Doesn't appear you are familiar with it from the looks of your comment.
Birth status or rearing in something doesn't say much about an understanding of something anymore than a liberal birthed in America and raised in a constitutional republic says about their understanding of it.
Have a good day!
digaroundandfindout
Asks a question which is answered then he responds with 'I am totally confused about Catholic doctrine and I like it that way therefore I will not be looking at the link you sent me that may help in removing some obvious confusion. No thank you very much!'
😂 Priceless.
Na. But I remember when Kim sent Trump a letter inside something that looks exactly like an envelope....
Cause what...?
Letters should be sent in watermelons or something?
Letters go inside of envelopes.
LARGE letters go inside of LARGE envelopes.
What would life be if we wouldn't be allowed to do as thou wilt?
Slavery. Bondage. An illusion.
What would a coming to God be if willed to do so?
Lukewarm at best.
You have free will so that He may have your unwavering love and devotion. Or not at all.
Ecclesiasticus 32:12
There take thy pastime, and do what thou wilt: but sin not by proud speech.
Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I'm surprised by the use of Ai by anyone "in the know". I place that term in quotations because I'm not sure they "know".
Either they don't really know or they choose to use the tool despite or use as a result of some unseen and unrealized grasp that tool has on them. A hold predating even the invention of that tool.
I'm not knocking the OP in any way. Just trying to bring to light that possibility.
Isn't it enough that we know that a tool like that does not, at the moment, have any benefit to the user? Knowing that, shouldn't we simply suppress the temptation? Isn't that, in itself, part of the struggle between attempting to live a sinless life and that of sin? Are we not identifying that action similar to that of the temptation of any other sin we are faced with in our lives?
Not trying to be a boomer or a downer but isn't it time we consider AI, in it's current form, as sin?
And if not yet convinced, shouldn't the mere possibility be enough to play it safe?
I'm baffled by friends that, on the one hand, speak of their belief that the tool is "bad" and on the other turn and speak of their adventures ("good" and bad) while using it.
Are we not going to even question the attraction that has some seemingly entranced despite the repelling force attempting to pull against?
And why aren't we recognizing that repelling force as a Calling to come Home?
OP. The dinner bell is ringing and street lights have long since lit your path.
It's time you go Home.
EO13818
Should be glorious.
Saying that two distinct "vaccines" deliver DNA material to the cell is way too simplistic and honestly only serves to confuse and overly concern readers. Honestly, it's irresponsible.
Yes the two vaccines deliver DNA to the cell. The difference is 'how?', 'what dna?' and 'how does the body react to that DNA material?'.
Vector vaccine: delivers a modified previously existing virus to the cell. The modified virus contains, in this case, pieces of COVID. The body then recognizes the DNA as foreign then instructs the cell to create antibodies. That is to say, the body writes it's own prescription against this foreign body via the transcription process then creates messenger RNA and disburses this recipe to the rest of the body so that the entire body is able to create the antibodies therefore recognize the foreign invader and defeat it.
Vector vaccines use the body's already existing and natural process to create mRNA.
mRNA vaccine: delivers bits of the corona virus to the cell using a different mechanism. Since the cell will recognize this mRNA as foreign because it was NOT made by the individuals body. As a result the mRNA vaccine has no chance to enter the cell on its own. As a result the makers of this vaccines cover the mRNA with a synthetic fat molecule. This synthetic molecule is a lipid nanoparticle. The cell does not recognize the particle that hides the mRNA within. Therefore allows this invader in without any checks. It simply does not question it. Once it's in the cell it releases the synthetic messenger RNA and instructs the body to create replicas of itself. That is to say it tricks the human biology to create the spike protein. Since the body created it the body does NOT recognize this protein as foreign therefore does NOT create antibodies INSTEAD trains the body to recognize it as benign therefore allows this spike protein to roam freely to damage as it sees fit. Why? Because, although harmful, since the body created it it begins to recognize it as NOT harmful because the body can't possibly create something harmful to itself. This mechanism is naturally occuring in the human body via the IgG4 function within our own immune system. This mechanism is the same tool the immune system uses in order to NOT react with inflammatory behavior towards other benign bodies like pollen and peanuts. That is how one may be affected by pollen early on in ones life but in their later life are unaffected by it. Because the body created a false identifier library for that foreign object and calls off the attack from your immune system so resources are not wasted on benign foreign bodies that do not cause damage to the human biology.
Since mRNA vaccines deliver THE instructions and bypass the body's naturally occuring process the body never has a chance to create a custom prescription for the disease.
More boosters yield more and an enhanced IgG4 reaction therefore hindering the body's ability to fight more with every booster. As a result we see the gravity of the disease and instances of death rise in synchronicity with booster uptake.
Again. Yes they deliver DNA to the cell. But the mechanism and body's reaction is very different. To say otherwise is irresponsible.
Do they both cause harm? Yes. But it appears, so far, the gravity of damage and amount of time that damage can occur is much different.
I did not say J&J was good in any way. I was simply bringing attention to the differences and possible outcomes.
They are two separate delivery technologies.
By definition they are NOT both mRNA "vaccines".
J&J is a vector virus delivery system where as Moderna and Pfizer are using the mRNA delivery system.
That is not to say that either one is less harmful than the other.
As of now and all I have heard is that the mRNA technology is the worst of the two since the delivery technology (vehicle) itself contains harmful components aside from instructing your biology to create the spike protein which itself is also harmful to your biology.
In other words, mRNA technology has the harmful spike protein synthesis with the added toxin of the delivery mechanism. J&J appears to only have the spike protein synthesis.
I, of course, am always willing to entertain new information. Including any information that may not be convenient. So if indeed, end result, is one in the same, it should be known in order for all to be in a better place to protect themselves and their loved ones.
The J&J jab did not use mRNA technology.
All who took the J&J jab should still be cautious but my understanding is that it does not appear to yield the same, in severity or like, problems as mRNA tech.
Not a medical professional and not giving advice.
"Trust me" he says about his misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.
A statement, void of logic, from a person claiming my misunderstanding of that words root, Logos.