What a ridiculous article.

Go to Haiti and see how you get on without being vaccinated for cholera. Proof of safety will take on a whole new meaning.

People who oppose vaccination are on par with the alarmists who peddle AGW; neither are scientific and essentially use sophistry to promulgate their unscientific position.

Pardon me DavidL, I think you may have misread the article as I did initially - it debunks the anti-vaccination crowd.

Apart from some confusion at the beginning it is an excellent article.. children use to die like flies before the wipespread use of vaccination and still do where they don't have it. To deny its value is true eccentricity.

[Deleted for bad language.]

HIV- 30m deaths/70m HIV cases, there remain indications humans started the pandemic. This is not the theory favoured by the medical establishment.

1950s- Oral Polio Vaccines were prepared in primate cells. Each contained weakened poliovirus, and whichever monkey viruses were present in the cell substrate. One virus was SV-40, known to cause tumours in hamsters. By 1960 millions had been given SV-40 vaccines. Producers switched from Asian monkeys, to African monkeys. It is recognised exposure to SV-40 leads to a risk of contracting cancers.

OPV theory relates to a different polio vaccine, proposing an experimental polio vaccine, CHAT, initiated the Aids pandemic by introducing SIV from the common chimpanzee into Africans given the vaccine 1957-1960. Chimpanzee SIV is now recognised as the direct ancestor of HIV that caused 99 per cent of infections to date.

In 2000, 12 samples of CHAT vaccine selected were independently tested. No trace of HIV, SIV or chimp DNA was found. Surprisingly, given that none of the samples selected had been prepared specifically for the African trials, results were taken by medical journals and the press as proof against the OPV theory.

Tissue cultures used until mid-1958, were clearly primitive that would have provided ideal substrates for attenuated polioviruses and SIVs. Some of these cultures also employed chimpanzee sera to nourish the cells, meaning there was substantial potential for recombination of DNA between different SIV strains in vitro.

Most importantly, CHAT was administered in at least 27 places, all in the DR of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. 68 per cent of all the earliest Aids cases and 76 per cent of all the earliest HIV infections in the continent come from the very same villages where CHAT was administered, 1957-1960.

The arguments, denials and protestations continue, Over the next decades it will come to be realised the Aids pandemic was sparked by large-scale field trials of an experimental polio vaccine, trials that employed African ‘volunteers’ as guinea pigs.

Isn't it ironic that we have an alarmist froop-loop advocating the polio/AIDS connection just after I make a comparison between the anti-immunists and the AGW believers.

To compound the irony, Nature magazine, which was subject to an attempted hijack by he alarmists and is used to spread the AGW propoganda, has declared the polio/AIDS connection "refuted".

It has been known for a long time that certain viruses can pass between species. Indeed, the very fact that chimpanzees obtained SIV from two other species of primate shows just how easily this crossover can occur. As animals ourselves, we are just as susceptible. When a viral transfer between animals and humans takes place, it is known as zoonosis. And it happens. It's one of the prime concerns regarding the Hendra virus at the moment.

In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program the Geoff has mentioned. They may not have been the same exact vaccines used in testing, but they were from the same batch - like getting one big bowl of punch and sharing it out between glasses, likewise this vaccine was a batch, shared between phials. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV. A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat. While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven.

The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that even if the theory is true, transferral must have happened in other ways too, as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out

When you hear these claims about vaccines and AIDS, knowing that vaccines are in circulation, why does it come across to people as so immediately plausible that you have no reason to question the origins of the theory? What is it that turns an "old wive's tale" into a "conspiracy theory extraordinaire"? QUESTION things that don't make sense. It doesn't make sense that vaccines would cause AIDS because you'd think that if they did, some serious investigation would take place (which it did) and something would be found (which it wasn't).

"Can you prove vaccines are safe?"

No, because that depends on the meaning of "safe".

Understandably, medical doctors define "safety" within the narrow parameters of their discipline, whose aim is to save human lives against physical illnesses. It would be ridiculous for example to ask a medical doctor (in that capacity) whether a financial investment is safe; whether it is safe to befriend a certain person; or whether it is safe to ride an elevator with an extra 10Kg load.

Similarly, as doctors are only trained to "fix" bodies, they (and scientists in general) are unqualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccination.

Those who have no interest in religion may just as well follow the advice of doctors and get vaccinated, while those who are steadfast in their faith need not use the crutch of science. I think that those who attempt to justify their religious faith with scientific proofs are fools who understand neither religion nor science.

Yuyutsu, this article has nothing to do with religion, so why bring it up? Vaccine safety is determined by meticulous scientific research of the risks, religion or spirituality notwithstanding. Belief does not trump fact - if a blind man is told that the sky is red, does his belief of it being red make it so? No, it doesn't.

You're right, the safety of vaccines is a matter of relativity, as is anything in life. People think it takes wars and tragedies to put billions of lives at stake, but the truth is, billions of lives are ALWAYS at stake, and the point of vaccines is to minimise the risk of diseases. Forget for a moment of risks vs benefits of vaccines, and think instead of the risks of vaccines vs the risks of disease: if you are properly informed, you know that the former is a much more marginal risk compared to the latter.

This is a fact, regardless of religion or spirituality, and neither one is an excuse to disregard facts.

Cohenite, "Isn't it ironic that we have an alarmist froop-loop advocating the polio/AIDS connection just after I make a comparison between the anti-immunists and the AGW believers. To compound the irony, Nature magazine, which was subject to an attempted hijack by he alarmists and is used to spread the AGW propaganda, has declared the polio/AIDS connection "refuted".

You again jump the gun, I only related that the OPV AIDS hypothesis relates only to the historical origin of AIDS, and its proponents have accepted the safety of the modern polio vaccines, but rumours based on a misunderstanding of the hypothesis exist. Science uses empirical evidence and scouring Wikipedia to support your side of the argument is as usual 'shallow'

By the way its Fruit-loop not froop-loop, but then again I don't want to nit-pick!

Additionally I never mentioned anything about being against immunisation, you just can't help putting your foot in that big unintelligent mouth can you?

Get a life

Dear Martin,

<<Yuyutsu, this article has nothing to do with religion, so why bring it up?>>

Because the question whether or not to vaccinate is a religious one, at least for many of us.

<<Vaccine safety is determined by meticulous scientific research of the risks>>

No scientific research has, or ever can, study the spiritual implications of vaccinations, only the medical implications.

<<Belief does not trump fact>>

I give facts their due respect, where they belong, I don't argue facts, but this is a question of religious values and therefore is independent of the facts.

<<if you are properly informed, you know that the former is a much more marginal risk compared to the latter.>>

Yes, if I am only informed of the medical risks but choose to ignore the spiritual dangers of vaccination.

<<This is a fact, regardless of religion or spirituality, and neither one is an excuse to disregard facts.>>

Again, I do not disregard facts, but facts are not everything. Your ideal, for example, of saving human lives, is not a fact but a value, your own: science can never ever prove that it is valuable to save human lives!

As I stated, Yuyutsu, in the context of this piece, spirituality and religion are entirely irrelevant. In my opinion, spirituality and religion are irrelevant in regards to anything in the real world - all they do is perpetuate more ignorance regarding the real world. In any case, this is not the topic of this piece, and religion or spirituality aren't the point here. You're creating a tangent that is off topic. I won't argue with you about it, but I'm sure someone else will be happy to demonstrate how ridiculous your points are.

If you can stay on topic, however, then I'm happy to have further discussion, but until you can demonstrate how religion or spirituality can provide any proof of anything at all, it is irrelevant.

cohenite,

Your "comparison" is sophistry.

Science delivers us immunisation, just as science delivers us consensus on AGW.

has anyone any evidence that the flu shot works? I have not had the flu for 18 years and have never had a flu shot and yet everyone I know who gets the shot seems to end up with it. Somehow I think the only winners seem to be the pharmaceutical companies. I have no barrow to push on this one but as somebody who avoids medicines as much as possible it leaves more questions than answers.

Geoff of Perth - your original post about how contamination of vaccines lead to AIDS - at least that's what I think you're talking about - has nothing to do with the safety of vaccines as such. If its true its involves laboratory carelessness.

Yuyutsu - okay so you have spiritual objections to vacination, but that's also not to the point is it? You should note that you have spiritual objections, which is your business, and move on. Hopefully there are not many of you..

Dear Martin,

In the context of this piece, spirituality and religion are entirely relevant because there are such people who try to conceal their religious convictions as "scientific" - they then fail in their attempts to prove those and become subject to ridicule, just as you described yourself and thus create a bad reputation for both religion and the anti-vaccination movement.

Froop-loop, a concentrated form of fruit-loop, prone to disingenuous disclaimers that they did not really mean what they wrote when caught with their foot in their mouth.

And I have a life, thank you, which I want to preserve against the ratbags who infest such 'causes' as the anti-immunisation and pro-AGW scams and other deviant concepts such as the "the spiritual danger of vaccination." I mean that is just nuts.

cohenite, if one is to consider trolls, perhaps you can give me some guidance from your own book of rules.

I have never supported AGW, I do however support Climate Change, it's been happening since this planet first established an atmosphere.

As for immunisation, nowhere have I supported not doing it, my posts only postulate that there have and continue to be problems with some immunisation processes. Here in Perth last year we had a number of cases where the flu-jab had significant adverse effects in a range of people, whether or not this is a vaccine problem or a personal adverse reaction remains to be seen.

I find it amusing that you are happy to slag off people because they have a particular 'bent' in relation to AGW, perhaps you just can't let go of your own 'bent'.

As any scientist will attest, consider the precautionary approach and back up your evidence through the tried and true scientific method using empirical evidence, peer review and learn that many scientific facts are continuously re-evaluated and lessons learnt.

If you prefer to live in the 'flat-earth' camp, fine by me, I just don't get your fervent bent on everything.

"I have never supported AGW, I do however support Climate Change, it's been happening since this planet first established an atmosphere."

Weasel words. And an attempt to take the reasonable position.

There is no difference between AGW and "climate change" from the viewpoint of the advocates of AGW; just because the terminology changes because of the dearth of evidence; I believe the hypocrite in the Whitehouse is now calling it "climate disruption".

Regardless of this obfuscation what you and every other apologist for this scam is talking about is man-made, deleterious effects on the climate from the emissions of CO2; which is now a refuted idea.

So don't conflate that with natural climate change; your position has been that humans are producing harmful changes to the natural climate.

Do you deny that?

>>Similarly, as doctors are only trained to "fix" bodies, they (and scientists in general) are unqualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccination.<<

So who is qualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccines? How do we establish if those people are properly qualified to assess spiritual dangers? How do we verify if their assessments are correct or not? If two qualified spiritual risk assessors come up with different answers to the same question how do we work out which one is correct?

>>No scientific research has, or ever can, study the spiritual implications of vaccinations, only the medical implications.<<

Quite right. But spiritual research can study the spiritual implications of vaccination. So I unearthed my old Ouija board and got in touch with a whole bunch of spirits. Then I said my prayers and talked to the gods of all the major faiths as well as lot of small gods. You know what? They all said the same thing: there are no spiritual dangers associated with vaccination. Jehovah did mumble something about blood transfusion being spiritually risky but He couldn't seem to make up his mind because when I asked him to repeat himself more clearly he just said 'forget about it'. And YHWH went to pains to point out that leaving foreskins intact was very spiritually risky. But there is broad consensus on the topic of vaccination. So you can stop worrying and go and get your kids vaccinated - Gods won't smite you or them.

>>Yes, if I am only informed of the medical risks but choose to ignore the spiritual dangers of vaccination.<<

I just told you that those dangers don't exist. There is nothing to ignore in the first place.

Cheers,

Tony

>>Over the next decades it will come to be realised the Aids pandemic was sparked by large-scale field trials of an experimental polio vaccine, trials that employed African ‘volunteers’ as guinea pigs.<<

Well that's one theory I suppose. But to be honest I think this explanation is a bit more credible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ0UpT7Xk4A

Cheers,

Tony

cohenite,

"...which is now a refuted idea."

I think what you actually mean is:

"...which is now a refuted idea amongst 'denialists' who reject majority consensus from scientists working in the various fields associated with climate."

Great and very well researched informative article!
One of the most outstanding anti-vaccine advocates, claimed to be a German professor of medicine? Both she and her fraudulent claims were found by four corners, [as memory serves,] along with her diplomas etc, to be as patently false as her claims.
Proof?
Well there are billions of case studies, that very clearly demonstrate the undeniable efficacy of vaccines, or that those asinine advocates denying their own children the patently proven protection afforded by vaccines, are contributing to the reinvigoration of various pandemic or killer diseases.
Self evidently, the ignorant as always, confer on themselves the right to kill?
Tomorrow's vaccines promise to be even more effective and safer, with Hydrogen Peroxide replacing formaldehyde, in the creation of vaccines.
Rhrosty.

On the subject of HIV/Aids. We might be able to cure it with a combination of anti cancer and arthritis medications.
The anti cancer medication on its own may well kill the infection? Unfortunately the dose needs to be so strong as to prove fatal for both the virus and the patient? [We could conceivably cure the disease but lose the patient?]
However, the addition of a common anti arthritis drug, seems to greatly improve the efficacy of the leukaemia medication, which can then be given in combination as sub lethal doses.
Both of these common drugs are already approved and in current use; or frequently prescribed by Medical Practioners/Specialists.
We need to start working on and advancing "the cure"; given the way this disease mutates, meaning many of the anti virals becoming less effective or totally ineffective over time.
Unfortunately for big Pharma, the cure could cost them many billions in lost annual revenue, currently coming from the sale of anti-virals? It seems that in just the USA, there are over a million HIV/Aids victims, with each spending on average, in excess of $20,000.00 annually. [$50.00.00 before the generics hit the medical consumer Market?]
Even so, that adds up to well over twenty thousand million current reasons in the US of A alone, to keep milking a "medical management" captive market, but particularly when one extrapolates to a world wide market?
Rhrosty.

Dear Tony,

<<So who is qualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccines? How do we establish if those people are properly qualified to assess spiritual dangers? How do we verify if their assessments are correct or not? If two qualified spiritual risk assessors come up with different answers. I to the same question how do we work out which one is correct?>>

In general, regarding how best to conduct one's life, one should consult all three: scripture, others who are closer to God than oneself, and one's own experience as a result of following the above two. If those three are not in agreement, then one needs to continue searching.

Specifically about the issue of vaccination, whatever "gods" (big and small) you consulted, it seems that their answers were right: FOR YOU, that is.

You see, Purity, cleanliness of mind and body, is an important spiritual principle and one who seeks to come closer to God should not burden his/her system with things that are not meant to be there. However, one should get cleansed of the most gross impurities first before worrying about the subtler ones: if one plays with ouija boards, has dirty thoughts (for example thinking badly of others) and takes on a regular basis drugs (illicit or prescribed), meat, tobacco and alcohol, then the spiritual effect of taking a vaccine once-off would only be like a drop in the ocean. In such case, before one succeeds in eliminating the most gross impurities - both mental and physical, it is best not to worry about the spiritual implications of vaccination and if one is concerned about one's physical health, just follow what the doctors say and if you believe that they are sincere in claiming that there is no significant physical risk in vaccination, then get vaccinated.

If spiritual "purity" is that boring, then I'd rather not bother. I like my meat to much, and my beer. Nothing wrong with it except to the "morally superior" who insist they are more pure than me for not partaking. It must be nice to be so morally and spiritually superior to others that you know without a doubt that you have all the right answers, all the time. While you're up their with your head in the clouds, would you mind asking God why I never got that pet penguin I always wanted? It's really important - I've been wondering for a while what penguins might taste like. They sort of strike me as a bit of a cross between a fish and a bird, so maybe like a chicken crossed with a cod.

Anyway, I guess God never answered my prayers because I'm so spiritually unclean from all that steak I've been eating. Maybe if I hadn't had my vaccines, too, I might have been able to experience the spiritual enlightenment of pertussis or polio... if I got really lucky, maybe tetanus or rubella. I bet all those people on cancer meds wish they weren't on their treatments so their cancer could bring them closer to God...

You're right about one thing - attempting to justify a religious belief using bad science is dodgy, especially if proper science proves that belief wrong. However, attempting to justify refusing evidence-based science, which produces proof, based on religion or spirituality, is just as daft. For one thing, you may be completely unaware of the things that you are exposed to by nature itself on a daily basis. It may actually shock you to know that your body itself is producing many of the things that you would be horrified about and would call unnatural and spiritually unclean - like formaldehyde. And how is eating meat harmful to "spirituality" but eating plants is fine? You're still eating living beings, either way. If you REALLY wanted to be spiritually pure, you would be eating nothing but rocks and minerals.

Dear Martin,

<<If spiritual "purity" is that boring, then I'd rather not bother>>

You are not alone. Most of us are disheartened and give up before we even started because we find the cognitive dissonance between where we are at and where we want to be, too painful. It takes courage to face this tension, this dissonance.

None of us, including myself, are pure, but it's the baby efforts that we make towards purity (as well as towards all other spiritual principles) which counts. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

However, attempting to justify refusing ancient and universal spiritual principles, based on science, is just as daft.

I respect science and it doesn't shock me that my body produces formaldehyde and other substances that are chemically identical to those present in vaccines. Such formaldehyde is natural, in the sense that it is not produced willfully, and therefore I cannot see why it should be of spiritual concern. As I have no medical background, I am not in a position to say whether or not this formaldehyde is medically harmful, but that's not my primary concern anyway.

<<I might have been able to experience the spiritual enlightenment of pertussis or polio...>>

Pertussis or polio do not bring enlightenment, that's daft of course, but one's surrendering to God, accepting His gifts with love, even if those happen to be pertussis or polio, that does!

<<If you REALLY wanted to be spiritually pure, you would be eating nothing but rocks and minerals.>>

Yes, but the aim is not to be spiritually pure, that is only the means, one of the means - the aim is to reach God, and it takes time and many baby steps. One can only begin from where one is at.

You really have no grasp on the concept of sarcasm, do you?

Dear Martin,

<<You really have no grasp on the concept of sarcasm, do you?>>

I prefer to always give others the benefit of the doubt. Unless proven otherwise, I rather err on the side of assuming that others are benevolent, mean what they say and want real answers to their real questions. Somehow I still believe that this is the case!

So Yuyutsu... what do you think penguins taste like?

>>Purity, cleanliness of mind and body, is an important spiritual principle and one who seeks to come closer to God should not burden his/her system with things that are not meant to be there.<<

Do you mean chemicals like these: soleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine and histidine. They're obviously not meant to be in your body: they can't be produced by de novo synthesis and have to come from outside sources. You had better stop burdening your system with them right away or God will be cranky with you.

>>if one plays with ouija boards, has dirty thoughts (for example thinking badly of others) and takes on a regular basis drugs (illicit or prescribed), meat, tobacco and alcohol<<

Ouija boards as a spiritual impurity? You crack me up Yuyutsu. Ouija boards were a harmless parlor game back when people had parlors. The trademarks and patents are held by Hasbro. God really doesn't care if you play with ouija boards. And what is impure about tobacco? A tobacco bush is as natural as any other farmed plant. Are carrots and tomatoes impure too? Or are plants only impure if you smoke them instead of eating them? Alcohol is also quite natural: ethanol is the byproduct yeast fermenting sugar. And cows don't smoke, don't drink and they are strictly vegan so their flesh must be some of the must spiritually pure food in the world.

>>Such formaldehyde is natural, in the sense that it is not produced willfully, and therefore I cannot see why it should be of spiritual concern.<<

Oh okay: things which are natural aren't of spiritual concern after all. So obviously you didn't really mean to say that tobacco, alcohol and meat were of spiritual concern before. That's okay: we all make mistakes sometimes.

>>Yes, but the aim is not to be spiritually pure<<

Well in that case it doesn't matter what you take into your body unless it's toxic, malnutritious or just unpleasant. Glad to see you're finally starting to see some sense. Now go vaccinate your kids.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Martin

'If spiritual "purity" is that boring, then I'd rather not bother.'

Eventually Martin you may find it boring to be incarnating again and again until you 'get it'. We are all at different stages of ascension and purity. Where you are is clearly evident by your inability to accept the validity of another's view without feeling the need to mock.

There are many reasons for our impurities but it's not a competition. We are all where we are supposed to be in our spiritual growth and no one is 'better' than anyone else. I didn't see anywhere in Yuyutsu's post that he claimed to be 'morally superior' to you. I wonder where that assumption came from? Let it go, you will get there.

Oh, and I expect penguin tastes like chicken

<<Yuyutsu, this article has nothing to do with religion, so why bring it up? @ Martin B>>

""Because the question whether or not to vaccinate is a religious one, at least for many of us.""
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 June 2012 4:58:05 PM

It almost seems to be a category error to imply vaccination is a religious decision.

"No scientific research has, or ever can, study the spiritual implications of vaccinations, only the medical implications."

What do you propose or hypothesis are the "spiritual implications of vaccinations"??

""I give facts their due respect, where they belong, I don't argue facts, but this is a question of religious values and therefore is independent of the facts.""

What specific 'religious values'??
.

"Eventually Martin you may find it boring to be incarnating again and again until you 'get it'. We are all at different stages of ascension and purity."

You have to be able to PROVE claims like these if you expect people to accept them as truth. The fact that I am aware of only one lifetime, the one I'm currently living, means I'm not bored of reincarnating at all, and what I 'get' is that without evidence to prove what you claim then it cannot be verified. So why should I be made to believe what you believe if it can't be proven, and why should the interests of public health answer to any given set of beliefs when there are so many that can't be proven? Public health has to be a matter of policy that is inclusive of everyone based on what can be proven, not what is merely believed. Belief and faith are self-defined by a lack of evidence: faith is faith because it doesn't need proof to be belief. But in turn, that belief you have does not then go and make what you believe a fact, just because it's what you believe. Therefore, there is no reason for public health policy to account for matters of faith, and religion.

But they do it anyway. Because faith and religion, the right to believe, are rights that can't be taken away from you. However, rights come with responsibilities, and you have a responsibility to ensure that in exercising your rights, you don't impede the rights of others. A child, for example, suffering from cancer, who is denied treatment because her parents believe it will damage her spiritually, still has the right to that treatment because the proven facts of the treatment overrule the postulated beliefs.

Ascension - how does that work?

Yuyutsu,

In the past you have stated that "we" (as in humanity and everything) are God. If we are God and we possess the ingenuity to develop vaccines, why should we reject them on spiritual grounds?

Dear Martin

'You have to be able to PROVE claims like these if you expect people to accept them as truth.'

It is not for me to prove anything and I don't 'expect' anything. You can take it or leave it. The truth is what it is for all to see when they are ready to see it. The fact that you are not bored with coming back again and again may well be because you are not yet at a stage to recognise that you are doing so.

Many people have memories of past lives and even carry wounds from past lives with them into this one to be healed. Many people have illness and disease in this life due to past lives also. This has been verified, but the question would be is this verification acceptable to you. From your comments I would suggest probably not. So, how do we then deem what level of verification makes something a fact?

'A child, for example, suffering from cancer, who is denied treatment because her parents believe it will damage her spiritually, still has the right to that treatment because the proven facts of the treatment overrule the postulated beliefs.'

Who gets to make the decision to override the parents beliefs? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that I wouldn't get medical help if one of my children were ill. I do however, support a parents right to refuse such treatment if they believe that it will damage their child spiritually. What I am getting at is that parents, (one would hope) love their children and have their best interests at heart. Faith can be very powerful and if parents hold the spiritual health of their child as the most important duty to that child, who has the right to override that? In this situation surely the parents would not see their stance as impeding the rights of others but more likely protecting the rights of their child. Anyway why should physical health be held in higher regard than spiritual health?

Dear Martin,but this is a question of religious values and therefore is independent of the facts...

While I was out and trying to save on my daily message-quota, FreeSpirit has already answered for me. I stand behind each of his/her words. Thank you!

<<what do you think penguins taste like?>>

I don't. No thoughts of this nature cross my mind.

Dear Poirot,

<<If we are God and we possess the ingenuity to develop vaccines, why should we reject them on spiritual grounds?>>

Yes, we ARE God - we are not BETTER than God. From a spiritual perspective, willfulness, or the thought that 'I can do better than God', can be quite dangerous.

The vaccine itself is not a spiritual problem (if the anti-vaccine movement is correct, then it may pose a medical problem, but I'm not personally into that discussion), but the intention and attempt to change the course of our lives so willfully, is.

Dear McReal,

<<What do you propose or hypothesis are the "spiritual implications of vaccinations"??>>

Increased willfulness; Lack of faith; Rejection of God, trusting one's own power and intellect instead; Placing the emphasis on matter rather than spirit; Increased technological dependence on society (which as we know, is nowadays materialistic and anti-religious).

<<but this is a question of religious values and therefore is independent of the facts... What specific 'religious values'??>>

Cleanliness; Faith; Contentment; Surrender to God; and if forced-vaccinations are on the table, then also Non-violence.

Dear Tony,

As explained above, it's not the chemicals, but their source and one's attitude.

Ouija boards are used by impure people to call on impure spirits.

>>Many people have memories of past lives and even carry wounds from past lives with them into this one to be healed. Many people have illness and disease in this life due to past lives also.<<

Really? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Please note that while the testimony of some New-Ager claiming to have been Queen Nefertiti of Egypt might be regarded as a form of evidence it also provides evidence for opposing hypotheses like the New-Ager being delusional or the New-Ager being a charlatan. So what evidence can you bring to the table aside from dubious personal testimonies?

>>I do however, support a parents right to refuse such treatment if they believe that it will damage their child spiritually.<<

Then you support a parents right to child abuse and murder. Can faith - no matter how powerful it may be - legitimately be used to excuse actions that would normally be considered gravely immoral not to mention illegal? If I had a child that suffered a severe laceration and lost so much blood that a blood transfusion - a safe effective and proven treatment - was required to save their life and I refused and just let them bleed to death on the operating table what kind of person would I be? Wouldn't I still be exactly the same kind of a person if I was a Jehovah's Witness and I refused the treatment because of my religious beliefs? Shouldn't a person's life - their most fundamental human right - always be held in higher regard than another person's religious beliefs? If not I'd be interested to know how you feel about the Thuggee cult who murdered and robbed travelers in honor of Kali. Murdering strangers because of your strongly held religious beliefs is a little bit different to knowingly and willingly allowing your child to die from a preventable malady. But common to both situations is the tragic loss of life that would not occur if certain people didn't hold spiritual health in higher regard than physical health.

TBC

>>Anyway why should physical health be held in higher regard than spiritual health?<<

For the reasons I alluded to above: when you start letting people make decisions about who gets to live and who gets to die on the basis of their religious beliefs you are treading on very thin ice.

And because physical health matters: it has tangible outcomes. People with poor physical health suffer from disadvantage and lowered quality of life. In the worst case scenario it is terminal. Whereas spiritual health doesn't appear to have the same affect: atheists don't suffer because of their poor spiritual health and religious people don't seem to gain any benefits from their good spiritual health. And nobody has ever died from not being religious enough. At least not since they stopped burning heretics.

Cheers,

Tony

>>Yes, we ARE God - we are not BETTER than God.<<

So vaccines are the work of God. If we ARE God then inventing and using vaccines doesn't mean we're undermining God or placing ourselves above it: we are simply carrying out God's work.

>>The vaccine itself is not a spiritual problem (if the anti-vaccine movement is correct, then it may pose a medical problem, but I'm not personally into that discussion), but the intention and attempt to change the course of our lives so willfully, is.<<

Really? God endowed us with free will and the ingenuity to create things like vaccines but he doesn't want us to exercise our free will or utilise our ingenuity? Are you sure about that? Well you're wrong: as you've pointed out before we are all God and I for one give a big thumbs up to humans using their free will and ingenuity. And I reckon that a lot of the other people who are also God will agree with me.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

If we invent and use vaccines in our capacity as God, then there is no problem. However, we normally do that in our capacity of humans.

There is free will - and there are the implications of using this free will, not all necessarily pleasant.

Now I'd like to relate to some of the things you wrote to FreeSpirit:

<<Then you support a parents right to child abuse and murder.>>

I support a parents' freedom to protect his/her child's spirit, even when it means that the body has to go. If the parent had no selfish motive, then this is neither murder nor immoral.

<<gravely immoral not to mention illegal?>>

You got your priorities upside down - is the law above morality??

<<Wouldn't I still be exactly the same kind of a person if I was a Jehovah's Witness and I refused the treatment because of my religious beliefs?>>

It's not about you and your beliefs - it's about protecting your child's best interests, who chose among all potential parents to be born to Jehovah's witnesses. You would then only act as his/her agent as long as s/he cannot yet speak up to fend him/herself.

<<Shouldn't a person's life - their most fundamental human right>>

Why? What nonsense!

So-called "rights" are human creation, there's nothing fundamental about them.

<<always be held in higher regard than another person's religious beliefs?>>

It's not religious beliefs which are at stake, but rather parents' love to their child and the wish to protect him/her from spiritual harm.

<<Thuggee cult who murdered and robbed travelers in honor of Kali>>

I wonder whether they did so indeed in honour of Kali, or in order to procure benefits from Her. The former is justified, the later isn't.

<<tragic loss of life>>

We all die, eventually: what's better than to die for a spiritual cause!

<<nobody has ever died from not being religious enough>>

By not realizing our divine true nature, by believing that we are humans instead, we do it all the time!

Yuyutsu, you're either a troll, or a dangerous human being that should be locked up. The thought that you would place subjective morals above someone's life, that you can justify murder as long as it's honouring one's god or beliefs, and calling that same murder dying for spiritual cause, is sickening. You're telling me that if someone murdered your wife and told you, "hey, God said it would purify my soul," that you would just stand by? We are nothing but humans, there is nothing more or less to us than that, and that is a fact, regardless of what you believe. Just because you believe it, supporting by your subjective and sycophantic morals, does not make it truth. That is, spirituality, religion, all of that - just because you believe it, it doesn't make it truth. And the way you would justify murder with it is sickening. I never ever thought I'd resort to Godwin's law myself, but I think in this circumstance it applies. Look it up to see someone else who used their beliefs to justify murder. And then tell me that he is "spiritually pure."

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong, Yuyutsu. I don't care how you want to spin it, what you're claiming is truth is just your own deluded belief, and the same with FreeSpirit. I'm not normally this aggressive, so I apologise, but what you've just said is very disturbing, and I'm even wondering if I should show the police.

Dear Martin,

The bible's 6th commandment is wrongly translated as "thou shalt not kill": the original text, however, is "thou shalt not murder".

What makes murder different than killing?

The bible, for example, as well as several countries today, allows a court-of-law to execute certain criminals and modern society allows soldiers to kill in battle and often also accepts euthanasia. So what's the difference?

- The difference is the selfish intention or the lack thereof.

I do not support murder. My morals are not merely subjective, but also based on scriptures many thousands of years old and careful philosophical analysis.

It is often considered a virtue to sacrifice a limb in order to save a life (doctors do it routinely), so what's wrong then about sacrificing one's body in order to save one's spirit? I do not take it lightly, but in some rare cases it is the best one can do.

The foremost spiritual principle is that of Non-violence. Although in our day and age most cases of taking a life are violent and selfishly-motivated, that need not always be the case and the occasional case of compassionate killing may occur.

The basis for morality is Hillel's golden rule, which I follow the best I can, that states: "What you hate done to yourself, do not do unto others".

If I were, for example, a helpless baby who cannot talk and believed (rightly or wrongly, that's not the issue, I don't) that a blood transfusion is worse than death, then I would be most thankful to my parents for taking away my life before the doctors could get me and do a larger damage. Moreover, I would be likely to deliberately choose parents who believe the same so they can protect me. According to Hillel, such a parent who saves one's child, is acting in a perfectly moral manner.

Like it or not, fortunately in Australia people cannot be locked up for their religious beliefs. I have never killed anyone, nor do I have any such intentions. Moreover, being vegetarian I don't even kill animals while you probably do.

I'm not going to debate you, Yuyutsu. You are wrong, because your beliefs are only that: your beliefs. You believing does not make what you believe in the truth. If you deny children life-saving medical treatments or vaccines, you ARE abusing them, and I'm sure corrective measures will be taken if anyone catches on. I do pity any children you might have, though, but there is little I can do for now short of helping to properly educate people so they don't become so morally self-righteous like yourself. I look forward to a day when religion is not an excuse for anything anymore, when I can finally stop being so outraged as I am right now.

Dear Martin,

<<I look forward to a day when religion is not an excuse for anything anymore>>

Me too.

People who use religion as a convenient excuse for doing something wrong or for failing to do something right, are abusing the name of God.

The reason the world exists, the reason humans exist and are alive, is so that we can use this time and space, this universe, to practice religion, or in other words, so that we may come closer to God. Besides that, existence is daft.

Let me clarify: in order to practice religion, one need not belong to a formal religious group and one need not hold specific religious beliefs. Both may help at some stage, but are not of absolute necessity. One cannot avoid religion, one can only choose to progress slower or faster. One cannot avoid God and one cannot indefinitely avoid being drawn towards God, because there is nothing else but God.

<<If you deny children life-saving medical treatments or vaccines, you ARE abusing them>>

This must be a misunderstanding: I never advocated denying children the above, which indeed would be a form of abuse - I do consider it, however, the duty of parents to protect their children against unscrupulous doctors and governments who wish to harm their spirit in the name of humanism. It is a parent's duty to be their child's mouth so long as their child cannot yet speak up and protest.

In any case, you have nothing to worry about or fear that you might breach the above duty, you don't even need to think twice: such religious souls who care about spiritual principles more than about maintaining a physical body at all costs, will avoid like a fire being born to you (or in general, to humanist parents); they would simply never become attracted to your belief-system and your mode of life, hence they will seek to be born to parents who can better care for them!

Yuyutsu,

How can we become closer to God if we are God?

If we are God, then we are as close as we can be.

Or do you mean that we're here to become closer to the realisation that we are God?

I find it amusing that he thinks children choose their parents. I wonder what the victims of child abuse and alcoholics might think of this. I wonder who would choose a parent that would toss them around as a baby until they died. No one chooses their parents, or family. Choice is about having options, and being conscious of those options to make a wilful decision on one. I don't think, though, that children yet to be conceived 20 years from now are influencing a relationship to blossom between the parents they have chosen... or that they're picking the one with the gambling problem just because he's winning, and the random hooker he just met to be their mother.

Dear McReal,

'Ascension - how does that work?'

My understanding of ascension is that it is the process of becoming my eternal divine self. I regard this process as becoming self-realised. Some others may refer to it as becoming God-realised.

I believe that as everything is energy and energy vibrates, we can raise our personal vibration by embracing a life style that aids us in realising our full potential and expands our awareness, thereby leaving illusion behind until we know, and are nothing but our divine Self. Density is related to the rate of vibration and can be transcended in many ways; some of which are living to serve others, doing our duty without expectation of reward and living honestly and truthfully.

Dear Tony,

'What evidence do you have to support this claim?'

I know individuals who are not 'new-agers' and have experienced past-life residue being brought into this life-time. Are they dubious? Some, yes but others no. You will come to your own conclusions, but it would be a shame to explore the subject without an open mind. I understand that there are some delusional people and charlatans who make this subject ripe for doubt but it would be unfair to place everybody in this category without evidence that they are either.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

There is also Siddhartha Buddha who spoke of having many lives and could recall them. I don't know if you would put him in the delusional group or the charlatan group but I tend to believe that he is authentic and many others would agree that his word is beyond doubt.

'Then you support a parents right to child abuse and murder.'

No. If in the mind and heart of that parent they believe that what they were doing was in the best interest of that child then how can it be abuse or murder?

'If I had a child that suffered a severe laceration and lost so much blood that a blood transfusion - a safe effective and proven treatment - was required to save their life and I refused and just let them bleed to death on the operating table what kind of person would I be?'

That would depend on why you refused. If you refused because you just didn't care then you would be negligent and a horrible person. What if you refused because you believed that to give your child this transfusion would harm them spiritually? The parent may see that the physical body is only temporary but the spirit is eternal, so make a difficult choice to save the spirit at the cost of the body.

'spiritual health doesn't appear to have the same affect:'

I disagree. I believe physical illness and dis-ease can be the manifestation of spiritual illness or impurity in anyone, be they religious or atheist.

Dear Poirot,

<<How can we become closer to God if we are God?

If we are God, then we are as close as we can be.

Or do you mean that we're here to become closer to the realisation that we are God?>>

Yes. Being God and not knowing it is not very helpful, intellectual understanding (that we are God) doesn't take away the pain and suffering, subjective as they may be.

Dear Martin,

Don't you find it strange that parents turn to alcohol, gambling and violence towards their own children? If parents can behave so stupidly, then why not their children?

<<I wonder who would choose a parent that would toss them around as a baby until they died.>>

Usually those who are as irresponsible and mindless as their parents-to-be. Often it is a case of plain sexual attraction: the poor and undisciplined spirit senses that couple having sex and is attracted to the scene.

Yuyutsu, no one chooses their parents, and there is no argument that you can make to prove otherwise. You are deluded, man - get some help.

Isn't it amazing that comments about an article about verification of medical science have turned to religion and wacky notions of it.
......................................

"My understanding of ascension is that it is the process of becoming my eternal divine self. I regard this process as becoming self-realised. Some others may refer to it as becoming God-realised."
Posted by FreeSpirit, Monday, 4 June 2012 6:52:59 PM

This is a clear example of the egocentricity that religion engenders.
......................................

Perhaps we could move back to science, how it is verified, and how such methodology is applied in population-medicine and the benefits that vaccination engenders .....
...............................................

Dear Martin,

<<no one chooses their parents>>

I can understand that it is quite difficult to stand the sexual attraction and not be drawn to the first copulating couple in sight without first examining their personal qualities: it does indeed require significant discipline, but don't give up - it's possible!

Shrugging off responsibility gets you into a victim mentality where you tend to blame everyone around you for your misfortune except yourself, especially your parents!

Dear McReal,

<<Perhaps we could move back to science, how it is verified, and how such methodology is applied in population-medicine and the benefits that vaccination engenders .....>>

Benefits are relative to where one wants to go - one cannot refer to "benefits" without having goals in mind.

You're off topic and talking absolute nonsense, Yuyutsu - there is no science to what you're on about, and until you provide proof, you're wrong. Children do not choose their parents, they aren't even conscious before they are conceived. They simply don't exist before they are conceived. And reincarnation is a load of tripe. Where do all the new people come from to cause population growth? Don't answer that question please, you're nonsense flies in the face of dozens of natural processes that you clearly don't comprehend. I suggest you do a little more study on biology and ecosystems, and how the cycle of life operates. You can't prove any of your claims scientifically, you probably can't prove them with anything but anecdote, and you haven't proven anything except that you can talk a lot of crap.

But the idea that people consciously choose their parents prior to contraception is so absurd. If you made a choice, why wouldn't you would remember making it? Don't tell me the impurity of the body restricts access to spiritual form, and hence spiritual memory, because if the spirit is present enough to be affected by how we treat our physical body, then that implies body-spirit interaction. If, as a spirit, we can consciously choose our parents prior to conception, then we can damn well consciously instruct our bodies as spirits too. There is no reason why having a physical form than one of an alternate plane of existence (if it exists) would change our conscious cognitive processes.

I don't have any more patience to debate your cognitive dissonance, either, Yuyutsu, although I'm sure you'll post again. Please stay on topic if you do, but if you are incapable of that, know that an absence of further posts from me in response indicate my continued disbelief in your delusions and my refusal to play your trolling game.

Dear Martin,

As you asked me not to answer your first question, I will not answer it.

Your second question was: "If you made a choice, why wouldn't you would remember making it?"

- Isn't it obvious that in order to remember things one needs a brain?

As to keeping to the topic or otherwise, I understand that the subject of this article is whether or not it is possible to prove that vaccinations are safe.

The article does not ask whether it can be proven that vaccination is MEDICALLY safe (in fact, the word "medical" does not even appear therein). The article does not ask specifically whether for example it can be proven that vaccination does not cause autism (or headaches, heart-problems, multiple-sclerosis, etc.), it simply asks whether it can be proven that vaccinations are safe.

Given such a broad question, all aspects of safety must be taken into account, not only the medical aspects. That includes spiritual safety. Indeed, when considering whether or not to vaccinate, all aspects should be taken into account, including the spiritual aspect.

Yuyutsu,

You say:

"Isn't it obvious that in order to remember things one needs a brain?"

Well spotted!

Has it occurred to you that in order to "make a choice" (as in, "now which parents should I have?") one also needs a brain?

Yuyutsu, there is no such thing as spiritual safety. If there was, it could be measured. There would be metrics. What instead you are serving up is a lot of metaphysical claptrap with no evidence base to support it.

The peculiar notion that one could choose one's parents for example is pure nonsense. You and everyone else arrived here because of a somewhat accidental mixing of chromosomes - half contributed by your mother and half by your father. There is no sure way of knowing in advance, which of those little sperm are going to get to the egg first. Or whether the egg will properly implant. Or whether the embryo will grow to term.

Fancy choosing your parents, only to have your mother come down with Rubella because she had failed to be vaccinated. It would be a real downer.

The point of this article is that if you cannot prove your claims, then they are invalid. It applies to proving or disproving vaccine safety - if you can't prove that there is a risk to spiritual health, than it doesn't apply. Seeing as how you cannot prove a metaphysical spirit at all, than the reverse is also invalid; proving that there isn't a risk to spiritual health becomes a moot point. So you see, if a court orders you to get medical treatment for your children, the "I'm protecting their spirit" defence won't hold up unless you can prove that they have one that needs protecting, and what exactly it is you're protecting them from, particularly in the face of the evidence that without medical treatment, they will suffer very real physical harm, evidence that if proven will result in such a court decision, whether you like it or not and completely regardless of beliefs.

That is what you, and anti-vaccine activists, and other pseudosciency types fail to realise - this article is not about whether or not you can prove that vaccines are safe, it's about where lies the burden of proof. If you were to face such a scenario as outlined in my above example, the burden of proof would be on you to prove your spiritual claims, and the plaintiff to prove that your children need the medical treatment. The judge can only accept on non-bias grounds the evidence that is the most doubt-free. Beliefs that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt will be discarded as evidence.

Dear Poirot,

<<Has it occurred to you that in order to "make a choice" (as in, "now which parents should I have?") one also needs a brain?>>

Yes, this conundrum isn't new and been long debated in scripture. If choice required thinking, then the answer would be 'Yes', but thinking is limited to humans (and perhaps also to higher apes, dolphins and whales, possibly also to creatures of other planets), and even humans often don't make use of it when they choose!

Thinking requires a brain and the confusion arises from associating choice with thinking. Now please don't get me wrong - I do strongly recommend thinking before making a choice, but that's not a prerequisite. Some object because they find it difficult to accept that they're responsible for their lot, that they're not victims. A human court is likely to consider a "I didn't think" argument as a mitigating factor and even acquit on the basis of "I didn't have a brain at the time, your honour", but that's only because the judge and jury are human. If you aren't a human (which indeed you aren't), then you don't get such discounts.

Dear Agronomist,

Spiritual Safety simply means the absence of risks to one's spiritual well-being and progress.

You accurately described how our bodies came to be, but what has that to do with the question of why should YOU want to have anything to do with this or that body?

Dear Martin,

Good, we are finally coming to the crux of the matter. It may require legal advice (are you a lawyer?), but assuming that the procedure you describe prevails, then what it means is that Australia is run by a humanist elite that persecutes religion, particularly religious children, offering them no protection whatsoever against the tide of materialism. In other words, violence prevails.

Assuming your description is correct, then science is thus used as an excuse for persecution. The fact that something can be proven scientifically only means that it is a scientific fact, not that it's better in any way than other points of view.

Yuyutsu,

"...I strongly recommend thinking before making a choice, but that's not a prerequisite..."

If you're making a choice then you are thinking.

Dear Poirot,

<<If you're making a choice then you are thinking.>>

Thank you for the compliment, though I don't think that I always deserve it.

"proof" exists in mathematics...but not science in general and certainly not in medicine!
The best we can manage is "balance of probabilities"...anyone pretending certainty is either deluded or scamming you. (I'm guessing this is why religions have constant issues with science...they just don't allow the concept of probability and uncertainty into their world-view and are magnets for scammers)
When evidence is looked at, vaccination is a no-brainer *unless* you assume that it is OK to freeload...let the rest of the population bear the burden via herd immunity. Some of the "illogical" reaction is just selfishness in disguise.
cohenite: Seen any climate stats lately? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW...don't let the politics of what to do (if anything) distort the data and the science.

Martin:

>>I'm not normally this aggressive, so I apologise, but what you've just said is very disturbing, and I'm even wondering if I should show the police.<<

I entirely understand your sentiment but showing the police won't help in the slightest. Expressing opinions which show a callous disregard for human life does not constitute a criminal offence so there is nothing the police can do. If he were to act on those opinions it might come under the jurisdiction of the police. But for now the best thing to do is show it to a doctor - three doctors actually: that being the required amount to have him sectioned under the mental health act. And in this case sectioning seems entirely appropriate. Not only will he locked up securely where he can't hurt other people: he will also be getting the psychiatric help that he needs so he no longer feels it is acceptable or desirable to hurt people. He won’t get that help in prison. Surely sequestration with the chance of rehabilitation is preferable to just sequestration?

>>know that an absence of further posts from me in response indicate my continued disbelief in your delusions and my refusal to play your trolling game.<<

I think that Yuyutsu is a nut and not a troll. Trolls do it for the lols. Nuts are just nuts.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu:

>>I wonder whether they did so indeed in honour of Kali, or in order to procure benefits from Her. The former is justified, the later isn't.<<

So strangling strangers is OK as long as you do it for the right reasons? If we were to start locking up people who would recklessly endanger their children on the basis of their religious beliefs but we were doing it for the right reasons then that would be OK too wouldn't it?

>>We all die, eventually: what's better than to die for a spiritual cause!<<

Dying for a spiritual cause at age 99 from an incurable illness like cancer instead of being killed for your parent's spiritual cause at age 9 from an easily curable or preventable affliction like blood loss or poliomyelitis.

>>By not realizing our divine true nature, by believing that we are humans instead, we do it all the time!?<<

Well then you should have no trouble at all linking me to a scanned image of a death certificate that has 'insufficiently religious' as the cause of death. Well go on... I'm waiting. Although I can see how you might have some trouble finding a death certificate like this if your assertion that irreligiousness can be directly fatal is just unfounded crap with no basis in reality.

>>The bible's 6th commandment is wrongly translated as "thou shalt not kill": the original text, however, is "thou shalt not murder".<<

The original text is written in Hebrew. Do you know Classical Hebrew? As well as the scholars who translated the Bible? How about we leave translation of dead languages to those whose credentials amount to more than what they read off some website?

>>The difference is the selfish intention or the lack thereof.

I do not support murder. My morals are not merely subjective, but also based on scriptures many thousands of years old and careful philosophical analysis.<<

>>The foremost spiritual principle is that of Non-violence.<<

Well now you're just being difficult. Where does that leave the poor old Spanish Inquisition?

TBC

Contrary to what a lot of the Catholic-bashers would have you believe the Spanish Inquisition didn't just torture and kill heretics because they hated them: they actually loved those heretics with a fierce and burning passion. A little too fierce and burning some may argue. But they really did have the best of best intentions: life is short and eternity is not. A hot poker up the bum is a painful, humiliating, cruel and highly effective method of forcing a conversion out of an unwilling heretic. But it is nothing compared to the pain, humiliation and cruelty of eternity in Hell. And that was what the Inquisitors believed was the fate of the souls of those who died without converting: so by inflicting a relatively small amount of pain in this life the Inquisitors hoped to save people a tremendous amount of pain in the next. They had no selfish intentions and were just trying to save people from spiritual harm. They may have killed and tortured but it was compassionate killing and torturing. Nice people when you think about it.

Or maybe not. Having good intentions isn’t enough to make an immoral act a moral one. All that murder and torture the Spanish Inquisition did was just plain wrong even though they had the best of intentions. Intentionally inflicting – or wilfully failing to prevent – physical harm to another person is always wrong. It doesn’t matter how noble or selfless your intentions are because good intentions don’t make wrong right: they make up the paving stones on the road to Hell.

>>Thinking requires a brain and the confusion arises from associating choice with thinking.<<

I agree to up to a point: creatures with simple nervous systems cannot really be said to ‘think’ but in a sense still make choices: choices based on instinct rather than thought. But that’s creatures with simple nervous systems: spermatozoa and oocytes do not have any sort of nervous system. They are simply not equipped to make choices.

Cheers,

Tony

FreeSpirit:

>> The parent may see that the physical body is only temporary but the spirit is eternal, so make a difficult choice to save the spirit at the cost of the body.<<

So: exactly like the Spanish Inquistion. Where do you people learn ethics?

>>I disagree. I believe physical illness and dis-ease can be the manifestation of spiritual illness or impurity in anyone, be they religious or atheist.<<

Apparently at the same place you learn medicine. Name two physical illnesses that are caused by spiritual impurity.

>>I believe that as everything is energy and energy vibrates, we can raise our personal vibration by embracing a life style that aids us in realising our full potential and expands our awareness, thereby leaving illusion behind until we know, and are nothing but our divine Self. Density is related to the rate of vibration and can be transcended in many ways;<<

And the same place you learn physics XD. Not everything is energy: some stuff is matter. Matter and energy can be converted to one another under the right conditions but they aren’t the same thing. Vibration is a mechanical phenomenon whereby oscillations occur about an equilibrium point. I’m not sure what the behaviour of mechanical systems has to do with religion and I don’t think you are either. Density is a given material’s mass per unit volume and is unrelated to vibration. Get thee to a physics lecture!

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

According to the Mental-Health Act, "A person does not have a mental illness merely because of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) ...
(b) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular religious opinion or belief.
(c) the person (...same...), a particular philosophy."
(13 exceptions altogether)

I wouldn't be surprised if your humanist friends in government will change this law to drop those sections (however, they may find it difficult to face the Greens because items (d) and (g) deal with sexual orientation), but if that happens, if they join their Chinese counterparts, then I'll have at least a few days notice to flee the country (but don't worry, I'll still stay in touch here, online).

---

The first and foremost spiritual principle is non-violence. Even the Vatican admits that the infamous acts of the Spanish Inquisition were in error. Sadly they were not aware of this first principle (although Jesus was).

Not every erroneous action is necessarily also immoral, but I find it difficult to believe that the inquisition (also the Thuggee cult) was pure and had no ulterior motives besides the stated ones. If any inquisitor also did what he did, even partially, because of: Sadism; Greed; Fear of superiors; Desire for promotion; Personal revenge, etc. then he was selfish, immoral and unjustified.

<<So strangling strangers is OK as long as you do it for the right reasons?>>

That's a tautology, but I wonder whether right-reasons to strangle strangers present themselves even once in a 1000 years.

I do wonder however whether you consider the following a right reason:

Suppose Nazis are around, torturing and killing everyone they find and those strangers make noises that would alert the Nazis to torture and kill both them and yourself. Those strangers would die soon anyway, but if you strangle them, then at least you would be saving them from torture.

Without the spiritual guidance of scripture I would be quite unsure and lost about this one - what about you?

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<what's better than to die for a spiritual cause!...Dying for a spiritual cause at age 99 from an incurable illness like cancer instead of being killed for your parent's spiritual cause at age 9 from an easily curable or preventable affliction>>

Runner will be very pleased to see you join his anti-abortion campaign!
I too am pleased to see that you are not one of those who claim that it's good to die for one's country (perhaps you would wish to lock those up as well, together with me, FreeSpirit and the abortionists...).

Personally, I rather die in the service of God than of old age.

<<By not realizing our divine true nature, by believing that we are humans instead, we do it all the time!>>

Like actors that die on stage, in our capacity as humans we always eventually die. We don't really die, nor does the actor, however, If an actor is sincerely convinced that s/he is the character s/he represents, then s/he experiences death every evening.

<<The original text is written in Hebrew>>

The Hebrew text is "Lo tirtzach": the root R-Tz-Ch stands for murder whereas the root H-R-G stands for killing. Some translations do get it right: http://studybible.info/compare/Exodus%2020:13
If you are interested, I can show you the difference by leading you through the occurrences of both roots throughout the bible (old testament, since the new was written in Greek).

<<spermatozoa and oocytes do not have any sort of nervous system. They are simply not equipped to make choices.>>

Bodies do not make choices, be they spermatozoa or humans - you and I do, including the choice whether to use our brains or not.

"Bodies do not make choices, be they spermatozoa or humans - you and I do, including the choice whether to use our brains or not."

I don't think you could have said it better Yuyutsu.

Now I choose to use my brain by asking for evidence before I accept something as likely correct and basing my decisions on evidence. Hence, the evidence shows that vaccination is a good thing for societies who don't want to lose their children to diseases. Evidence also shows the herd immunity provided by vaccination in societies only works if there are high levels of vaccination. This herd immunity helps protect those who, for a variety of medical reasons, cannot receive vaccination.

Having used my brain to think through all that, I have come to the conclusion that people using spurious religious reasons to deny vaccination and then promoting that denial to others are just selfish.

Dear Agronomist,

<<vaccination is a good thing for societies who don't want to lose their children to diseases>>

True.

If a society wants to lose its children to the devil (metaphorically speaking, obviously there's no such creature), to spiritual corruption rather than to diseases, then vaccination probably serves its goals.

I wonder, however, why would one aspire to help an inanimate, non-sentient object such as society to achieve its goals, instead of to help fulfilling the goals of actual living people.

<<Evidence also shows the herd immunity provided by vaccination in societies only works if there are high levels of vaccination. This herd immunity helps protect those who, for a variety of medical reasons, cannot receive vaccination.>>

We fully agree on this point. I am not arguing with scientific facts.

<<I have come to the conclusion that people using spurious religious reasons to deny vaccination and then promoting that denial to others are just selfish.>>

If by "spurious" you mean that one is not truly and honestly religious, but only uses a religious argument to achieve a different goal, then I agree. The same holds when one uses a spurious scientific claim - so lets proceed on the assumption that the reasons are not spurious:

Now why would a selfish person wish to promote the denial of vaccination to others? If I were selfish and wanted to benefit from herd immunity, then I'd try to be the ONLY unimmunized person!

OTOH, isn't asking others to vaccinate for you an act of selfishness?

Yuyutsu,

"Actual living people" - "sentient beings" - comprise society.

Dear Poirot,

<<"Actual living people" - "sentient beings" - comprise society.>>

This is a complicated by the fact that there are many societies, comprising different sets of people. Some societies are voluntary and others are not, with most people belonging to several societies at once. Also, different societies often having conflicting goals.

Take for example the society called the Roman Catholic Church, which in Middle-Ages Spain was a non-voluntary society. Clearly as we can see on this very thread, it has set for itself goals that were in stark conflict with the goodness of its members.

So the questions rests: are we going to support the goals of a society - and if so which - or the goals of its members.

In the case of a voluntary society, one may roughly assert that the good of the society (whoever decided what it is) is good for its individual members, for otherwise they would leave! - This is inaccurate, but at least has some credit. But in the case of an involuntary society, such as a state, no such claim can be made as if the good of that society implies the good of its members.

Yuyutsu,

How about, for the sake of the vaccination question, we define society as a grouping of beings who congregate together in a physical dimension. It comprises "actual living people" who come into physical contact with each other, sharing space and transmitting and receiving physical properties to and from each other.

This physical paradigm has little to do with ideology or "possessing conflicting goals" in the physical dimesnsion as each organism is programmed to seek self-preservation and propagation of itself and its species.

<<If a society wants to lose its children to the devil (metaphorically speaking, obviously there's no such creature), to spiritual corruption rather than to diseases, then vaccination probably serves its goals.>>

Yuyutsu, disease is real. The devil is not. I am going to take my chances with the non-existent devil.

<<If by "spurious" you mean that one is not truly and honestly religious, but only uses a religious argument to achieve a different goal, then I agree. The same holds when one uses a spurious scientific claim - so lets proceed on the assumption that the reasons are not spurious:>>

No. Religious reasons for not vaccinating are all spurious. They may be deeply held, but still spurious.

<<OTOH, isn't asking others to vaccinate for you an act of selfishness?>>

Is asking cars to stop at a red light so they don't kill pedestrians an act of selfishness?

That is equivalent to what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that those who are the most vulnerable in society for health reasons who ask the rest of us to vaccinate to protect them from potentially lethal disease are being selfish. And you blither on about 'spiritual damage'.

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Dear Poirot,

<<we define society as a grouping of beings who congregate together in a physical dimension. It comprises "actual living people" who come into physical contact with each other, sharing space and transmitting and receiving physical properties to and from each other.>>

There are many such groupings, so you need to be more specific, the most important criteria being whether a grouping is voluntary or otherwise.

<<This physical paradigm has little to do with ideology or "possessing conflicting goals" in the physical dimesnsion as each organism is programmed to seek self-preservation and propagation of itself and its species.>>

This is an undisputed scientific fact: the question is why should we adopt the physical paradigm and prefer it over other paradigms. Science can offer no answer because science only deals with facts, science is silent about values.

Dear Agronomist,

<<I am going to take my chances with the non-existent devil.>>

Fine with me, do as you please, but I'm not going to take my chances with spiritual-corruption. For me and my children, if I must choose, then I even prefer physical-corruption.

<<Religious reasons for not vaccinating are all spurious>>

See my reply to McReal, Sunday, 3 June 2012 10:55:22 PM.

<<Is asking cars to stop at a red light so they don't kill pedestrians an act of selfishness?>>

It depends on many factors, such as who owns the road, whether you ask nicely or threateningly, whether you also have the other-driver's good in mind, etc.

This is not equivalent because:
1) I never heard of anyone having spiritual objections to stopping at red-lights;
2) Driving on a public road is an active action, not-vaccinating is a non-action.

Yes, demanding that others sacrifice what's dear to them so that you can have what's dear to you, is selfish!

Though it's a spiritual imperative to not injure you and your children, nobody is obliged to protect you. Ask nicely, maybe they will.

<<This is not equivalent because:
1) I never heard of anyone having spiritual objections to stopping at red-lights;
2) Driving on a public road is an active action, not-vaccinating is a non-action.>>

In your case, as you have told us, choosing not to vaccinate yourself or your children is an active action on your part. You have to go to trouble to avoid vaccination, whereas if you were passive, your children would get their vaccinations when they went for health checkups. You also, I imagine, had to get an exemption from vaccination for your children to attend school - depending on where they went to school.

<<Yes, demanding that others sacrifice what's dear to them so that you can have what's dear to you, is selfish!>>

Which is exactly what you are doing.

<<Though it's a spiritual imperative to not injure you and your children, nobody is obliged to protect you. Ask nicely, maybe they will.>>

Yuyutsu, I know I have not any chance of convincing you, no matter how much evidence I could put forward. Because you have already made up your mind and it is closed. This is evident in the mental gymnastics you are going through in trying to defend the position you have taken. Any asking you nicely will get exactly nowhere.

So while I am not going to try to convince you, that will not deter me from pointing out the moral bankruptcy of the position you have put forward.

So long for now. Perhaps we might meet again on the next vaccination thread.

Dear Agronomist,

<<You have to go to trouble to avoid vaccination>>

Why would I willingly send my children to be checked by your doctors and attend a school run by your kind of people? Only because otherwise your police will come and get us, you humanist brutes.

If a robber puts a knife to your throat and starts taking all you got, then surely it would take trouble to release yourself from his grip - that's called self-defense.

<<Yuyutsu, I know I have not any chance of convincing you... Any asking you nicely will get exactly nowhere>>

Convince me of what exactly? to join your humanist pseudo-religion?
Shall I try to convince you to give me your heart, cause mine is fading? and not even ask you nicely?!?
(that's not far-fetched - in China they convict people to death for non-crimes or minor crimes, then transplant their hearts to waiting heart-patients)

If you ask me nicely, we could get to some agreement, some compromise, cause I have no interest in infecting your dear children with germs either. For example, we could agree that you don't force me to send my kids to your schools and clinics, allowing us to live peacefully on our own property and that of like-minded people, then me and my children won't come close to those schools, clinics and your home unless we wear an appropriate face-mask.

"For example, we could agree that you don't force me to send my kids to your schools and clinics, allowing us to live peacefully on our own property and that of like-minded people, then me and my children won't come close to those schools, clinics and your home unless we wear an appropriate face-mask."- yuyutsu

Actually, I like this idea.

How can we make it into policy?