In POLITICS tribe this thread (Is Christianity Genetic?) was started and I thought it would fit better in this tribe.

>>Begin thread

What is it, like every six months that someone posts this? Humm...

>> I responded

First of all, our genetics are not the root cause of things.

Our thought forms and energy field we create with them are the root director of our genetics. Give science and humanity a few more decades or centuries and this ancient tidbit of knowledge from Tantric and other Eastern schools of thought will sink in and become acceptable as a way to explain soooo much.

Basically we control our own health and genetics with our qualities of thought.

Gazillions of dollars are misspent currently to treat symptoms of our deprived state, our genetics and the disease and pathology associated with it, instead of the root cause, our qualities of thought.

This means we are in charge, not Satan, not God the Father, not baby Geebus.

Nobody to blame but ourselves as we continue to live in a patriarchal controlling "power over" created reality as opposed to the cooperative "power with" state of being we are capable of.

>> Then somebody responded

"Our thought forms and energy field we create with them are the root director of our genetics. Give science and humanity a few more decades or centuries and this ancient tidbit of knowledge from Tantric and other Eastern schools of thought will sink in and become acceptable as a way to explain soooo much."

Har Har Har!

"Basically we control our own health and genetics with our qualities of thought. "

Even I'm not such a shallow asshole to blame people for being sick

"This means we are in charge, not Satan, not God the Father, not baby Geebus. "

It's the same bullshit, you just bought it a new suit

>> Then I added

What are you trying to say?

Taking personal responsibility for the presence and condition of our being is not the same as blaming people. There are causal factors to our state of being, and genetics is not the root causal agent. Scientists talk only about negative complications and mutations to our genetics. Why is that? Why can't divine consciousness (Shiva in Tantric terminology) and our connection to it through our qualities of thought create positive genetic mutations to aid health.

Eastern spiritual disciplines and their instruction in "cooperative living" is so totally different than the fear based "control over" way of being we in this age accept as reality. One thing is certain though. From a "control over" patriarchal male and ego-centric world view, cooperative living and being make no sense.

~ Upton Sinclair said
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

I will add, "how much more difficult is it to to get a man understand something when his whole worth and value as an egocentric being in a male dominated world is threatened by some information."

Such is the case with cooperative living here at the end of the Age of Control
posted by:
Vince
Austin
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

    Fri, March 28, 2008 - 11:59 AM
    HEY! You shouldn't poke fun at my religion! George Lucas was a prophet, okay? And if you don't believe that, you WILL burn in the smelting fires of Mustafar! And the only way you're coming back is if a Sith Lord raises you to the status of Darth! Think, question, think... okay? Everybody with a brain knows it's the midichlorian, not the gene, determining our fates!
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

    Fri, March 28, 2008 - 12:18 PM
    Look, if you really want to have a serious discussion about this, let's address this first:

    "Our thought forms and energy field we create with them are the root director of our genetics."

    Ok, fine - where's your empirical evidence?

    Don't get me wrong, I myself have presented Bruce Lipton up here on Tribe, it was bashed by all sides of the debate, including by people whom, like yourself, claim to have devoted themselves to the Eastern Philosophies. The religious don't want empiricism and will trample it every step of the way, the philosophers are scared of it and hence lash out and the empiricists demand more empirical evidence. Only the latter is fully justified in their stance. So answer my question first, then we'll have this conversation. Because otherwise you're just stepping on toes, not that I disapprove but it offers no leeway to serious discussion.
    • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

      Sat, March 29, 2008 - 2:12 PM
      Empirical evidence? Serious discussion? I d see and understand your point. I will address these things with the following paragraph, and then I will follow with a paste of a recent response in the Politics group that I feel is relevant. I am addressing your question as best I can. If I may ask of you to let go of common assumptions you may have while I do so, if even just for a couple minutes.

      I see you are a follower of reductionist thinking which only accepts as real things that can be proven without a shadow of doubt, in spite of the obvious ineptitude of such reasoning over the decades. Such is one of the flaws of our accepted world view in the West. Kind of like the ostrich with its head in a hole. If I can't see it, it must not exist. This is in part why we get so sick and why so many people die of "syndromes" and why Pharmaceutical companies can keep selling us poisons. No study in the world can be conducted to simulate the compound reaction of the body to all the multitudes of toxins, supposed medicines, and lifestyle choices we expose ourselves to. That means that most of these things must be safe bright? No, in no way have many medicines and other things we are exposed to been safe. Only after we have gained greater understanding about the complex interactions of these things, and after scores have been damaged or died have we admitted our mistakes.

      <<Begin paste from Politics>>

      <<You wrote
      << Basically we control our own health and genetics with our qualities of thought.
      << How can that be when your Genetic Code is exactly the same at birth, before you really have thought processes?
      reply to this post.

      Did not our parents have thought processes and an energy field, only visible to us as their physical body? There is some truth in the Bible that can be filtered into this discussion. Old testament talks about the repercussions of the sins of the Father being passed down for 4 or 5 generations. Translation = The negative feelings, and lower quality thoughts of the father do affect health and our ability to resist disease. It can take many generations of positive movement towards wholeness and wellness to fix these things, but they can be fixed. The thoughts we hold onto and the perceptions we focus on in our environments after birth are causal factors in our development and in the genetics we hand down to our descendants. Genes don't make people obese or ripe for disease, at least not as the primary causal factor. The thoughts and feelings of us and our ancestors do

      More regarding genetics. Now that the human genome has been mapped scientist have been dismayed to learn that DNA controls so little and what they thought was the long strands of junk in between actually controls most processes. This is a new development this year. This turns 40 years of genetic science on its head and once again shows how little science and the medical profession knows. Scientists and doctors who have been doing gene therapy now must admit that they don't have a clue and that they are only treating peripheral components of what really controls our health. How many times has science claimed to know it all over the centuries, only to then later admit it was totally wrong. Such is a fatal flaw of our reductionist Western world view, always ready to claim to be in charge, while very reluctant to let go of what was yesterdays fallacies.

      Regarding genetic mutations. This is common knowledge that our genetics can mutate and often do over our lifetime. This does not mean we could not still be identified genetically, but that it does have the capacity for change. To make the assumption, which science does, that all mutations are negative lacks common sense. Spirit, the essence of life which defies the laws of entropy of thermal physics can make changes over a lifetime and over generations that foster positive results, hence evolution. To say that life only degrades and needs fixing and is incapable of making positive changes and repairs only gives power to the Medical Inquisition and its leaders, who time and time again have been proven to be so lame and incompetent at understanding the big picture. How many medicines have been pulled from the market after the recklessness and shortsightedness of their use has become apparent to the general understanding of the true nature of the body. Once again, so much of what we call medicine never address the root causes of our illness, just put band-aids on things until it erupts in a new part of body system.

      Step back from the wall of modern medicine and see how feeble it is and how little it knows. Positive and totally passive gene therapy, a latent potential of the human body will one day be accepted as real.
      reply to this post

      <<END PASTE FROM POLITICS>>

      IMHO, to say we can not have a serious discussion without empirical evidence, gives total power to those controlling thought forms which have maligned, degraded, brought to low places our once magical heritage and our future as a species.
      • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

        Sun, March 30, 2008 - 10:33 AM
        "I see you are a follower of reductionist thinking"
        Anthing else is living in a fantasy land.

        "If I can't see it, it must not exist."
        Not quite. If it can't be tested then it does not exist.

        "why Pharmaceutical companies can keep selling us poisons."
        Not quite. That happens because the vast majority of our species is fucking stupid.


        • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

          Sun, March 30, 2008 - 1:59 PM
          I hope you were not being sarcastic, as I am taking your post as serious.

          I wrote>> "If I can't see it, it must not exist."
          You wrote>>Not quite. If it can't be tested then it does not exist.

          So a hundred years ago, prior to our capability to measure gamma rays, they did not exist and radiation poisoning was fantasy land,
          and since we can not go visit any other stars to do testing on them, they don't exist
          and prior to our ability to peer into a microscope, red blood cells did not exist either,
          and prior to the mapping of the human genome and our ability to understand that all the junk RNA in between actually controls most processes, then actually the DNA controlled things.

          Do you not see how silly and out of touch with reality your position is.

          This is not reality, it is the fatal flaw of reductionist thinking and our "science is god" control based perspective. Such lofty delusions only set this way of perceiving up for a great fall one day.

          There are so many other things we can not test to this day, yet they do exist! Reality does not have to align with our often dismal and shortsighted expectations of it. It only has TO BE.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

            Sun, March 30, 2008 - 2:38 PM
            You know what, Vince... all of that might be true, but you can't hand someone veal and call it eggplant just because you happen to think meat's better for them and expect them to respect you later. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise, you're no better than the self-righteous assholes (which I'm not calling you, but THEY are) who print on the back of a Rice-a-Roni box that step 1 is to "combine rice-vermicelli mix and 1 tablespoons of margarine, butter or spread WITH NO TRANS FAT*." They shouldn't be telling me not to use trans fat in the kitchen of my home, that's my fucking business. Well, that knife cuts both ways, and in this case fighting fire with fire is an unyielding crop.

            I want to address one more thing. You said, "There are so many other things we can not test to this day, yet they do exist! Reality does not have to align with our often dismal and shortsighted expectations of it. It only has TO BE."

            Yes, that's what theoretics, which is not a reductionist movement, is for. Is that limiting? Hardly. It's a necessary confinement. According to Newtonian mechanics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it does. Does that make Newton wrong? No, it makes him incomplete. But that's nothing, you want to see how far that extends, look up Poincare's work on the three-body problem! There's a HUGE gaping hole in Newtonian Physics! That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it incomplete, so okay, we're not done looking. Answers are forthcoming as a result, make no mistake. I've seen them in their raw form. The alternative you're presenting runs the risk of some seriously silly willy-nilly unexaminations of life. Don't believe me? Take a good, hard look at the New Age movement. There are people alive today that honestly believe that they control EVERY SINGLE minute aspect of their lives within their way of thinking despite all the evidence to the contrary. And how do they brush that off? Self-blame. You think that's healthy?!?! And the end-result has been a whole lot of people using THAT precise ideology to point the finger at everyone else (well, I find, after reading Zig Ziglar 20,000 times, that when people point a finger they should really look at themselves), and we're right back to politics 101! You know, it's like Jeff Foxworthy telling a contestant on Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader to keep rubbing her pregnant belly for good luck. "It must work, because you just won $1000!" Really, Jeff? Are you SURE that's the causal relationship, there couldn't be a single other reason that she got that question right? Would you stake your life on it? And that's the point. You say above it doesn't lead to that, well, it has historically and it is. And what really bugs me is, they use incredibly deranged versions of interpretation of Quantum Physics and M-Theory to back it up. I've got news for you, there is nothing sound about Copenhagenism, it's a quandary of contradiction, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. You're still onto something, but you're sniffing around in the wrong place. And you know what? That's perfectly alright, you will live your life and it's certainly no skin off of my back. BUT, and this is what I've been saying to you, unless you're just talking to convince yourself or hear yourself talk, it's not going to get you anywhere.

            *Emphasis mine
            • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

              Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:02 PM
              I thought several posts down that we were on the same page, but you seem to think different?

              No sarcasm intended at all. Please forgive me for being ignorant, but I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you say it in fewer words?

              > There's a HUGE gaping hole in Newtonian Physics! That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it incomplete, so okay, we're not done looking.

              Newtonian Physics is a perspective that is only whole and complete from a certain limited viewpoint. It is 100% correct and explains things fully within that limited perspective. I am offering a different perspective that I do not claim to be whole or explain everything. I do not think it is within our grasp with our limited minds to understand everything. This is one of the problems we have with science is that it seems to infer at any given moment that it is working with a full grasp of the reality it perceives through our limited perceptions. This seems silly to me and makes us and science out to be equal to an all knowing creator God.

              > I've been saying to you, unless you're just talking to convince yourself or hear yourself talk, it's not going to get you anywhere.

              Where am I trying to get to? Just offering ideas more unified concepts that many find value in as explaining more than the prevailing dualistic and shortsighted views in society.

              > just talking to convince yourself or hear yourself talk

              I do not understand this comment you keep making. I share ideas that have led me and others to true contentment. I reserve the right as anybody else does to be wrong and to in the future admit it, as the need to be right is an ego desire I wish no part of claiming. I make my points with confidence, as anything else would be just what you are saying about enjoying to hear myself talk.

              I am one with creation, and if part of me is crying out for help (individuals gripped in fear, hate, and other negative emotions), then I can not help but respond, that's all.

              I have no need to fix anybody or be 100% right, just responding out of love to the needs of others who call out for a better explanation of their being and existence.
          • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

            Sun, March 30, 2008 - 2:50 PM
            "prior to our capability to measure gamma rays, they did not exist"
            NO. The test is being exposed and the result is damage.

            "since we can not go visit any other stars to do testing on them, they don't exist"
            LMFAO! I KNEW you would use this and I was waiting for it! NOOOOO! The "test" is to walk outside and open your eyes at night. The result is to SEE the stars.

            "and prior to our ability to peer into a microscope, red blood cells did not exist either"
            A priori..... Just because someone could not understand them then doesn't mean they didn't see them.

            "Do you not see how silly and out of touch with reality your position is."
            Vice versa

            "There are so many other things we can not test to this day"
            And one day we will be able to test their validity (such as recent abilities to produce antimatter in a lab).
            • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

              Sun, March 30, 2008 - 3:31 PM
              Your reasoning and shallow argument seem fatally flawed as it makes no mention of perceptions, misperceptions, and the thousands of times science has had to and will again have to correct itself, as it does not always portray reality, just our perceptions of it, which time and time again have been wrong and have led us faulty conclusions. Our extremely limited senses, our dualistic language structure, our societal assumptions all go into creating what we call our perceptions, which collectively are a prison that has the effect of keeping us in the dark and holding on to fallacy after fallacy.

              The fact that my response caused such laughter on your part possibly could be an indicator of how little you understand the thrust of this discussion. I am not laughing at you or your responses, just trying to share a broader perspective while hoping you will gain a full grasp of the issue you are discussing.

              >>"since we can not go visit any other stars to do testing on them, they don't exist"
              > LMFAO! I KNEW you would use this and I was waiting for it! NOOOOO!
              > The "test" is to walk outside and open your eyes at night. The result is to SEE the stars.

              Once upon a time, when our understanding of the cosmos was limited, many people saw the stars and at one time the prevailing theory was that they were all equal distance away on a canvas in the sky. That is not reality, it is a misperception. Seeing stars gave nobody the information that they were other suns or planets.

              This conversation is about the purported reality given to us by the scientific community at any given time vs. the actual reality that we are always trying to grasp and has perpetually eluded us.

              >> "and prior to our ability to peer into a microscope, red blood cells did not exist either"
              > A priori..... Just because someone could not understand them then doesn't mean they didn't see them.

              Possibly you read the above statement too fast or just had a problem with story questions in school.

              The qualifier is "prior to our ability to peer into a microscope"

              Nobody saw them prior to the invention of a microscope. If nobody saw them or knew they existed, then how in the world could they do test son them? They couldn't, which according to your original statement means they did not exist. If you are going to respond, please address that specific point, if you will.

              >> "Do you not see how silly and out of touch with reality your position is."
              > Vice versa

              Uhhhh no, and if you formulate and throw back more incomplete comments which fail to account for societies' and sciences' misperceptions and repeated errors, I will be sure not to respond as I cannot add any more to my point, and there is really no reason to try, as I have no need to convince you of my position, talk past each other, or go round and round for ego sake.

              "May those who have Eyes, See; and those who have Ears, Hear."
              • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:24 PM
                And prior to anybody taking offense or saying I am being demeaning or self righteous or an ass hole with comments like

                >> Possibly you read the above statement too fast or just had a problem with story questions in school.

                Remember, don't take life so seriously. I am personally having a great deal of fun with this thread. Also remember, it takes an ego to be offended.

                Be happy people, have fun, enjoy life. Life can be an eternal wonderous string of "GET TO"s as opposed to "HAVE TO"s if you allow it to be, training your focus accordingly
              • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:34 PM
                "Once upon a time" is fairy tale mentality and flawed logic. Why do stars twinkle? Why do some appear blue? Just because people couldn't answer those questions centuries ago doesn't mean we can't now. If a "test" is flawed it doesn't mean that what we are testing does or does not exist.
                • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                  Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:47 PM
                  This is an intelligent question I will try and address in light of my other statements.

                  So you are saying that now, in this day and moment, finally science has got it right, even if it was wrong for 6 millennia leading up to today, even if last year it was 100% certain of the role of DNA, only to learn several months ago that it was TOTALLY wrong, it finnaly has arrived. This is the proud and hauty position that I speak of that is not backed up with our experiences.

                  still waiting for a response to
                  >>Nobody saw them prior to the invention of a microscope. If nobody saw them or knew they existed, then how in the world could they do tests on them? They couldn't, which according to your original statement means they did not exist. If you are going to respond, please address that specific point, if you will.

                  ;-)
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                    Sun, March 30, 2008 - 8:14 PM
                    "6 millennia leading up to today"

                    Thanks for the laugh, dude. Religion has been around about that long and doesn't have all the answers. Real science has only been around for about 5 centuries. Give us time and I bet my life that scientist will come up with all the answers. As it stands, science already passed up religion a LONG time ago.
                    • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                      Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:20 PM
                      Here we go talking past each other with you avoiding addressing the detailed issues I have presented, while mocking my positions. Our time of interaction is drawing to a close, Dude.

                      I presume you were kicked off the debate team in school early on. :D

                      Where did I ever say that religion has any answers? I did not say that . I do not believe that.

                      What has been going on for 6 millenia is the dualistic reductionist perspective. Man believing he coulod control nature and then other men is what has been going on. This is opposed to a unified perspective that relizes and feels our true connection to everything. This perspective change in our being and way of pecieving did not originate in Ancient Greece, but was institutionalized in society with the institution of nation states, the concept of OUR's not Yours, and the rule of law. The language structure we have inherited also handicaps us towards this incomplete perspective. See "the mother toungue, english and how it got that way" and "the Chalice and the Blade", and "Sexual Peace" for relevant references.
                      • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                        Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:33 PM
                        "Man believing he coulod control nature and then other men is what has been going on. This is opposed to a unified perspective that relizes and feels our true connection to everything."

                        That's a cute appeal, really, but man CAN control most of nature and each other. Not that it's right, but that also has little to do with this "debate," dude.
                        • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                          Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:52 PM
                          > That's a cute appeal, really, but man CAN control most of nature and each other. Not that it's right, but that also has little to do with this "debate," dude.


                          "Control over" thinking has been, is, and always will be a fatally flawed loosing proposition, as it is ignorant of the hidden or full costs of such methods and has a low ceiling of potential.

                          Go read up on Game Theory to understand this.

                          "Cooperation with" is far more empowing of a way of being. One day as a species we will get back to this method of being, or it will perish.
                          • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                            Mon, March 31, 2008 - 7:17 PM
                            >>>>"Control over" thinking has been, is, and always will be a fatally flawed loosing proposition, as it is ignorant of the hidden or full costs of such methods and has a low ceiling of potential.

                            "Cooperation with" is far more empowing of a way of being. One day as a species we will get back to this method of being, or it will perish.<<<

                            Wow. I agree.
                        • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                          Mon, March 31, 2008 - 2:48 PM
                          > man CAN control most of nature and each other. Not that it's right, but that also has little to do with this "debate," dude.

                          It has everything to do with it, as this modern perspective is wrought with traps and pitfalls that you and its adherents ignore, while professing absolute truth. Science, or more specifically the way we use it, is a form of religion where we have made the scientists infallible Gods, above questioning and reproach. This is truly sad for people and the families of these people who have been killed by faulty medicines, diagnosis, treatments and so on that were inept and totally wrong by the trusted Gods of medical science..

                          I may add, so that you do not try to once again and brand me as some ignorant religious dweeb.

                          My favorite cable channel is the Science Channel, followed by the Discovery Channel, followed by the History Channel. I love information, but while loving it and soaking as much of it up as possible, I realize and admit its obvious shortcomings. I no longer elevate it to being God like. I feel I have a healthy perspective upon its uses and limitations. I feel this is a balanced viewpoint, unlike yours in which you certainly give science God Like status.

                          I believe in things like Tantra and energy work, not out of ignorance, but out of knowledge and experience. Tantra is not a religion per say, it is defined as a science, the science of our energy body. It connects thoughts and feelings to energy centers (chakras) in the body which happen to coincide with our glandular systems, the regulators or most bodily functions and processes

                          Tan = tool tra=expansion

                          Tantra is simply put a tool for the expansion of our consciousness which then expresses itself as our physical form. We are energy first, body second.

                          You want evidence that there is something to this, not just blind faith? I will tip my hand as to the comprehensive post I am formulating. Although I do expect you to call me a liar, possibly others who read this can overcome their skepticism and learn something or at least maybe I can spark an interest in this topic for some of you.

                          A fine summer day 7 years ago in Houston while laying out in the sun by the apartment swimming pool, when doing rhythmic, meditative circular breathing, and while also doing deep visualizations, the bandanna I was wearing on my head like a cap, became singed with a markedly noticeable burn pattern around it. This was shortly after I had a 10 minute experience felt like the top of my head was about to blast off my head. A Tantric teacher would say that I had activated my crown chakra. I still have the bandanna. I have showed it to immediate family and a few friends and some members of workshops I have taught regarding Tantra. I will not send it to you. I will not allow destructive testing on it. I guess this means that I am not seeking the truth right? No, hardly

                          I was given a physical manifestation of a moment and event in my life that proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is something to tantra and its teachings. Tantra claims to be a science of ones energy body. it may be in its infancy regarding our detailed understanding of it, but I have learned that you do not have to fully understand something to feel it, work with it, and use it to foster health and wellness.

                          This was one of many confirmations, albeit the most supernatural, I have had over the years. I know that I can work with my energy body, project it, and at times even have had numerous of people who are not adherents to Tantric teachings, feel it and ask me what I was doing. Some became scared, others were intrigued and relished healing effects of the sharing of energy that I am capable. I do not need to know the detailed physics of what happened, prove that it happened, or prove to you that it happened. That would be a futile quest that would derail being and doing. Nonetheless I know there is much more to the world and our interface with it than our disconnected viewpoint in the West can explain.
                          • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                            Mon, March 31, 2008 - 7:22 PM
                            "Science, or more specifically the way we use it, is a form of religion where we have made the scientists infallible Gods, above questioning and reproach."

                            That's the biggest pile of horseshit I've seen you say, bar none. If you keep that up I'm going to have to ignore you. Scientists use the scientific method to tweak, improve, or prove inaccurate each others work as often as the frontiers advance. It's the polar opposite of religion and gods.
                      • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                        Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:35 PM
                        "This perspective change in our being and way of pecieving did not originate in Ancient Greece, but was institutionalized in society with the institution of nation states, the concept of OUR's not Yours, and the rule of law."

                        Nice tangent.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                    Sun, March 30, 2008 - 8:16 PM
                    "This is the proud and hauty position that I speak of that is not backed up with our experiences."
                    A posteriori? So you have all the answers? HA!
                    • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                      Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:23 PM
                      You are so inept at even grasping my points.

                      That is the point. I do not have all the answers. Science does not have all the answers. It is all good to just BE and not have to be so full of onesself as to think I, or we, or science has or needs to have all the answers. The drive to believe we have all the answers is part of the reprecusions of an egocentric dualistic perspective, it is part of the sickness of duality.
                      • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                        Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:39 PM
                        "That is the point. I do not have all the answers."
                        Obviously, though you would like to seem that way.

                        "Science does not have all the answers."
                        In time it will. THAT is the nature of science.

                        "It is all good to just BE and not have to be so full of onesself as to think I, or we, or science has or needs to have all the answers."
                        AKA: Those who can't understand don't think it's important.

                        "The drive to believe we have all the answers is part of the reprecusions of an egocentric dualistic perspective, it is part of the sickness of duality."
                        YES, I am sure that, for some, ignorance is bliss.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                    Sun, March 30, 2008 - 8:21 PM
                    "They couldn't, which according to your original statement means they did not exist."

                    You're being disingenuous and you know it! Besides, I already answered you. Just because they didn't have the right testing methods doesn't mean we can't devise better tests. Why do stars twinkle? Why do some appear as different colors? One test tells us they are certainly different (open your fucking eyes) and certainly not "paint on a canvas." A better test is looking through a spectroscope and running the color through a mathematical formula that couples the color to a corresponding distance based on the "red shift."
                    • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                      Mon, March 31, 2008 - 1:26 PM
                      You're being disingenuous and you know it!

                      I am not in any way.

                      You made an outlandish statement that I have called you on, that you obviously know you can't respond to without admitting you mispoke. it is alright to admit an error or to correct yourself or clarify something without a meltdown dude.

                      I may be wrong, but I think you are proving to the group your lack of comprehension of our debate and you lack of effective debating skills.
              • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:36 PM
                "I am not laughing at you or your responses, just trying to share a broader perspective while hoping you will gain a full grasp of the issue you are discussing."

                Talk down to me one more time, you little ignorant bitch, and I will stop playing nice.
                • Re: Christian Gene Identified? I think not!

                  Sun, March 30, 2008 - 4:44 PM
                  >>Talk down to me one more time, you little ignorant bitch, and I will stop playing nice.

                  To take offense shows a big ego. Name calling shows what?

                  I woll let ithers answer that, as I do nit wosh for you to rough me up. <- no intentional typos, typed while tremmbling in my shoes

                  Lighten up dude!