i would love it if everyone had what they desire, and their desires were righteous. again, i would love it if everyone had what they desire. if they did, there would be no reason to envy would there? we're getting rid of sloth too. i want to live in a world where people have what they need and don't fight over it. i happen to believe that having a grateful perspective perpetuates our enrichment. i wasn't being religiously specific when i sought god. "my people"? who are they? do you think that's because you and your family know how to love yourselves and others? i ask that more in regards to my last post than this one. and when i said "heaven" in my last post above, i meant it metaphorically, as in a heaven on earth. i didn't do it. that's why it's not a fairytale.
doesn't what we're conditioned to over time accumulate in our genes at some point? get out your behavioral science book.
Does it? You're the one making the claim. I don't think any of them have you as a case study. And I'm pretty damn sure none of them mention "sin" (especially as a genetic factor). And no references to Heaven, either.
yes it does. that was meant to be a rhetorical question really. i'm a human for crying out loud; i'm not that different. they don't use those terms because they're science books, not religious books. that doesn't mean they're not talking about the same thing. greed isn't loving; neither is lust, gluttony, vanity, envy, sloth, or wrath. not only do those attributes hurt individuals, but none of those attributes perpetuate the greater good, which ultimately affects all of us.
We've been through this in another thread. And in that thread you also failed to provide actual evidence (as opposed to assertions). Missed the point... Er, yes it does mean exactly that.
well i'm not a scientist; i'm an accountant. but from what i observe and know about evolution, what we're conditioned to affects our health and eventually determines an environment which at some point determines who survives and who doesn't. right? you made it; that's on you. no it doesn't. it's just two different approaches, and two different interpretations.
Which is nothing to do with what you claimed. I agree. I overestimated your perspicacity. Right. In your dreams.
of course it does. wtf did you think i was talking about, magic? you're wrong. you should broaden your horizons a bit. get to see the big picture.
No. You made the claim that our behaviour - "sin" (not environment) affects our genes. And you have also claimed that a single thought can do the same. So you say. On zero evidence. Maybe you should stop regarding everything as "from god" and learn how the world really works.
i said that sin and love in the form of conditioning affect our health and determine our environment, which ultimately decides who survives in this world and who doesn't. i think i think for a reason, because we are what we think, and so it's important. the world works according to law genius, and god...is...law.
So you deny claiming that "sin" is genetic now? A single thought...? Oh, you're back to supposition (should I say superstition?) again.
no. sin is transgression and we are created according to law. we are flawed. we're not separate from our thoughts. and yes, a single thought, and i sat and listened to a quantum physicist propose the same thing in scientific terms of parallel universes.
You do realize what that quantum physicist said is purely theoretical, right? Not scientific in the least.
sin is deviation from what is right, "right" has no universal standard, eating pork is sin to muslim, but not to non believers
What law? We "work" on physical laws. These are not transgressible. Hearing is not the same as understanding.
it was still a quantum physicist that was theorizing it, and it made sense to me. as a person who lives in this world, and has thoughts, and witnesses every day what our thoughts manifest into, and has to live with the consequences, it made sense to me. i can't not think outside the box because i don't like living inside this goddamn box. :shrug:
hmm where to start? I guess because I do not fit the definition of "normal" It's hard to explain- you should ask them! on the inside I think we are all geeks though--- geeks who have been sculpted to fit societies standards, and therefore have repressed our geekiness (note that I view "geek" in a positive light) But I suppose when you are a liberal, independent free-thinker in a private Catholic institution, you are bound to seem a bit "off" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (also, my family does not own a 'summer' home in Croatia, which raises eyebrows around these parts)
That sounds great except for the whole catholicism thing. I'm not a big fan of conformity or what's normal.
