link between your holy book and schizophrenia. 

 

You have shown no knowledge of exploring other religions but just hold to your book as "true."

 

Prove your bible.  Prove that schizophrenia links to original sin.  You will have people agreeing with you then, including myself, if your proof holds water.

[Roz]

End3's argument in 7 pages:

 

1.  Hey Ex'C, schizophrenia could have a link to my god's original sin story!

2.  Proof?  You're all idiots, that would take lots of time and money!

3.  I hate you guys because you dismiss my book and its ties to science!

4.  You can't prove that schizophrenia does NOT link to my book, therefore my link is valid!

[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.

[Roz]

And why the bible, why not the koran?  Why do you take the bible as true then?  Show your proof.  In mathematics, in science, in law, we show proof that something is real.

 

You have not demonstrated anything in regards of why your book is real, and why its genesis story is linked with schizophrenia.

[Guest end3]

"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." --End3

 

You came to Ex'C's Den with your 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."

 

You then abstain from giving proof of your link between your holy book and schizophrenia. 

 

You have shown no knowledge of exploring other religions but just hold to your book as "true."

 

Prove your bible.  Prove that schizophrenia links to original sin.  You will have people agreeing with you then, including myself, if your proof holds water.

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.

[Roz]

Nothing, no proof, just a lot of hot air from a christian at the desperate end of his own rope. 

 

Christians, if you are shown that your bible is not the word of the true god of the universe, would you stop being a christian? 

This is how actual proof is shown:

 

www.ex-christian.net/topic/63542-the-bible-unearthed-an-excellent-series-for-those-still-struggling/#.U9VEk2OTCa8

[Roz]

Prove that your bible is real, scientifically accurate, and historically true.  I have given OF's shared series as to why archeology debunks your book as the one true book.

[Roz]

You want to link your holy book's notions to any subject, so here's your chance.  Prove your bible is the book of the real god of the universe.

[Guest end3]

I'm offering proof Roz, but we are going to have to agree on the definition of Original Sin is or you won't accept proof. Can you accept the def. I offered or do you offer another?

[Roz]

End3, let me spell things out for you in order for you to get situated:

 

1.  You ask "what is your definition of sin?"

2.  I offer no definition of sin, as I know that christians already have a definition of sin contained within their holy book

3.  Since your definition of sin is contained in your book, you must prove to me that your book is scientifically accurate and historically sound before you offer any of its notions

 

Sin defined in the christian realm is the disobedience from the christian god.  We all know that's what christian believe.

 

This is why you must prove your christian god in scientific and historical terms BEFORE Ex'Cs are convinced that your notion of sin -the disobedience of said god- has any relevance.

 

This is your burden, because you have posited in your OP that genetics -> original sin.

[Roz]

And yes, if you cannot prove that your god is the true god and that the bible is his writings for mankind, I dismiss any definition you put forward of "sin."

 

If you cannot prove 'yeshitwa' = real, then your definition that 'sin' = disobedience from 'yeshitwa' has no substantive meaning.

 

Thus, if it has no meaning, then your original post of 'schizophrenia = original sin' is bullshit.

[Roz]

For the christian lurkers out there:

 

1.  You are committing sin all the time, sin against Allah.

2.  Yet you are not bothered by that, why is that?

3.  Oh yes, it's because you don't buy into the notion that Allah is the true god, that there is no trinity, that Mohammed is his prophet.

 

4.  This is why you must prove that your particular god is the one first, otherwise your christian notion of 'sin against yeshitwa' holds the same creditibility for everyone else as 'sin against Allah' does for YOU.

[Guest end3]

End3, let me spell things out for you in order for you to get situated:

 

1.  You ask "what is your definition of sin?"

2.  I offer no definition of sin, as I know that christians already have a definition of sin contained within their holy book

3.  Since your definition of sin is contained in your book, you must prove to me that your book is scientifically accurate and historically sound before you offer any of its notions

 

Sin defined in the christian realm is the disobedience from the christian god.  We all know that's what christian believe.

 

This is why you must prove your christian god in scientific and historical terms BEFORE Ex'Cs are convinced that your notion of sin -the disobedience of said god- has any relevance.

 

This is your burden, because you have posited in your OP that genetics -> original sin.

No, that would be the event of Original Sin. You said provide links, not prove the event.

[Roz]

prove that your bible is real, your god is the true god.

 

Muslims try to do the same thing you're doing now.  JWs and Mormons do likewise.

 

For your particular notion of sin and original sin to have any relevant meaning, you must prove the first two.

 

Sin against Allah has no meaning for me AND you.

 

Why is that? 

 

Oh yeah, because both of us don't buy into Islam being the true religion.

 

Not hard at all.