• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Effects on Marriage and Family


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#31 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 08 December 2005 - 10:47 PM

Brandon, It sounds like you want to combine marriage with friendship when they should be seperated.


why should they be seperated?

#32 john e

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 14 December 2005 - 12:18 AM

Marriage is intimate and friendships should not be intimate as marriage is.
~John

#33 boundlesslife

  • Life Member in cryostasis
  • 206 posts
  • 11

Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:37 AM

justinRebo:

Brandon, It sounds like you want to combine marriage with friendship when they should be separated.

Why should they be separated?

Why indeed? Or, if you do separate them, what do you have left, in either of them?

In my 35+ year partnership with another cryonicist (we met each other through cryonics), idea-sharing, adventure-sharing, goals-of-life-sharing, all are so essential that nothing less than a wholly integrated marriage-friendship relationship would make any sense.

Judging from what appears to be the case with others, perhaps this is uncommon, but in principle, I think this is what a great many people are looking for.

Especially with cryonics, when you face the dark together, and know that there are uncertainties that you'll ever wake up at all, it's easier to take, if you know that if you do wake up, it's highly likely that your "buddy" will be there too, ready to continue the adverture of life.

"But what if your memories are largely lost?" You might say. Suppose we were both in an auto accident tomorrow and woke up with total amnesia, really "blank slate" style? And, suppose that the people at the hospital told us "who we were", and that we at least had the same genomes, the same tendencies and dispositions that these bring about? Once we learned about "who we'd been", do you really doubt that we would "continue the adventure, together"?

Sure, anything is possible! We could have global nuclear war tomorrow, and life would be a bummer to such an extent that to "go on" might be to simply beat your head against the wall. Or, you could get "unfrozen" along the way (being in the same capsule would help to assure that if you survived at all, you'd survive as a 'pair').

In a movie named, "What Dreams May Come", Robin Williams (as the husband who died first) put it very well, "What it's about is... not giving up!" The way the movie ended, with two children finding each other, playing on a dock, is perhaps the way it will turn out for two cryonicists who have extensive memory losses. Who knows? The only question is, are you willing to face uncertainties as extreme as this? Or would you rather have the safety of oblivion?

Thomas Donaldson, in one of the LifeQuest issues of the late 1980's, wrote an absolutely beautiful story about a man who "awakened" in a city of the distant future, and 'discovered' how he had come to be. It's a story worth dwelling upon, if you're a cryonicist. And if you're not, it's still a great piece of science fiction, in my estimation, so...

Here's the link to the archives of LifeQuest, at: Travelling

A writing that helped bring my partner and I together is called: Two Minds

boundlesslife

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:07 PM

Put me down for preserving and strengthening monogamous marriage and the family for its positive effects on longevity. Research has shown “[t]he benefits of a healthy marriage include lower rates of disease, a longer life span and a greater sense of well-being.” See, for example, http://www.mayoclini...arriage/MH00108.

It only seems logical to me that any community seeking ways to increase life spans would want to strengthen both marriage and family life in any way possible. It’s my belief that marriage and family practiced in communal settings according to Biblical standards would be the ideal.
God’s commandments, decrees, and laws and Jesus Christ’s teachings are perfectly crafted to strengthen, support, and maintain marriage, family and communal relations. See, for example, Genesis 2:20-24 (“man will ... be united to his wife, they will become one flesh”) (NIV); Exodus 20:14 (“You shall not commit adultery”); Exodus 20:17 (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife ...”); Deuteronomy 6:1, 2 (“These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe ... so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live ... so that you may enjoy long life”); 2 Samuel 22:31 ("As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless"); Malachi 4:6 (“He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”); Matthew 19:17 (“If you want to enter life obey the commandments”); Matthew 19:21 (“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”); Matthew 22:39 (“Love your neighbor as yourself”); Luke 6:30 (“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back”); Acts 2: 44, 45 (“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”); Acts 4:32-35 (“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.”); 1 Timothy 6:10 (“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”); James 1:25 (“But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it – he will be blessed in what he does.”).

Children produced in strong, stable marriages and in communal settings like Israel’s kibbutzim tend to be emotionally well-adjusted and less inclined to engage in delinquent behavior or other activities destructive to a harmonious, productive society. Writing in support of kibbutz-child care in the 1950s, S. Golan, the author of “Collective Education in the Kibbutz” (1961), said it is:

“... the fact that no delinquency, sexual aberrations or child neglect are to be found within its domain, that the incidence of emotional disturbances is low, that the physical, intellectual and ethical standards of the pupils are commendable, is a source of encouragement and evidence of substantial achievement. It is also our warrant for attempting to present communal education to a wider public.” ( p.43).

Sociologists have noticed the “family structure has been an important mechanism of survival under conditions of poverty and oppression.” Why couldn’t stronger marriage and family practices prove to be important mechanisms in holding together a communal society dedicated to increasing the life spans of its inhabitants through strict dietary practices such as vegetarianism, calorie restriction and periodic fasting, combined with any other anti-aging therapies the bioengineers develop? Isn’t it possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?

Shouldn’t our hearts and minds be fully devoted to living as if we want to live forever? If your answer is yes, then strengthening marriage, family and communal relations according to God’s way set forth in the Bible is the only sure path to take.

Edited by william, 07 July 2006 - 03:51 PM.


#35 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 07:50 PM

Put me down for preserving and strengthening monogamous marriage and the family for its positive effects on longevity. Research has shown “[t]he benefits of a healthy marriage include lower rates of disease, a longer life span and a greater sense of well-being.” See, for example, http://www.mayoclini...arriage/MH00108

I will refrain from commenting on the religious rhetoric you bring up, because you know how I feel on it. As far as the study you site, it makes no mention of whether this is a causation or simply a correlation. I don't believe (of course I could be wrong) that it has ever been shown that marriage causes good health, only that it is correlated with good health.

Those familiar with scientific findings will know why the difference is so important, but for those that don't, if something is just correlated, it could be that people who do an activity are more likely to benefit. A couple examples:

I could do a study that showed people who regularly smoked expensive cigars lived longer than those who didn't smoke anything. Does this mean that expensive cigars make you live longer? Not at all. It just means people who smoke expensive cigars are more likely to be rich, and therefore have access to better health care, etc.

I did a study in my high school statistics class for the final project on whether watching TV improved your health. I did a statistical sample of all people throughout all countries, and it was found that the less TV you watched, the less healthy, and less lifespan you had. This was simply a correlation, however, because people in developing nations with access to TV are at a much better advantage for getting health care, etc.

In other words, people who decide to participate in marriage are likely to be healthier individuals anyway, no matter if they got married or not. The types of people that decide to live together unmarried might be lower income (in general), or more likely to be homeless, or any number of things.

Also, there is evidence that staying in a bad marriage is bad for your health, and also evidence that marriage might be bad for men's health, while being good for women's health, so making blanket statements about "marriage is good" is somewhat harmful to some segments of those even in marriage in the first place.

Just my 2 cents...

#36 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:02 PM

The types of people that decide to live together unmarried might be lower income (in general), or more likely to be homeless, or any number of things.

Wow, I'd never looked at it that way -- interesting argument!

#37 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 July 2006 - 09:28 PM

Thanks for responding Live Forever. Believe it or not, I was just about to PM you and ask you for an amen. I wish you would've commented on the rest though.

I don't have any college degree in anything, but can't we pretty much infer causation when there's a strong enough correlation? To me it seems highly likely that a strong, healthy marriage under ideal conditions would substantially contribute to a person's health and longevity. Here's another recent article on this subject that supports what I say you can checkout at http://www.nih.gov/n...005/story01.htm.

I also wish John Schloendorn would've commented on my post where I ask if it isn't "possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?" Being one of those bioengineers engaged in such research, it would be helpful if he could tell me whether or not I can safely make that kind of statement and not just ask it as a question.

#38 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:19 PM

Thanks for responding Live Forever. Believe it or not, I was just about to PM you and ask you for an amen. I wish you would've commented on the rest though.

I will not comment on the religious rhetoric. You do yourself a disservice, I think, by continuing to bring it up. Others might totally disregard your entire post because of such comments.

I don't have any college degree in anything, but can't we pretty much infer causation when there's a strong enough correlation?

Absolutely not. You can not infer things that are not expressly tested and results stated. That is where a lot of people's confusion comes in when it comes to analyzing (or reporters reporting on) studies.

To me it seems highly likely that a strong, healthy marriage under ideal conditions would substantially contribute to a person's health and longevity. Here's another recent article on this subject that supports what I say you can checkout at http://www.nih.gov/n...005/story01.htm.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. I am not arguing that people in marriages are not healthier, just that I don't think someone that is unmarried is necessarily less healthy because they aren't married. I think you can be just as happy, healthy, etc. being unmarried as married, and I have not seen any evidence yet that this untrue.

I am in no way anti-marriage, in fact I hope to be married some day, but I am just pointing out that if someone chooses to stay unmarried, there is no strong proof that their health should suffer.

Also, my 2 links (I can provide others) show that marriage is indeed bad for some people (men and those in bad marriages), so, william, how do you respond to those? Your blanket "marriage is good for your health" statement is flawed.

I also wish John Schloendorn would've commented on my post where I ask if it isn't "possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?" Being one of those bioengineers engaged in such research, it would be helpful if he could tell me whether or not I can safely make that kind of statement and not just ask it as a question.

I don't see what this has to do with marriage.

#39 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:50 PM

I also wish John Schloendorn would've commented on my post where I ask if it isn't "possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?"

In general, SENS assumes that aging results from irreversible types of molecular damage that accumulate over time. It proposes to reverse aging by repairing those damage-types from the outside. If there were a way to slow the accumulation of such damage, this would be very beneficial for the aging patient and synergistic with SENS interventions.

Some ways to do this are known, as per a huge body of large trials (not smoking, eating healthy, exercising). Other such ways are not rigoruosly tested, but not unlikely to have some benefit, based on a lot of animal data and some preliminary human experiments (caloric restriction, certain supplements). Others again are fringe proposals often by single individuals, which do not enjoy wide academic support. Based on what's out there, I would definitely count marriage as a life-extending intervention in this latter category.

⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#40 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:01 AM

Live Forever, I realize religion may turn some people off as you say; however, I strongly believe the Bible has something important to say on longevity that researchers need to take it into serious consideration. I'm sure you've read articles in mainstream publications about medical research on the role of religion and prayer in healing. And, it was just on television a couple of weeks ago about the role religion plays in helping obese people lose weight. Also, those 12 step programs for various addictions and emotional problems all rely on a God concept or "higher power" for success.

What if there's no possible way available, at the moment, to scientifically test for exact causation? Shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high? I thought that's how scientists do it when exact testing isn't possible.

The first link you gave me seemed to support exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't see any contradictions in it. Thanks for providing it. I might be able to use it in the near future. The second link on "getting married may be bad for men's health but good for women" I didn't understand too well. The research seemed old. I would probably question the research methods used or the study sample for flaws if I was in a position to do so.
Did you notice they pointed to an earlier study that said "men and women are happier if they marry"?

On your last quote where you say "I don't see what this has to do with marriage", the way I've been looking at it anything that contributes to healthy living and longer life spans today will probably make it easier for those anti-aging therapies being worked on to be more effective when they get here. Wouldn't a person who is 60 years old and in very good health from an ideal marriage and family, strict vegetarianism, calorie restriction, periodic fasting, etc., benefit more from any new anti-aging therapy than a 60 year old person in poor health from lack of a good marriage and family life, bad eating habits, substance abuse, alcoholism, smoking, etc.? Shouldn't we try to live as healthy as possible while waiting for the anti-aging therapies to arrive?

#41 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:05 AM

Thanks John! That's what I was looking for - even if you didn't fully agree on marriage. Now I can feel safe in telling people they should live as healthy as possible today if they want to benefit to the fullest from any anti-aging therapies developed tomorrow. I'm a big believer in healthy living and breaking unhealthy habits.

#42 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:29 AM

Live Forever, I realize religion may turn some people off as you say; however, I strongly believe the Bible has something important to say on longevity that researchers need to take it into serious consideration.

That is your prerogative, just know that you will not be taken as seriously as you might otherwise.

I'm sure you've read articles in mainstream publications about medical research on the role of religion and prayer in healing. And, it was just on television a couple of weeks ago about the role religion plays in helping obese people lose weight. Also, those 12 step programs for various addictions and emotional problems all rely on a God concept or "higher power" for success.

Poppycock. You can't make these types of blanket statements without providing references to the studies. (peer reviewed) That might fly some places, but this is (generally) a group of people for which proof is required. Please see the thread on how prayer does not help heart patients to see just one example of how I think prayer provides no benefit. (perhaps a placebo effect in some cases, but not so in double blind studies)

What if there's no possible way available, at the moment, to scientifically test for exact causation? Shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high? I thought that's how scientists do it when exact testing isn't possible.

You seem to be mixing and matching concepts here to suit your individual viewpoint. You seem to be saying that since something is untestable, scientists (and others) should just go ahead and readily believe it. If that is what you contend, I very much disagree. In fact, just the opposite should be true: scientists (and others) should make it a habit of not believing everything that they hear unless adequate proof is given.

The first link you gave me seemed to support exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't see any contradictions in it. Thanks for providing it. I might be able to use it in the near future.

It says if people are not happy in their marriage, their health suffers. You said people in marriages are always healthier. Thus, it is against what you are saying. People could misconstrue what you were saying to mean that all marriage is good and people should stay in it rather than be single.

The second link on "getting married may be bad for men's health but good for women" I didn't understand too well. The research seemed old. I would probably question the research methods used or the study sample for flaws if I was in a position to do so.
Did you notice they pointed to an earlier study that said "men and women are happier if they marry"?

Yes, I didn't really believe the results of the study any more than the one you provided me, I was trying to show you that marriage might in fact have detrimental effects, and that some people might be better off staying out of marriage. The links to the reports were merely meant to stimulate thought, nothing else. I could probably find a report saying whatever I wanted if I looked hard enough. The overarching theme of my comments was to say that those who choose not to marry could be just as healthy as those choosing to marry, that is all. I was trying to say that you (or others) need to either 1) provide more proof than a correlation study or 2) think twice before posting it, because it is not that sound of proof.

In general, yes, I would agree that people in marriage are probably healthier, but I don't think it is because of the marriage that they are healthier. There are a ton of other things that I would recommend doing ahead of getting married to achieve good health and a long life.

On your last quote where you say "I don't see what this has to do with marriage", the way I've been looking at it anything that contributes to healthy living and longer life spans today will probably make it easier for those anti-aging therapies being worked on to be more effective when they get here. Wouldn't a person who is 60 years old and in very good health from an ideal marriage and family, strict vegetarianism, calorie restriction, periodic fasting, etc., benefit more from any new anti-aging therapy than a 60 year old person in poor health from lack of a good marriage and family life, bad eating habits, substance abuse, alcoholism, smoking, etc.?

I suppose that depends on the type of therapy being offered. I will not speculate into the nature of the therapies that will be available before they are at least in some form of testing, or trials. I don't know what types of therapies will be available, but they very well could take care of both of the individuals you mention.

Shouldn't we try to live as healthy as possible while waiting for the anti-aging therapies to arrive?

A very resounding YES! But, I don't think you are required to be married to do so.

#43 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 July 2006 - 04:37 PM

Live Forever, I should be taken seriously on religious matters. Scientifically minded people need to consider religion as a part of the research they're engaged in. Have you ever heard of a publication called "Research News and Opportunities In Science And Theology"? They're seeing the role of God and religion in science more and more these days. You've caused me to dig up the two old 2002 issues of the publication I had buried in my boxes of paperwork. I'm going to see if I can't find the websites they frequently mention in the articles.

I looked at the thread and the link you gave about prayer and healing. Remember, that was only one single piece of research finding prayer wasn't of any medical benefit. Can you find more? The last post in the thread by cosmos was very helpful as it provided a link to the John Templeton Foundation which supports this type of research. They're mentioned in those two aforementioned publications I have.

I think you misunderstood me when I asked the question "shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high?" Let me restate the question. Shouldn't scientists take a positive view and advocate stronger marriages for healthier and longer life spans when theirs and others research shows a sufficiently strong correlation but not an exact cause and effect? It seems so wrong to take the negative, skeptical view on something as important as this. I'm for advocating that people strengthen their marriages and family life at all costs and that utopian visions of the ideal conditions for practicing marriage and family, such as communal living according to Biblical standards, be investigated and discussed.

I'm very happy that you are for living as healthy as possible while waiting for those anti-aging therapies to get here. Do you think some people might be persuaded to break unhealthy living habits - and negative ways of thinking - in order to prepare themselves for the anti-aging therapies? Maybe addictions counselors should consider it as a part of their strategy. What do you think?

#44 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:31 PM

Live Forever, I should be taken seriously on religious matters. Scientifically minded people need to consider religion as a part of the research they're engaged in. Have you ever heard of a publication called "Research News and Opportunities In Science And Theology"? They're seeing the role of God and religion in science more and more these days. You've caused me to dig up the two old 2002 issues of the publication I had buried in my boxes of paperwork. I'm going to see if I can't find the websites they frequently mention in the articles.

I looked at the thread and the link you gave about prayer and healing. Remember, that was only one single piece of research finding prayer wasn't of any medical benefit. Can you find more? The last post in the thread by cosmos was very helpful as it provided a link to the John Templeton Foundation which supports this type of research. They're mentioned in those two aforementioned publications I have.

I will say only that I really hope that I wouldn't be able to find any other studies on the subject. Researchers don't need to be spending their time and money on this poppycock. I will not respond further to the above, because it is not the proper forum. You will not bait me into a religious debate here, william. You really, really need to quit stealing threads, it is getting very annoying. Please stick to the topic that the thread was designed for (marriage). If you want to discuss your own rants, do it in a thread designed for that specific rant, or create your own thread.

I think you misunderstood me when I asked the question "shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high?" Let me restate the question. Shouldn't scientists take a positive view and advocate stronger marriages for healthier and longer life spans when theirs and others research shows a sufficiently strong correlation but not an exact cause and effect? It seems so wrong to take the negative, skeptical view on something as important as this.

Skeptical does not equal negative. You can be skeptical of something, and require proof of that thing, and not have a negative view of said thing. No, scientists should not advocate anything other than what has been proven. Like I said, there are a bunch of things that should be done before marrying that would extend one's life. (proper eating, supplements, doctor visits, donations to things like MPrize, etc.)

I'm for advocating that people strengthen their marriages and family life at all costs and that utopian visions of the ideal conditions for practicing marriage and family, such as communal living according to Biblical standards, be investigated and discussed.

You can investigate it all you want, I don't think most people would want to live like that. I know I sure don't want to move out of the city into a commune or anything.

I'm very happy that you are for living as healthy as possible while waiting for those anti-aging therapies to get here. Do you think some people might be persuaded to break unhealthy living habits - and negative ways of thinking - in order to prepare themselves for the anti-aging therapies? Maybe addictions counselors should consider it as a part of their strategy. What do you think?

That might be wise. I don't know what you are inferring by "negative ways of thinking", but I definitely agree that addictions to drugs are not a healthy way to live, and if someone was wanting to quit that addiction, they might require counseling to do so.

#45 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 July 2006 - 07:48 PM

Come on Live Forever, you're trying to sneak away from me again. The religion I'm trying to discuss applies to strengthening marriage and family as it pertains to health and longevity. These are matters of concern to the immortality Institute. Am I right?

If it was scientifically proven that the only way you could increase your life span from 120 to 150 years would be by living communally in a particular way, you still wouldn't live communally in the required way?

#46 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 08 July 2006 - 08:05 PM

Come on Live Forever, you're trying to sneak away from me again. The religion I'm trying to discuss applies to strengthening marriage and family as it pertains to health and longevity. These are matters of concern to the immortality Institute. Am I right?

I am not trying to sneak away from anything, only trying to stay on topic. As hard as it may be for you to believe, religious poppycock is not the favorite subject of everyone here. In fact, I would say you are in the minority. You don't have to bring it up in every post you make, there are some subjects that can be discussed without bringing religion up. (perhaps not for you, I don't know)

If it was scientifically proven that the only way you could increase your life span from 120 to 150 years would be by living communally in a particular way, you still wouldn't live communally in the required way?

I would do a lot of things to live to 120-150. Bring me the proof, and we will talk further. :)

#47 william

  • Guest
  • 145 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2006 - 01:15 AM

No, I don't have the scientific proof Live Forever. But I have given the matter serious thought for a number of years. I can't see how this longevity thing can succeed without communal living practiced according to the Scriptures.

I just found this "Newsweek" article titled "Family Matters", appearing in the April 25, 2005 issue, where it says: "[w]e dont get sick or stay well by ourselves. The people closest to us affect every aspect of our health - and our own well-being affects theirs." (p. 39). A Dr. Coleman is also quoted as saying: "[t]he family is the strongest and most enduring influence in any person's life. You have to take it into account." It's statements by health professionals like this as well as the Scriptures that lead me to the conclusion that marriage and family must be preserved and strengthened if we want to achieve our goals of better health and a longer life. Think about it.

Edited by william, 09 July 2006 - 09:46 AM.


⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#48 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 1,225 posts
  • -40
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 28 February 2020 - 02:38 PM

why do i get happier when my family leaves the house? its like when they are present they bring my consciousness down to theirs or because there is more of them and one of me their depressive mode etc overpowers mine mind. dont get me wrong they are my family  I have to love them (joking I do love them, or am I?) but they are a pain in the ass so I dont understand why I care about them so much......hm.. This is why I think death is important to human beings and living with the same family for million of years without dying just seems off. That is why im against infinite longevity but perhaps a few hundred years of living would be better or so.


Edited by kurdishfella, 28 February 2020 - 02:38 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users