About what?

About living a very boring life, in darkness, for instance. About feeling lonely. About not being able to communicate with others. I could find many reasons.
Couldn't I also be selfish, plunging in self-pity?

How would you ever know about any of that?
How would you have the ability of feeling, and not have the ability of sensory touch?

It's an interesting question, Rosangela. My gut reaction is similar to John's, that without any senses, how would you know anything? Or, better, how could you know anything?

We are born with needs - the need to interact with others, to feel close to others, to be loved, etc. The absence of these things brings, although unconsciously, feelings of loneliness, frustration, and anger. The problem is that the person doesn't survive long, because these feelings virtually kill. Experiences after the World War II show that babies that are not touched, although adequately fed, simply die in 100% of the cases.


The first is an emotional ability intrinsic to our brain; the second is a physical ability, related to nerve endings (although capable of being interpreted emotionally by the brain).

A newborn would know virtually nothing, and, as you point out, it would quickly die without the ability to sense anything.

I'm not getting what your point is, Rosangela.

I do not dispute how we are born and the comments you make on that. However that was not your question when you said: "If I was blind and deaf, if I couldn't smell or taste and had no touch, couldn't I feel angry?"

The conditions that man is born in are different than you suggested, aren't they? It would be rather erroneous of God to create a being with a preprogrammed need to communicate and interact while providing no means to communicate and interact with.

Anyhow what is your point in relation to my comments on living by the flesh or by the spirit? What are you contending or trying to bring across?

Tom, the newborn dies because of its feelings, so a child has a mind with thoughts and feelings even without the input of the five senses.

Your point is....???

Are you just pointing out how the old man would die when the senses are not the source?

Arnold had said:


To which John had replied:


My point, guys, is that I don't agree that the lusts of the flesh are generated in the five senses. They are generated in the mind. Sometimes an input of the five senses is used, but this is not always the case. If the origin of the lusts of the flesh was in the five senses, this would mean that those who are blind, or deaf, or have any other handicap, would sin less, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. If someone lost his five senses, would he cease to sin? Did Helen Keller sin less than other people because she was blind and deaf?