jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (78 posts)

Why. . .

  1. profile image0
    SirDentposted 5 years ago

    do we have to die?  Can science explain the why?  I know the Bible tells us we die because of the sin of the first man.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This is why we die?

      Well - think about it some, because this is one of those massive inconsistencies that make your religion so silly as to be worth disregarding.

      1. According to the bible - none of us would have even been born without the "sin" of the first man of not doing wot god sed. Adam and his second wife, Eve, would still be frolicking in the Garden. (Side question - did Adam ever get a divorce from his first wife?)

      2. Without death, and all you Christians breeding like flies - we would have about 7,000,000 billion humans on the planet by now. Bit of a squeeze dontchathink?

      If this - as Jerami says - is an underhanded attack on proven scientific facts - evolution has no concern for individuals, only genes. wink

      1. Ceegen profile image82
        Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Adam didn't have a first wife aside from Eve. You've been lied to.

        By the way, thanks for comparing Christians to being like flies. It really says something about your character.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No - you have been lied to. Lilith was his first wife.

          I said "breeding like flies," - sorry you didn't understand. It must be very frustrating for you.

          1. Ceegen profile image82
            Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No - you have been lied to. Lilith was his first wife.

            Why would you believe that story, over the story in Genesis? I wouldn't expect you to be able to separate the lies from the truth, in something you don't believe to be true anyway.

            I said "breeding like flies," - sorry you didn't understand. It must be very frustrating for you.

            Yeah, you used the word "like", as in, you're a lot like my uncle. Or, you're very much like a lion. It shows kinship, and is the basis for a simile.

            No wonder you can't even understand the bible. You have no command of the language which you already use, and can't even tell when you're insulting people!

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Why would I believe one myth over another? More to the point - why do you believe any of them? I don't believe either of them, - according the mythogy - Lilith was the first wife, but - she wouldn't do as she was told, so she was replaced by a more subservient version taken from Adam's rib. The Misogynist version if you like.

              Yeah - as in "breeding like," as opposed to "like," but - if the cap fits. Sorry that you cannot make the distinction.

              Ah attacking my comprehension skills - how very Christian of you.

              1. Ceegen profile image82
                Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Why would I believe one myth over another? More to the point - why do you believe any of them? I don't believe either of them, - according the mythogy - Lilith was the first wife, but - she wouldn't do as she was told, so she was replaced by a more subservient version taken from Adam's rib. The Misogynist version if you like.

                And yet you continue to propagate the lie, over the truth... Of which you don't believe in? Continue deluding yourself, if you wish, but don't take others down with you.

                Yeah - as in "breeding like," as opposed to "like," but - if the cap fits. Sorry that you cannot make the distinction.

                Yeah, as in "breed like..." Flies. You compared Christians to flies, dude. Get over yourself.

                Ah attacking my comprehension skills - how very Christian of you.

                Pointing out the root of your errors, isn't my problem. That's all you, buddy. Your errors, are your problem. So in essence, you're mocking me because you're wrong. Not very mature, at all.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not mocking you. Just pointing out that I said "breeding like flies," and did not compare you to flies. Sorry - us monkeys have no problem with flies.

                  I don't propagate a lie over the truth. The "truth," is that Adam had another wife - according to the myth your book was based on. But - the men who re-wrote it has a low opinion of women - so, you got the misogynist version.

                  Still - to be fair - no matter how gluttonous you guys get with your breeding - you are never going to compete with the flies. wink

                  1. Ceegen profile image82
                    Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I am not mocking you. Just pointing out that I said "breeding like flies," and did not compare you to flies. Sorry - us monkeys have no problem with flies.

                    Simply put, you're a liar.

                    I don't propagate a lie over the truth. The "truth," is that Adam had another wife - according to the myth your book was based on. But - the men who re-wrote it has a low opinion of women - so, you got the misogynist version.

                    Michael Heiser, PhD. disagrees:
                    http://vimeo.com/8588767
                    Michael Heiser - Gnosticism (part 4) - "Gnosticism and Women"
                    What the bible really teaches about women, compared in contrast to the Gnostic view...

                    Wrong again, dude.

                    Still - to be fair - no matter how gluttonous you guys get with your breeding - you are never going to compete with the flies.

                    And yet, the bible is the oldest living document in human history, no matter how hard it has been tried to suppress it? (Living, because it has yet to "die out" no matter how many lies are spread about it). Beelzebub, the father of lies, can't kill the truth.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The Bible does not say this.  Here is what is written:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

        This was before Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 



        Not so sure about it being a bit of a squeeze.  The Earth has undergone many changes since it was first created.  We really have no idea how much land there was in the beginning as compared to seas and oceans.

        My original post was not an attack on anyone or anything.  It is just a thought and question that came to mind.

    2. dove777 profile image61
      dove777posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      we are a dot on the eternal line of the life force, we continue, think of the way the nervous system works, leaps along synapses....we can not comprehend the vast complexity of reality of how the lifeforce exists. We are passing along , no words can even describe or do justice,..... our soul is what remains eternal. Eternal , big word, what does it mean?

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Does that also include every other living thing on the planet? Does everything else also die because of the sin of the first man?

      1. Ceegen profile image82
        Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yes.

        All of creations is going through the "birth pangs" of sin, to be "delivered" of sin. It was like a chain reaction.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Is that why God killed off the dinosaurs?

          1. Ceegen profile image82
            Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Oh - why did god kill off the dinosaurs then?

              1. Ceegen profile image82
                Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Read 2nd Peter chapter 3.

          2. Taurus2 profile image59
            Taurus2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You talk like my sister Maita. She's a little strange type, anyway. lol

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Is that your own opinion or do you have any verses from the Bible to support that claim?

          1. Ceegen profile image82
            Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Wait... You actually want me to quote scripture to you? lol, okay.

            "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." - Romans 8:22.

            We have a deliverer from this pain, and His name is Jesus Christ.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Wow, it's amazing how you found a verse from the Bible and created some entirely different conclusion from it.

              1. Ceegen profile image82
                Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                So, now you believe in the bible or something? You're going to sit there and pretend to know something about it, when you argue against it all the time?

                Make up your mind. Do you want to believe, or not? Because me quoting bible verses to someone who doesn't believe, is a waste of my time. But, if you're as sincere about this as I am, I'll help as best I can.

                "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." - Revelation 21:1.

                Why would God destroy the old universe if it was working "so well"? Because it is tainted with sin. Just a little yeast, levens the whole lump.

                "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." - Revelation 21:5.

                God makes all things new. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I am not sure if it includes every other being on the planet or not.   There is no mention of anyone or anything dying before Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Then, we can probably conclude humans die along with everything else and for very much the same reasons, hence the concept of dying because of first sin is just a silly superstition.

      3. dove777 profile image61
        dove777posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        why is growing old and our body dying a bad thing? it is what it is, thats the way it is, we live in finite material bodys, born with so much time locked into the cells of our body, an amazing ochestra aging simutaeously, passing through the seasons of our life. The important part of us is our eternal soul.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          There's no such thing as souls, eternal or otherwise. smile

  2. kathleenkat profile image82
    kathleenkatposted 5 years ago

    Because nothing is perfect; including our cell regeneration. With time, we degrade, and age, and die.

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Kudos for giving an answer to the question. 

      The body is made to replenish itself.  When we get tired, we can rest and feel refreshed.   When a bone is broken, it will heal itself over time.  White blood cells fight off infection, which is foreign to the body.  .so another question arises.  Why does the body wear out?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        This is a natural process called, "ageing." All life goes through this process and eventually dies. Not as a punishment - this is just the way of things.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing

        If you look around - this is normal. As to your last response - good oh - glad you are seeking knowledge not attacking proven science.

        But - we do indeed know how large the earth was - sorry. It was never 7,000,000 times larger than now.

        1. Ceegen profile image82
          Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          A layer of ice, like a dome that encircles the whole earth, could've been where all that water came from. It could have been that this ice layer compressed the atmosphere, increasing the oxygen content in PPMs to a point that causes saturation in living things, yet still let in sunlight while blocking UV radiation which causes... Aging.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Funniest thing you have said yet. lol lol

            Where all what water came from? The water that provided 7,000,000 times the land mass to cope with all the people that did not live forever because Adm didn't obey God? Right.....

      2. kathleenkat profile image82
        kathleenkatposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The body wears out for the same reason. We are constantly regenerating on the cellular level, but eventually, copies of copies of copies of cells fail. Much like continuous photocopying of a picture.

        There are also parts of our body that do not regenerate. For example, the discs in your spine, separating your spinal bones; once they wear down, they don't grow back. That's why many elderly people have back pain, and are a little shorter than they were in their youth (crazy!)

  3. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    I think what was lying under the surface of Sir Demts Question is ...  "IF" we have evolved from slime oozing up out of a pit.  why did this evoluting process stop evolving at this imperfect stage in the process.
      After coming so far;  Why did the process stop 99.99999%   complete ???

    1. Ceegen profile image82
      Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So glad you asked.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Z44Hp0Eec
      "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" by Illustria Media.
      (Approx. Runtime 1 hour.)

      If you're open-minded, you'll watch it and at least consider the implications, if true. If all you do is watch it, just to know what the other side of the argument REALLY is, then you'll at least know how to refute it. I mean, it is refutable, right?

      Not believing is not about a lack of evidence. We resist accepting God, for the evils of the world. But ya know what? You asked for a world without God, and ya got it. This place is full of evil things and the people who do them.

      And we blame God for it? Why? We're pretty evil, all on our own.

      The bible shows us the origins of that evil, that rebellion against God.

      "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." - Revelation chapter 12, verse 9.

      Notice the bold part? That is referencing a specific serpent.

      http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex … &t=KJV
      ophis; "ofes" - Masculine noun! 1) snake, serpent; 2) with the ancients, the serpent was an emblem of cunning and wisdom. The serpent who deceived Eve was regarded by the Jews as the devil.

      Yes, that very same serpent, from the Garden of Eden. He's not our friend, but he's not God's enemy. God has no enemies, and you can trust that with your soul.

    2. jenb0128 profile image90
      jenb0128posted 5 years agoin reply to this
      1. Ceegen profile image82
        Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Evolution never took place. Genetic variation, "micro-evolution", is not evidence of one type of animal turning into another.

        Birth records from a church in Quebec only show a trend at which people were having kids. What the heck does that have to do with evolution? Nothing.

        "The researchers didn't look at which genes might have changed over time, ..." - Oh gee, I wonder why? They don't look, because they know it isn't there.

        "Seeing natural selection in modern populations is incredibly difficult." - So difficult, it's impossible! Natural selection can only select from what is available!

        They have to practically beg you to believe that evolution is true, when you read that.

        1. jenb0128 profile image90
          jenb0128posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Keep denying all you want, but just because you don't want to see the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

          http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html
          http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

          I'm sure you've heard of "superbugs?" Those bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics? How do you think they became resistant? Evolution.
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … 80401_mrsa

          There's more proof of evolution than there's proof of God waving a magic wand to create life.

          1. Ceegen profile image82
            Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Keep denying all you want, but just because you don't want to see the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

            The same could easily be said of you and your disdain for the truth. Why even say something like this?

            I'm sure you've heard of "superbugs?" Those bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics? How do you think they became resistant? Evolution.

            De-evolution. The bacteria became resistant to antibiotics because they lost (not gained!) a piece of genetic material, which caused the antibiotics to become ineffective.

            I've heard it all before, and used to argue for evolution because I didn't know any better. Now that I know it is a lie, I see that there really is no evidence to support it.

            There's more proof of evolution than there's proof of God waving a magic wand to create life.

            Big misconception.

            We're arguing the conclusions, of the same evidence. God doesn't need a second special set of evidence to prove His existence. All of creation declares the glory of God, and you miss it in the details. It isn't because there isn't evidence that God exists, but only because you don't want to believe He exists... Because if God exists, there's like, rules and stuff you gotta follow.

            But no one likes God's rules, even though they're very simple to follow:

            Love God first and foremost, and, love your neighbor as yourself. (Luke chapter 10, verse 27).

            Why is it so hard to love God?

    3. kathleenkat profile image82
      kathleenkatposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Because humans are no longer subject to natural selection; we are constantly finding new ways to prolong life and help others who would otherwise not necessarily live to the age of reproduction. Here are some examples:

      Glasses/contact lenses
      Insulin for diabetics
      Wheel chairs
      Hearing aids....

      1. Ceegen profile image82
        Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That doesn't make sense. Old people are well beyond their years, and have already passed on their genetic material. Some even have grandkids, you know.

        There's nothing to "select" from, except already existing genetic material.

  4. pisean282311 profile image60
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    it is understandable that bible would come up with concepts to explain death...it is human attempt to understand death...But we must have holistic view and see other species too...human body has life cycle ...

  5. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Ceegen
    I think that you may have misunderstood the intent of my earlier post.
    I do believe in a higher power. And this entity (for lack of a better word)  apeared to Abraham.
    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah described in the OT.
    I believe that the book of Revelation is what it says it is. Visions which were given to John while on the Isle of Patmos in the year 96 AD.  Rev 1:19  write the things which thy hast seen and things which are, and things which shall be hereafter. 

      According to what is written in the OT , the Rapture happened in 138 AD (Daniel 11:45 & 12:1)When the 14th king belonging to the fourth kingdom comes to his end.At this time shall Michael stand up for the children of Daniels people.     It is no coinsidence that the little horn comes to his end at the same time as that Hebrew Nation came to it's end of Days

    Another lie which the RCC instigated is to falsely translate the children of Daniels people as anyone conforming to Catholic doctrine. 
     
       These are  "THE two Biggest lies"  which the RCC was built upon.
    Jesus said that  "THIS generation shall not pass till ALL of these things be fulfilled"   but no one knows what day or hour that it will happen. BUT when it did happen, that time was no longer a secret.
    Two hundred years after the fact ...  the RCC was formed and it edited and rearanged those sacred text which were included in the canon in such a way as to best acheive its purposes. And for the next 1000 years the RCC destroyed any and all opposition to its doctrine.

    Does this mean that Catholics are going to go to Hell.  ...Absolutely  NOT ..... because Hell is an invention of RCC doctrine.

    1. Ceegen profile image82
      Ceegenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Whoa whoa, I replied to SirDent. I have no idea why my reply appears under your post. I was trying to do the whole "rhetorical question" kind of thing, ya know?

  6. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Well, maybe we die so others can live? You can't procreate forever without some negative consequences if death isn't in the mix.

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible states that Abraham and Sarah had a child when they were old.  Gen 18:12  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        My point wasn't that old people can't do the wild thing. But, if we all have kids, who have kids, who have kids; sooner or later someone needs to step aside to make room.

        1. Jerami profile image73
          Jeramiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          That term sounds nice ...  step aside      or     move on      words to think about ,,,   like "replentish"

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yeh.. The use of the word replenish is fascinating where it is placed in the text, but I've read that was just a poor word choice by the translators of the time. Too bad.That would be a fine how do you do if we find out we're descended from aliens who had wiped the planet clean before dropping us off and it was there all the time in that book.

      2. kathleenkat profile image82
        kathleenkatposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I would like to point out, that at the time the Bible was written, people who lived to 40 were considered "old."

        These days, it is apparent that most women remain fertile until their 50s, when they go through menopause.

  7. Davidsonofjesie profile image61
    Davidsonofjesieposted 5 years ago

    Think about,Ceaser.mahamed,hitler and stalin,what would this world be like with those people living for-ever

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @david with muhammad living for ever , world would have been totally peaceful by today....had he survived just one century more , we would have had only muslims in the world...that man was amazingly successful ...

      1. Davidsonofjesie profile image61
        Davidsonofjesieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        muhammad was a thug,he raised up armys and killed thousands,he had a 12 yr. old wife and he liked little boys as well,he made peace treaty's with cities just long enough to get strong and kill them,you know that they can rape and kill and as long as they can pay off their family's it's o k

  8. peeples profile image93
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    The Earth needs fertilizer is a good enough explanation for me.

  9. Cardisa profile image94
    Cardisaposted 5 years ago

    Bible aside.....

    We die because everything is a cycle. The moon rotates around the earth, the earth around the sun.

    We go through the cycle which is life in order to breathe or breed new life. If we didn't die the earth would be overpopulated or there would be no space for new life. We have to die in order for others to live.

    Egg, larvae, pupae, adult.......then death...then it starts again. Just like the butterfly so is all life form. Evev rocks are formed into new rocks then disintegrate into smaller rocks then goes the cycle again. Every life has its purpose and that purpose is to eventually die so that the new life may thrive.

    Simply.....we die in order for life to continue..................................

  10. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Mark wrote ....   2. Without death, and all you Christians breeding like flies - we would have about 7,000,000 billion humans on the planet by now. Bit of a squeeze dontchathink?

    If this - as Jerami says - is an underhanded attack on proven scientific facts - evolution has no concern for individuals, only genes.

    ====================
    Me   
    When I made that comment you speak of,it was not an attack on scientific facts; I was answering an Atheists comment about how evil God was for allowing death and suffering.                                         I do think that "IF" we could stop the dearh process we would also have to stop the birthing process.   Which brings a question to mind ???  What "IF" we could remove the birthing gene , would the natural deteration within the human body  cease.  Now that is a scarry thought!

      Fish produce a hormone through their skin that when their population becomes too great, the hormone level becomes so high in the water that the population becomes steril until that hormone level falls back to normal.  But we are not fish. sinse we are not smart enough to handle it ourselves, Our population has to be controlled by war and starvation disease etc..

  11. kathleenkat profile image82
    kathleenkatposted 5 years ago

    *Sigh* this was potentially a great topic until religion was brought into it. I don't even understand why people are bringing up religion; we die, regardless of what we believe.

    /kathleenkat out.

  12. grand old lady profile image86
    grand old ladyposted 5 years ago

    I would not like to live forever. Our bodies would wear down and then we still have to live, even if we are unhealthy. However, even if I could look 21 all my life and live forever, I think the earth would eventually bore me. At least in the afterlife, come what may, we are guaranteed that it's gonna be different.

  13. Chris Johns profile image61
    Chris Johnsposted 5 years ago

    I would bet the answer lies within the mystery of magnets and how they work.

  14. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 5 years ago

    A delusion is defined as a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained, despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary (DSM-IV, p. 765).

  15. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    "incorrect inference about external reality" you say!   pretty words! .....  but what exactly are you saying?      does this not imply that there are two realities and they are different? 

       Is our definition of reality not one which deals only with details contained within the internal reality of which we find ourselves.   There are no tools within our reality which can acurately measure
    that which is outside of our reality.

    1. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It appears that you are creating a strawman fallacy.  Reality is reality, all else is delusion, unless you can prove differently.

         

        We can only fathom what we can from our finite and dull senses.

         

      You mean outside of our perception.  Reality remains the same.

  16. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Jerami wrote:
    "incorrect inference about external reality" you say!   pretty words! .....  but what exactly are you saying?      does this not imply that there are two realities and they are different?
    = - = -

    It appears that you are creating a strawman fallacy.  Reality is reality, all else is delusion, unless you can prove differently.
    ???????????

    It apears that you LOVE the term strawman falacy whenever you want to evade a question!!
       
    ===========================================================
    Jerami wrote:
    Is our definition of reality not one which deals only with details contained within the internal reality of which we find ourselves.
    = - =
    you ....  We can only fathom what we can from our finite and dull senses.
    === ---- 
    ME         A simple yes or no would have been an great answer.
    ======================   

    Jerami wrote:
    There are no tools within our reality which can acurately measure
    that which is outside of our reality.   
    = - = -
    You mean outside of our perception.  Reality remains the same.
    = - = -
    NO ...  I meant exactly what I said.  I was talking about definitions of reality. The substance
    of reality in one enviroment  IS  different from that within another enviroment.
    On the surface you apear to be good at arguement.. belittling that which in essence you are saying the same thing but are describing it differently.  GOOD for you!!  if it makes you feel more superior?

    1. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Jerami,

      Sometimes it is difficult to understand what is being conveyed from written words.  I;m simply trying to understand what you are trying to convey.  Sometimes concepts demand more intricate and thorough explanations.  I wasn't purposely being condescending or asserting superiority.

      I did not see the relevance of your statement about two different realities.  Why two?

        Of course if we were on a far away distant planet, we might have evolved(or been created with) different senses, for a different environment, with different laws.  Now I hope we are both discussing the same thing.

  17. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    getitrite said ....I did not see the relevance of your statement about two different realities.  Why two?

    ======
    I was reffering to this comment that you made,  ...  "A delusion is defined as a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and ...." 
    Does this not imply ; when you say EXTERNAL  reality, that there is also an INTERNAL  reality????
    Two distinctly different ???
    I was just asking what you thought of this?   but I got something other than an answer.

  18. Johnny2Balls profile image59
    Johnny2Ballsposted 5 years ago

    Facepalm.

 
working