When talking about children’s health, difficult theories such as heredity or eugenics are often cited. This is definitely contestable. First of all, heredity is only a theory, a hypothesis, which is neither exactly true nor based on a fixed principle. As yet, they are only conjectures or assumptions, which have by no means been proven to date as decisive principles; the same applies to Darwin’s theory of evolution, which likewise cannot be considered beyond the hypothetical stage. Malthusianism (the population tends to grow faster than the crop yield) also dominated the world in a certain era. Just as this theory was forgotten in the world, so will the theory of evolution and heredity soon be buried because they are not based on any concrete, fundamental principle. Is it not dangerous to draw conclusions about life or health on the basis of such flimsy theories?
An attempt is now being made, from the point of view of eugenics, to have terminally ill people sterilized by law. From a “natural order” standpoint, this is an act of willful homicide, murder, or genocide. People want to pass a law that will put an end to the existence of mentally ill people and epileptics because modern medicine, which ignores food as the origin of life and studies the disease only symptomatically, is unable to cure these people.
What a cruel, horrific and shameful crime is being committed because of ignorance! When politics and education are permeated by such ideas, the age of darkness is dawning for the world. Heredity says that one should choose the best partner to marry in order to have the best children. If the world were to follow suit, the genetically inferior would have to look for their partners among themselves. This method is too selfish and completely inappropriate. As a result, heredity and eugenics are much more dangerous than fascism or ultra-patriotism.
On the other hand, the theory of heredity claims that the predispositions of human beings are hereditary, that is, that sick parents give birth to sick children as a result of heredity. This, however, is not what Mendel said, but it is a false assertion made later on by his successors. By way of proof: Are there not healthy parents who have sick children or vice versa, are there not sick parents who give birth to a healthy child and raise it to be healthy? If the diseased predispositions were hereditary, God would have been very unjust. How absurd it would be if the innocent child had to suffer all his life because of his parents! I am completely convinced that God is absolutely just and objective, in the truest sense of the word. God has given us a life, and the normal state of that life should be health. God gives health to everyone – without distinction. Let us look at all the magnificence of nature and all the living things on this earth: All those living beings who do not try to dominate nature, who do not invent any artificial, unnatural things, do they not live completely harmoniously in and with nature, in their environment? Only the human being who violates nature and subjugates it has lost perfect health – he or she has lost a life of happiness and freedom through adaptation to nature. Scientists claim that certain diseases are transmitted through heredity. This is pure dogmatism, because in reality there is no evidence of this. They say that even myopia (nearsightedness) is hereditary. And yet science cannot prove it physiologically. How thoughtless and disgraceful it is, what an unreasonable attitude it is to claim that a thing whose origin is not known is the cause of incurable diseases!
If we suspect that diseases are inherited, should we not be ashamed that we cannot cure them? How can you be so audacious as to claim, “There is nothing I can do about it, it is hereditary”, or worse, “Finally pass the law on sterilization!” Is this hard-hearted person who dares to use such words still a human being? Or rather an arrogant person who believes he knows as much as God?
If, from a logical (formal logical/analytical) point of view, the diseased predisposition were hereditary, the same would have to be true for healthy people. Then why are sick children born to healthy mothers? If it were really so (subjunctive), one would have to find the reason for it within the shortest possible time. However, modern medicine only briefly explains that in all sick babies, the disease is congenital. What is it about this congenital predisposition? Is it heredity?
If people do not know the reason, they should also be able to admit it and not stick their noses up in the air. If people do not understand the reason, then they have to study it even more seriously. I am patiently waiting for someone to “explain” the mechanism of heredity to me.
Eugenics teaches: “The child gets its predispositions from its parents through heredity. It is undisputed that heredity works according to the rules of eugenics (strong children come from strong parents). If someone has a handicapped child, be it mentally or physically, it is because the parents are handicapped or there were handicapped parents in previous generations.” So much for modern medicine. Only, that’s not true, not even according to heredity. Intellectual or temperamental heredity has not been proven. Also certain gifts or talents as well as habits are not hereditary. It is obvious that eggplants do not grow on the vines of melons. Although it is proven that human parents cannot give birth to small dogs, how can we conclude from this that tuberculous parents cannot give birth to healthy children? It was not so long ago that tuberculosis, leprosy and other diseases were said to be hereditary. Nowadays, this is being denied. It will be the same with the congenital predisposition, and its heredity will soon be denied. What a sad, burdensome, miserable life it would be if everything were already decided: that the child of a wise man would become wise, that the child of a thief would become bad, that the child of someone with a stomach ailment would also have stomach problems. (Postulation)
Wise people can become mentally ill, thieves can become great sages or priests, even saints, myopic people can become farsighted; then why shouldn’t children be able to have a different disposition, a different mentality, a different mind from their parents?
We can be happy at the thought that a scholar can beget a foolish child, a criminal can beget a saint, and a blind man can beget a child with perfectly healthy eyes. Does that mean that all babies are always born healthy and immune to all diseases? Where then would God’s compensatory justice be for crimes committed in the past? And how could people learn from mistakes – which can manifest themselves as disease? There is no such thing as health if there is no such thing as disease. How could we feel gratitude for health – and want to maintain it – if we did not know disease?
This is the mighty divine providence. Does that mean all people start in the same area? No, not all people start in the same area. Otherwise, it would be completely unjust and compensatory justice would not exist if karma had no consequences.
Man cannot become a wise man, an adept person, or an outstanding priest without making an effort of his own. We need to learn and understand what health and disease mean and how we can create them. Man cannot become a wise man, an adept person, or an outstanding priest without making an effort of his own. God does not allow one to become a wise or outstanding person because of heredity, but only because of one’s karma and through one’s health. It is the same with the disease, because everyone “fabricates” him- or herself, because we are creator beings. Everything always happens to people according to their belief.
It would be unfair to put all the responsibility – and even worse, all the blame – for a living being’s “birth defects” on the mother alone. We know the difference of constitution and condition. Mother AND father are only responsible for the condition of the child from the moment of “conception” and in the first years of life.
And as soon as the child can think and decide for itself, the – now adult human being – is personally responsible for his or her further path in life. From then on, the parents only have an advisory function, but no longer make the decisions and therefore no longer carry the responsibility.
The area in which we start in our earthly life is also up to karma and compensatory justice. This also explains why there are people who suffer more than others. A “sick” child can also take on a task for the parents, in order to expand the parents’ consciousness. How we then develop in this earthly life depends to a large extent on consciousness – and consequently – on nutrition.
Confucius said, “ It is nonsense to claim that one must believe something when it comes to questions of truth, because something does not become true by the fact that one believes in it . ”
Is Confucius here contradicting the teaching of Jesus that “everything happens to you according to your faith” ?
No. Confucius does not contradict the teaching of Jesus. Confucius is not quoted here in sufficient detail. Confucius here teaches the difference between pseudo-faith (opinion) and true faith.
Jesus, in theGospel of Thomas, says, “Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”