Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 23, 2021

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on:

In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed.
“It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that they influence what we do as adults,” says Tallie Z. Baram, a child neurologist and developmental neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine, who wasn’t involved with the study.
Asher Jones, “Early-Life Stress Exerts Long-Lasting Effects Via Epigenome” at The Scientist

All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics.

The paper is open access.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments

Kairosfocus “ CC [attn SA2]: Spinning the wheels in the mud puddle, ...” Well, ain’t you loquacious. Getting back to your lancet article, I noticed that you did not address my response. Not surprising. Yes, anal sex can be a means of transmitting disease. As can intercourse, oral sex kissing, hand holding, eating and breathing. The type of sexual activity is not the problem. Multiple partners is. Many gay couples are monogamous. As such, their HIV risks are no higher than that of celibate priests. The dangerous behaviour is not the anal sex, or heterosexual sex, it is promiscuity.Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

A discussion on religion and mental health.
Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link? Exploring the scientific evidence surrounding religion and mental health.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link Questions come up because there is a correlation between religious belief and better mental health. Is this due to those with better mental health choosing religion or belief in religion helps one's mental health? Or could both be true? Has the natural progression gone in our diverse society from there are various religious beliefs, let's not talk about religion in anything so as to not offend people? To we do not talk about religion in anything leading people not to take religion seriously? To taking religion less seriously leading to lack of religious belief? Will those with mental health problems then gravitate much quicker to lack of religious beliefs? This was covered in detail by BA77 in #17 Then there is the thesis
DOES LIBERALISM CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/04/does-liberalism-cause-mental-illness.php It does seem that the more liberal commenters here fail to react to arguments of evidence and logic. UD is only a microcosm of the world but is it indicative of the wider world? Aside: we have gone from the effects of epigenetics and how to change them to religious beliefs. Off topic?jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

CC & ET: I followed up, CC 170:
ET: Earth to CC- I don’t have any “non-rational religious commitments”. [CC:] Incoherent statement. Religion is non-rational by definition.
That is an astonishing piece of contempt. Do you intend to suggest that say a Pascal, or an Aquinas or an Augustine among many others were riddled with non-/irr-rationality? [The subtext begs to be inferred.] First, rational-ITY is not equal to rational-ISM. The latter is the worlddview/ideological notion that essentially a priori, rejects the possibility, credibility and actuality of revelation. The former, is:
[Merriam-Webster's: rationality noun Save Word To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In ra·?tio·?nal·?i·?ty | \ ?ra-sh?-?na-l?-t? \ plural rationalities Definition of rationality 1 : the quality or state of being rational 2 : the quality or state of being agreeable to reason : reasonableness 3 : a rational opinion, belief, or practice —usually used in plural
That is, a rational person habitually pursues right reason, which pivots on self-evident first principles of logic, exercises due prudence, is open to sensible argument and evidence, but filters on responsible criteria of warrant, is careful in addressing risk and uncertainty etc, in short exhibits various intellectual virtues. Nothing in that precludes being an adherent of ethical theistic worldviews or their institutional expression. And there is a huge body of evidence on that. Fanaticism and corruption, lawless oligarchy and the like are reflective of the moral and intellectual hazards of being human, not consequences of being religious as such. That is part of why radically secular ideologies have racked up the track record they did since 1789. As for revelation, once God is a serious candidate necessary being [which is undeniable], then we must reckon with what it means to be an inherently good, utterly wise source/creator and sustainer of worlds, especially worlds containing rationally communicative creatures. Namely, that it is not improbable that God would communicate with such creatures, and in the course of time, written record of such would be made. Such would naturally reflect the character of its source, and would provide significant authenticating aspects. Of course, perhaps you or those who you look to have actually provided good reason to hold that God is not a serious candidate necessary being _____ and/or that he is impossible of being as a square circle is ________ . I suspect those blanks will be rather harder to fill than to imply or assume or even to embed in education, media and key cultural institutions. I suggest, some rethinking is advisable on your part, especially as per logic of being [an aspect of ontology] a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible of being or actual. The latter, reflecting that such a being would be present in any world feasible of instantiation, so being part of the framework for such a world, and obviously this includes for our actual world. A possible world, in turn, being in the first instance a sufficiently complete description of how this or another world is or could be. I think, some rethinking on your part, is in order. KFkairosfocus_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Seriously, you say you’re not religious but many of your views parallel those of religious adherents...
That is your irrational opinion.ET_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

CC:
Religion is non-rational by definition.
That is your irrational opinion. However, I am not religious, so you lose, twice,ET_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

JVL, being religious is not a form of intellectual leprosy. KF PS: It is fairly easy to show that every worldview traces to a set of first plausibles which include many unproven faith-commitments; SET's and incorrigible notions etc, will never amount to sufficiency to loft a full orbed worldview. The issue, then, is not whether we live by faith, but which, why, and whether we are open to comparative difficulties analysis.kairosfocus_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

CC [attn SA2]: Spinning the wheels in the mud puddle, spattering mud while gaining no effective traction. The fail at outset on your part as I marked up in 163 amply illustrates the point that even objectors -- to gain rhetorical/persuasive traction -- consistently appeal to said first duties of reason. In fact, your poor logic talking point continues to be not only a strawman caricature but is also an implicit appeal to our duties to right reason. The relevant logic is, that certain things are first givens of reasoning, which are so core and so pervasive that they are inescapable, even by objectors . . . as you again cannot but exemplify. Indeed, they are so core that they cannot be proven either, the attempt to prove also embeds the first duties, starting with why set out to prove. Such are antecedent to argument and pervade arguments, as you continue to inadvertently demonstrate as you continue to try to belittle. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to warrant and broader prudence, etc are inescapably bound up in our rationality. Inescapable, so on pain of grand delusion [which is self-referentially absurd] undeniably true, so too self-evident. Further, as duties, of moral character, reflective of our moral government attested to by voice of sound conscience [which is also a focus of duty]. KF PS: Note to self, never buy a second hand car or knowledge claim from this man, as he dismisses duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness, justice etc. (See the point?)kairosfocus_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Sorry to be so harsh. Sometimes my WWE seeps out. I'm sure KF is a swell dude in real life.Concealed Citizen_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Concealed Citizen “ Um, no, that’s not all I did. I gave a specific example case that makes your “reasonable” look stupid (because it is.)” Ouch.Steve Alten2_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

CC: Resort to belittling personalities duly noted as a strong sign of a weak case on your part. Um, no, that's not all I did. I gave a specific example case that makes your "reasonable" look stupid (because it is.) Why don't you just come clean and say, "I'm a Roman Catholic, and everything I say is founded in Roman Catholic dogma, because the Church says so"? Everyone already knows it. It would be honest. Your non-rational blathering persuades nobody who isn't already a member of the Roman Catholic racket.Concealed Citizen_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

ET: Earth to CC- I don’t have any “non-rational religious commitments”. Incoherent statement. Religion is non-rational by definition. Not that there's anything wrong with that!Concealed Citizen_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

ET: Earth to CC- Unfortunately for you I don’t have any “non-rational religious commitments”. Try again. Do you have any rational religious commitments? :-) Seriously, you say you're not religious but many of your views parallel those of religious adherents so it's not surprising that people make that mistake.JVL_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

On topic: Life stress make epigenetic changes starting with our conception and influence our mental and physical health our entire life. A powerful medicine against stress :"Lord and Master of my life, the spirit of idleness(apathy), of the care of many, of the urge to dominate and of useless speech do not give it to me, and the spirit of purity ,of the humble thought ,of patience and love give it to me to your servant. So, Lord, allow me to see my sins and not to condemn my brother, as you are blessed forever and ever. Amen."(St. Ephrem The Syrian)Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Earth to CC- Unfortunately for you I don't have any "non-rational religious commitments". Try again.ET_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

PPS: A better start-point, in my view, is the Smith, two-tier controller cybernetic loop model: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/reference-the-smith-model-an-architecture-for-cybernetics-and-mind-body-free-will-determinism-compatibilism-analysis/kairosfocus_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

PS: A reminder from Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [-->taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
kairosfocus_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

SA2, it obviously has escaped you that for cause I don't give 50c for opinions [whether mine or that of anyone else], and that I emphasise duty to truth, right reason and warrant as a key aspect of prudence. "Opinion," is not equal to a self-evident, inescapable, undeniable truth; we do have a duty to recognise such truths in forming well warranted, reliable and credibly truthful beliefs, starting with say || + ||| --> V, using the Roman notation reminiscent of the spread out fingers of a hand. In the case of your argument, by trying to dismiss self evident truths as dubious opinion, you tried to gain rhetorical traction by appealing to duties to truth, right reason and warrant under fallacious circumstances. This of course inadvertently exemplifies how the seven Ciceronian first duties of reason are in fact as advertised: inescapable, so the objection defeats itself by trying to deny the undeniable, contradicting and falsifying itself. Your doubling down on a turnabout false projection by now falsely accusing me of hypocrisy in pointing out the fallacies involved, further underscores the point. On the main topic from the OP, epigenetics is significant but dna and molecular biology of the cell are a long, winding way from genetic determinism and/or overwhelming molecular biology influence on reasoning, choice and [want of] significant freedom. Indeed, such would prove only too much: reduction of mind to a dynamic-stochastic, gigo-limited, inherently non rational computing substrate. Cause-effect chains shaping gigo-limited computations are worlds apart from rational, insightful, free inference. KFkairosfocus_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

CC, Resort to belittling personalities duly noted as a strong sign of a weak case on your part. Let's mark up: >>Your reasoning powers>> 1: In your opening words, to gain rhetorical traction, you appeal to duty to right reason, and by extension warrant (so, prudence) thence truth. 2: This illustrates, yet again how inescapable the relevant first duties of reason are. Inescapable, antecedent to and pervading acts of reason, so a first truth, and undeniable (also unprovable as attempted proof will already embed). So, self-evident. >> are so dumb it’s not worth a retort. Haha. Hahaha.>> 3: Lost in the laugh, when already you have inadvertently managed to demonstrate the inescapability in question, literally in your opening words. >>But I’ll do it anyway… To use your “logic”, God hates motorcycles.>> 4: Resort to a strawman case. 5: The actual argument in question is not a blind appeal to divine command. This is already a strawman, tainted with an ad hominem. >> (Which have far higher of a death rate>> 6: So, riding motorcycles may well be imprudent, and would call for careful regulation, starting with licencing and family regulation of youngsters likely to do foolish things. However, anticipating where you are headed, riding motorcycles is not a vector for a spreading debilitating or fatal disease. 7: The Lancet, buried lead facts establish that certain kinds of sexual conduct are medically abusive, disease-spreading and account for a statistically significant disproportionate spreading of disease. 8: That immediately grounds a public health interest in the behaviour, comparable to that in smoking, alcohol abuse and drugs abuse. >> than any kind of sex.>> 9: Sex is short for sexual intercourse, the act of marriage with its context of procreation and renewal of the conjugal bond, linked to family stability. 10: It is in the obvious interest of the community, public health and the state to promote such stable relationships, and to recognise the radical distinction between an act conducive to life and one conducive to disease, including fatal disease. Not to mention, notoriously medically damaging. The latter is patently intrinsically disordered, conducive to damage, exposure to serious pathogens [playing with a biological sewage outfall] and to disease. 11: In addition, discouragement of promiscuity, bad sexual habits, infidelity and destabilisation of marriage etc are further obviously tied to the thriving of human communities. There is a huge difference between freedom under law [including built in law] and licence. The latter is a chaotic counterfeit of liberty. >>Period. And skydiving too! Oh! Oh Lordy, PLEASE!)>> 12: Again, skydiving would be an appropriate target for public health and linked public policy. However, yet again, not connected to a pandemic. >>Okay, “God”, I’ll go ahead and sell my sinful crotch-rocket lest I be smitten.>> 13: You will observe, that you have substituted a context that is not present in the actual argument regarding self-evident first duties of reason pivoting on truth and justice, setting up and knocking over a strawman caricature. A sure sign of a weak case and of failure to address the duty of right reason appropriately. 14: Similarly, failure to address the buried lead issue acknowledged against obvious agenda, in Lancet:
2] Linked, as a key 2012 Lancet Article admitted against interest and with buried leads, a commonly associated sexual practice (now widely promoted esp. through the addictive, morally undermining porn plague) is a major at-risk factor for exposure to HIV/AIDS, thus, other diseases. The obvious vector is, tissue damage and the potential for infections crossing into the blood stream.
15: FYI, I again show (a slightly updated) summary:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Perhaps, a negative form will help, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [sociopathy, high machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we seek to evade duties or may make errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

KF @ 149, Your reasoning powers are so dumb it's not worth a retort. Haha. Hahaha. But I'll do it anyway... To use your "logic", God hates motorcycles. (Which have far higher of a death rate than any kind of sex. Period. And skydiving too! Oh! Oh Lordy, PLEASE!) Okay, "God", I'll go ahead and sell my sinful crotch-rocket lest I be smitten.Concealed Citizen_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

JVL @ 144, >Okay, then come up with a reason you find 2000 year old arguments relevant and compelling. I don't evaluate arguments by their age. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but logic hasn't changed...ever. Maybe you are referring to historical claims and the evidence for them? I could see doubting those the older they got, but I don't personally do that either. It is more difficult to evaluate historical claims the farther back they go, and 2000 years is a long time. So one has to evaluate what we have, the written record and its claims, the archaeological record, and whether such things as are recorded accord internally within reasonable limits. The Bible makes it through all those tests in my opinion and based on my study of it. I know others reject it for various reasons, but I have not found them compelling. Does that answer your question?EDTA_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus “ SA2, a cheap turnabout projection...” Nope. Just pointing out an obvious hypocrisy that is easily confirmed by reading through any of your threads. Or, if you prefer, sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus “ Data, those who have made a crooked yardstick their standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness will reject and even find absurd what is genuinely such. Even, a plumb line. KF” And by fiat you declare your opinion to be the plumb line.Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

SA2, a cheap turnabout projection without warrant on your part, inviting inference to cognitive dissonance and projection. Thence, confession by projection. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

JVL, today, I pulled up a book on boat building that contains a passage on using slices of cones to give frameworks to part of the bottom of certain boats. After attempts to produce lines to an apex, one can identify such a cone. For years, the passage puzzled me so when I had to go wait in line at the bank, I took it along to puzzle again. With help of a handy flower pot, it began to make sense as one technique for capturing a curve in, in effect, a family of related ogives. (This is similar to certain nose cones and projectiles. I think this can go over into sigmoids too, covering some forms of flare) Now, the thought strikes, that getting to aha can be a long ride and that may be of help to you as you contemplate what seems absurd. KF PS: Now I think of it http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?271830-Conic-Projectionkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Data, those who have made a crooked yardstick their standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness will reject and even find absurd what is genuinely such. Even, a plumb line. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, this is a thread about epigenetics and the possibility of reversing their effects. It would be appreciated if you would refrain from toxic distractions.Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

SA2, the lesson is established above and beyond our hedonism or whatever may induce to such. Let's just say, that there are many red flag issues attaching to such acts that a public health warning should be given, on the evidence. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

SA2, strawman, and you manage to rely on the duties to truth and right reason to give that fallacy any rhetorical traction. In short, you are trying to gaslight away the fact demonstrated repeatedly that you and other objectors to first duties of reason cannot escape appealing to them. Which was the pivot of my point as to why these pervade our reasoning and are inescapable, so self evidently true. KF PS: For record for those needing a reminder of what you are so clearly desperate to dismiss:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we seek to evade duties or may make errors does not overthrow the first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
That is the classical, truth and justice anchored argument you don't want on the table. That reaction may itself be telling us a lot more than you are willing to openly admit.kairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

JVL, you do not tell the truth by the clock, that is a blatant and ill-advised fallacy that dooms those duped to repeat the worst chapters of history again and again. There are a great many 2 - 3,000+ year old arguments as documented that are absolutely valid. That starts with core Mathematics as a classic case, e.g. group fingers on one hand into a 2 and a 3 then unify: || + ||| --> V, using classic Roman symbols that directly echo the use of the hand. Indeed, this demonstrates the nature and universality of self evident truths. KF PS: I am not unaware that your underlying intent is to dismiss the historical witness of the 500 at the core of the Christian view, by making a cheap belittling shot at 500 who faced dungeon, fire, sword and worse for their testimony to what they had seen and heard. The attitude is itself revealing, including your response to unwelcome historical/forensic evidence. As to why I take it seriously, and many others, here on in context is a 101; though a thread now in a toxic death roll is not a proper context to discuss such in any profitable fashion, I simply note for record. Of course, all of this is the pattern of successive tangents led away to ad hom laced strawmen, which makes me wonder what about the OP is so unwelcome that every toxic distraction is being dredged up to pull attention away from it. Apparently, that's because it speaks to epigenetic influences and comments: "All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics."kairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @149, I already addressed this.Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply