Cloning
- Thread starter Bachus
- Start date
Oh, Avatar...don't laugh at poor muscleman. I think someone played a dirty trick on him and swapped out part of his brain for rocks. And we all know it's not nice to make fun of those who can't help themselves.
We should coddle muscleman, and not upset him with disagreements that might confuse him.
*soothingly* It's okay muscleman, we all believe you, and the bible too. Jesus and Santa and the ToothFairy are all real, don't worry your pretty little head about it. It'll all be okay. Now go take your firetrucks and go play outside, okay? The adults want to have a nice talk now. *pats muscleman on the head, listens for an echo*
*little voice says* Ooooh....harsh, Cupric!
*I reply* Well, he called me stupid, so stupid I shall be...
*commences drooling on self and relying upon the bible*
*little voice laughs derisively and goes back to trying to visualilze four demensions*
We should coddle muscleman, and not upset him with disagreements that might confuse him.
*soothingly* It's okay muscleman, we all believe you, and the bible too. Jesus and Santa and the ToothFairy are all real, don't worry your pretty little head about it. It'll all be okay. Now go take your firetrucks and go play outside, okay? The adults want to have a nice talk now. *pats muscleman on the head, listens for an echo*
*little voice says* Ooooh....harsh, Cupric!
*I reply* Well, he called me stupid, so stupid I shall be...
*commences drooling on self and relying upon the bible*
*little voice laughs derisively and goes back to trying to visualilze four demensions*
Muscleman,
And the big bang could be just one of an infinite number of them. Neither intelligence or chance would be required to explain the universe.
Cris
No not true. The third option is that the universe didn't have a beginning. It is infinite.
And the big bang could be just one of an infinite number of them. Neither intelligence or chance would be required to explain the universe.
Cris
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Also, the assumption that everything has a cause has not being proven.
Hi Bacchus.
I am a Christian, but please don't take my opinion to represent all Christianity with all its denominations. My personal opinion is that 'cloning' has become an overrated word. Scientist haven't created any new forms of life, or duplicated existing life. They exploit natural processes by scientific manipulation.
Souls can't be proven or disproven. I think it is a poetic/metaphysical description of the essence of being human - in a Christian paradigm: that which will survive past the physical body.
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Cells can be cloned, but who actually believes such a clone will be bereft of free will (i.e. act and think in exact duplicate to the 'original'?). I think people attack and demonise cloning out of fear and misunderstanding (some Christians scare easily, because their faith depends on them being right all the time - even by outdated standards - I'm sure if people lived longer there would still be Christian vehemently insisting the earth is flat because their belief in God was based on that being a fact: there is a place in the Bible where the "pillars of the earth" are mentioned).
But I digress. Clones aren't robots - they are living beings like any other, and should be just as sacred. If they have their own will, and can make their own choices, it follows that they are *separate* entities, not "clones" in the computer-age metaphoric or B-movie zombie sense. One clone could believe in God, and the other not. One soul will be saved, the other not. Cells grow independently of each other, and die independently. Even genetically modified cells are still not *new*, only modified.
I loved the movie Gattaca (with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman). It shows how the will could hypothetically outperform bodily or societal limitations.
It is short-sighted and arrogant to suppose man could create a human being outside God's will, and 'preclude' God from being a God to that person individually (neh-neh-neh-you-can't reach him...!) I have no problem with scientists who have god-syndrome, but I have yet to see a clone that is a mirror-image cell for cell, action for action, and thought for thought.
I am a Christian, but please don't take my opinion to represent all Christianity with all its denominations. My personal opinion is that 'cloning' has become an overrated word. Scientist haven't created any new forms of life, or duplicated existing life. They exploit natural processes by scientific manipulation.
Souls can't be proven or disproven. I think it is a poetic/metaphysical description of the essence of being human - in a Christian paradigm: that which will survive past the physical body.
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Cells can be cloned, but who actually believes such a clone will be bereft of free will (i.e. act and think in exact duplicate to the 'original'?). I think people attack and demonise cloning out of fear and misunderstanding (some Christians scare easily, because their faith depends on them being right all the time - even by outdated standards - I'm sure if people lived longer there would still be Christian vehemently insisting the earth is flat because their belief in God was based on that being a fact: there is a place in the Bible where the "pillars of the earth" are mentioned).
But I digress. Clones aren't robots - they are living beings like any other, and should be just as sacred. If they have their own will, and can make their own choices, it follows that they are *separate* entities, not "clones" in the computer-age metaphoric or B-movie zombie sense. One clone could believe in God, and the other not. One soul will be saved, the other not. Cells grow independently of each other, and die independently. Even genetically modified cells are still not *new*, only modified.
I loved the movie Gattaca (with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman). It shows how the will could hypothetically outperform bodily or societal limitations.
It is short-sighted and arrogant to suppose man could create a human being outside God's will, and 'preclude' God from being a God to that person individually (neh-neh-neh-you-can't reach him...!) I have no problem with scientists who have god-syndrome, but I have yet to see a clone that is a mirror-image cell for cell, action for action, and thought for thought.
Originally posted by Jenyar
But I digress. Clones aren't robots - they are living beings like any other, and should be just as sacred. If they have their own will, and can make their own choices, it follows that they are *separate* entities, not "clones" in the computer-age metaphoric or B-movie zombie sense. One clone could believe in God, and the other not. One soul will be saved, the other not. Cells grow independently of each other, and die independently. Even genetically modified cells are still not *new*, only modified.
...
I have no problem with scientists who have god-syndrome, but I have yet to see a clone that is a mirror-image cell for cell, action for action, and thought for thought.
Exactly on the mark here. A clone is a genetic duplicate, it will not be identical in every respect, however. People, generally, have an odd notion about cloning; that somehow the clone will be exactly the same (other than genetically) as the original. They tend to forget that there are natural "clones" walking around all over the place... identical twins are genetic clones of each other. Anyone who has known identical twins will note that while they often have striking similarities they are not actually identical (again, aside from genetically). Similarly a clone of someone would be as if they had an identical twin. They will look very much the same perhaps to the extent of being indistinguishable. But they will be very different people despite their similarities.
Cloning does, however, bring up interesting questions about the soul. For if a human clone was created (something that can be done but hasn't for ethical/political/legal reasons) at what point would that clone have a soul? At inception? At inception the "clone" is no more than a bit of discarded material from the original... when a scab falls off the cut on my arm does it then have a soul of it's own? What if clone tissue is used to grow a new kidney or heart to put back into the original person... did the "clone" tissue release it's soul or does the original now have two souls?
Not that we could ever make any determination but the implications are interesting to ponder.
~Raithere
But I digress. Clones aren't robots - they are living beings like any other, and should be just as sacred. If they have their own will, and can make their own choices, it follows that they are *separate* entities, not "clones" in the computer-age metaphoric or B-movie zombie sense. One clone could believe in God, and the other not. One soul will be saved, the other not. Cells grow independently of each other, and die independently. Even genetically modified cells are still not *new*, only modified.
...
I have no problem with scientists who have god-syndrome, but I have yet to see a clone that is a mirror-image cell for cell, action for action, and thought for thought.
Exactly on the mark here. A clone is a genetic duplicate, it will not be identical in every respect, however. People, generally, have an odd notion about cloning; that somehow the clone will be exactly the same (other than genetically) as the original. They tend to forget that there are natural "clones" walking around all over the place... identical twins are genetic clones of each other. Anyone who has known identical twins will note that while they often have striking similarities they are not actually identical (again, aside from genetically). Similarly a clone of someone would be as if they had an identical twin. They will look very much the same perhaps to the extent of being indistinguishable. But they will be very different people despite their similarities.
Cloning does, however, bring up interesting questions about the soul. For if a human clone was created (something that can be done but hasn't for ethical/political/legal reasons) at what point would that clone have a soul? At inception? At inception the "clone" is no more than a bit of discarded material from the original... when a scab falls off the cut on my arm does it then have a soul of it's own? What if clone tissue is used to grow a new kidney or heart to put back into the original person... did the "clone" tissue release it's soul or does the original now have two souls?
Not that we could ever make any determination but the implications are interesting to ponder.
~Raithere
True. It makes for interesting philosophical material, but it would probably regress into similar arguments as abortion. I'm not an absolutist, but I strongly believe humans can and do know the difference between right and wrong, without having to go through so much hair-cleaving - those arguments are the result of people who rely only on state and federal laws and not on common sense as well. No law will ever be able to cover all aspects of human rights that is satisfactory under all circumstances (the ideal of justice).
If souls are known to God even before they enter our world (Jeremiah 1:5- Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...), and every soul has a place in God's kingdom (Romans 9:11- Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."), it is up to us to decide what we do, but not possible for us to judge the fate of the soul.
Our decisions are made here and now, by us - but the consequences and implications are part of a timeless tapestry simultaneously finished and unfinished (my personal philosophy).
If souls are known to God even before they enter our world (Jeremiah 1:5- Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...), and every soul has a place in God's kingdom (Romans 9:11- Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."), it is up to us to decide what we do, but not possible for us to judge the fate of the soul.
Our decisions are made here and now, by us - but the consequences and implications are part of a timeless tapestry simultaneously finished and unfinished (my personal philosophy).
Jenyar,
Hey, good show! Always nice to see someone with a brain! Maybe you can serve as an example to the other Christians on this board, get them to use the brains God gave 'em.
I tend to forget sometimes, that there are Christians here who actually READ the bible, and then THINK about what they've read. Thank you for the reminder, Jenyar.
I'm kind of at a loss for words...I think I chased muscleman right out of the thread! (I have no patience for deliberate idiots, regardless of their faith or lack thereof)
A question:
"I strongly believe humans can and do know the difference between right and wrong, without having to go through so much hair-cleaving"
So you believe that all humans have this ability to determine right from wrong, regardless of which faith they belong to?
If so, how do you think we learn these lessons? Do you think God has sort of pre-loaded that into our brains/souls/what have you, or do you think it's something we learn as we grow, through examples we see in our parents and society around us? Or something else?
If someone percieves something as right that the bible condemns, such as homosexuality or witchcraft, for example, what do you think is going on there? Is it a misfire of our "natural" knowledge of right and wrong? Is it corruption by Satan? Or is there a chance the bible is wrong?
Thanks...I look forward to an intelligent conversation, for a change. (oh, I guess that was more than one question, huh? )
Hey, good show! Always nice to see someone with a brain! Maybe you can serve as an example to the other Christians on this board, get them to use the brains God gave 'em.
I tend to forget sometimes, that there are Christians here who actually READ the bible, and then THINK about what they've read. Thank you for the reminder, Jenyar.
I'm kind of at a loss for words...I think I chased muscleman right out of the thread! (I have no patience for deliberate idiots, regardless of their faith or lack thereof)
A question:
"I strongly believe humans can and do know the difference between right and wrong, without having to go through so much hair-cleaving"
So you believe that all humans have this ability to determine right from wrong, regardless of which faith they belong to?
If so, how do you think we learn these lessons? Do you think God has sort of pre-loaded that into our brains/souls/what have you, or do you think it's something we learn as we grow, through examples we see in our parents and society around us? Or something else?
If someone percieves something as right that the bible condemns, such as homosexuality or witchcraft, for example, what do you think is going on there? Is it a misfire of our "natural" knowledge of right and wrong? Is it corruption by Satan? Or is there a chance the bible is wrong?
Thanks...I look forward to an intelligent conversation, for a change.
(oh, I guess that was more than one question, huh? ) Jenyar,
Thanks for your reply, much better then what i've read from certain "christians" here
I don't think it will exactly act and think as the original, i think that the way you see life is more out of experience then anything else. Twins are often quite the different personalities aswell.
Thanks for your reply, much better then what i've read from certain "christians" here
I don't think it will exactly act and think as the original, i think that the way you see life is more out of experience then anything else. Twins are often quite the different personalities aswell.
B]Jenyar,
A question:
So you believe that all humans have this ability to determine right from wrong, regardless of which faith they belong to?
If so, how do you think we learn these lessons? Do you think God has sort of pre-loaded that into our brains/souls/what have you, or do you think it's something we learn as we grow, through examples we see in our parents and society around us? Or something else?
If someone percieves something as right that the bible condemns, such as homosexuality or witchcraft, for example, what do you think is going on there? Is it a misfire of our "natural" knowledge of right and wrong? Is it corruption by Satan? Or is there a chance the bible is wrong?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have an answer for that and I apologize for my behavior, (Trust me, im so confident i won the argument and a winner doesnt drive off)because usually Im used to people listening to me and my points normally go through easy (I was a catechist teacher but for 1 yr now have embraced the world) , and when it cant, I get upset, so I apologize and for now on Ill behave. (lately I have been involve in many worldly activities Im not proud of) Again I apologize. U want to prove yur mature? well here is your chance to give forgiveness ok?
Well an answer to your question...
Everyone (including pagans, asians, etc.) are born with the original sin, (pride, lust, anger, etc.) but everyone is also born with the 7 virtues, opposite of original sin (humility, temperance, patience,etc.). The world influences the original sin all the time, thats evident in present day especially in american culture. Thats the world's formation of conscience.
God in the other hand who is the word incarnate teaches the opposite of original sin which are the virtues of life. Jesus once said to Peter after Peter told Him "you are the Lord, the messiah, the Son of the living God", jesus replied "Amen I say unto you Peter for Flesh didnt reveal this to you but the Spirit of God"..Further on Jesus said "My Words are SPIRIT and Life" and he also said “Before Abraham was, I am” so Jesus existed in the beginning of time and taught the virtues then already..
God impose in the beggining of human civilizattion how to practice the virtue and noone else has (Juduaism), that is the 10 commandments, and to love, thats a virtue. The oldest known religion other than Juduaism is Hinduism and it teaches none of the virtues. From there on its handed down. Thats why every parts of the world regardless of religion who practice any of the virtues God is pleased. And if others have practiced the virtues without being baptized as a christian (buddhist, etc.), somehow he has had that idea from somewhere, whether parents even when pagans or not, but it all goes back from the beggining of civilization.
A question:
So you believe that all humans have this ability to determine right from wrong, regardless of which faith they belong to?
If so, how do you think we learn these lessons? Do you think God has sort of pre-loaded that into our brains/souls/what have you, or do you think it's something we learn as we grow, through examples we see in our parents and society around us? Or something else?
If someone percieves something as right that the bible condemns, such as homosexuality or witchcraft, for example, what do you think is going on there? Is it a misfire of our "natural" knowledge of right and wrong? Is it corruption by Satan? Or is there a chance the bible is wrong?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have an answer for that and I apologize for my behavior, (Trust me, im so confident i won the argument and a winner doesnt drive off)because usually Im used to people listening to me and my points normally go through easy (I was a catechist teacher but for 1 yr now have embraced the world) , and when it cant, I get upset, so I apologize and for now on Ill behave. (lately I have been involve in many worldly activities Im not proud of) Again I apologize. U want to prove yur mature? well here is your chance to give forgiveness ok?
Well an answer to your question...
Everyone (including pagans, asians, etc.) are born with the original sin, (pride, lust, anger, etc.) but everyone is also born with the 7 virtues, opposite of original sin (humility, temperance, patience,etc.). The world influences the original sin all the time, thats evident in present day especially in american culture. Thats the world's formation of conscience.
God in the other hand who is the word incarnate teaches the opposite of original sin which are the virtues of life. Jesus once said to Peter after Peter told Him "you are the Lord, the messiah, the Son of the living God", jesus replied "Amen I say unto you Peter for Flesh didnt reveal this to you but the Spirit of God"..Further on Jesus said "My Words are SPIRIT and Life" and he also said “Before Abraham was, I am” so Jesus existed in the beginning of time and taught the virtues then already..
God impose in the beggining of human civilizattion how to practice the virtue and noone else has (Juduaism), that is the 10 commandments, and to love, thats a virtue. The oldest known religion other than Juduaism is Hinduism and it teaches none of the virtues. From there on its handed down. Thats why every parts of the world regardless of religion who practice any of the virtues God is pleased. And if others have practiced the virtues without being baptized as a christian (buddhist, etc.), somehow he has had that idea from somewhere, whether parents even when pagans or not, but it all goes back from the beggining of civilization.
Originally posted by muscleman
Trust me, im so confident i won the argument and a winner doesnt drive off
MM, I do appreciate the attitude adjustment...
However, you have yet to even engage in a proper argument or debate much less win one.
You see there are proper forms of conduct and presentation for a formal argument or debate and thus far you have failed to adhere to any such conduct. You claim an understanding of logic, reason, and the rules of evidence yet you utterly fail to abide by them. Heck, your posts fail to even qualify as civilized discourse so far (except, perhaps, for this last one). As far as you teaching goes I certainly hope that your manner with your students is considerably different than it has been here... otherwise I feel that it would be more proper to call it abuse than education.
Here's to hoping you can maintain a civilized conversation.
~Raithere
Trust me, im so confident i won the argument and a winner doesnt drive off
MM, I do appreciate the attitude adjustment...
However, you have yet to even engage in a proper argument or debate much less win one.
You see there are proper forms of conduct and presentation for a formal argument or debate and thus far you have failed to adhere to any such conduct. You claim an understanding of logic, reason, and the rules of evidence yet you utterly fail to abide by them. Heck, your posts fail to even qualify as civilized discourse so far (except, perhaps, for this last one). As far as you teaching goes I certainly hope that your manner with your students is considerably different than it has been here... otherwise I feel that it would be more proper to call it abuse than education.
Here's to hoping you can maintain a civilized conversation.
~Raithere
muscleman,
Apology accepted, because it seems sincere.
I wasn't aware my maturity was in question.
Forgiveness is highly praised and valued in the Christian value system, I understand, however I am not Christian and was not raised with that value system. For myself, I do not always forgive so easily, and I do not consider that a flaw in myself. However, if this is all in sincerety, I will tentatively extend forgiveness to you. And I *have* accepted your apology, which is pretty close to forgiveness if you get down to brass tacks. I'm being strict with you, muscleman, but I don't think I'm unreasonable. Just a little bitchy, that's all.
Well, let's move on to your answer. And I'm pleasantly surprised at the tone of this last post, so thank you.
Okay, so do I understand that you mean we're born pretty much neutral - posessing sin but also virtue in a balanced proportion?
It sounds like you are saying the world is inherently evil, did I read that correctly?
So this means that you believe God/Jesus implants the virtue into the soul prior to birth? Is this when Original Sin is implanted as well? If not, when does original sin taint the soul, in your opinion? I understand the idea of original sin goes all the way back to Eve in the Garden, but when does it actually touch the individual soul, do you think?
Does this mean you believe that you do not have to accept Jesus as your saviour to reach Heaven? Or is God pleased, but not quite enough?
So you're saying if someone behaves "rightly", ("rightly" defined in this case as "in accordance with biblical principles"), it's not really because they want to, but because they've somehow or another managed to emphasize the virtue pre-implanted in them by God, and avoid the corruption of the world?
What if someone denies God, stands up and shouts "GOD NEVER EXISTED, OR IF HE DID, HE'S DEAD NOW", yet still lives a life a devout Christian could use as a model. What do you think the destination of that soul would be? Heaven, or Hell?
Apology accepted, because it seems sincere.
I wasn't aware my maturity was in question.
Forgiveness is highly praised and valued in the Christian value system, I understand, however I am not Christian and was not raised with that value system. For myself, I do not always forgive so easily, and I do not consider that a flaw in myself. However, if this is all in sincerety, I will tentatively extend forgiveness to you. And I *have* accepted your apology, which is pretty close to forgiveness if you get down to brass tacks. I'm being strict with you, muscleman, but I don't think I'm unreasonable. Just a little bitchy, that's all.
Well, let's move on to your answer. And I'm pleasantly surprised at the tone of this last post, so thank you.
Okay, so do I understand that you mean we're born pretty much neutral - posessing sin but also virtue in a balanced proportion?
It sounds like you are saying the world is inherently evil, did I read that correctly?
So this means that you believe God/Jesus implants the virtue into the soul prior to birth? Is this when Original Sin is implanted as well? If not, when does original sin taint the soul, in your opinion? I understand the idea of original sin goes all the way back to Eve in the Garden, but when does it actually touch the individual soul, do you think?
Does this mean you believe that you do not have to accept Jesus as your saviour to reach Heaven? Or is God pleased, but not quite enough?
So you're saying if someone behaves "rightly", ("rightly" defined in this case as "in accordance with biblical principles"), it's not really because they want to, but because they've somehow or another managed to emphasize the virtue pre-implanted in them by God, and avoid the corruption of the world?
What if someone denies God, stands up and shouts "GOD NEVER EXISTED, OR IF HE DID, HE'S DEAD NOW", yet still lives a life a devout Christian could use as a model. What do you think the destination of that soul would be? Heaven, or Hell?
again that can be likened to a parable that Jesus once said "There was a master who asked a servant to go work for him but the servant said "No, I will not go" yet later went. Another servant the master asked said "Yes I will go" yet later on didnt go. Who will the master favor? Apostles then said "The one who went" Jesus said "Surely I say unto u, prostitutes and tax collectors are entering the kingdom of God before them (the hipocrites, pharisees who proudly say they are God's people yet doesnt lift a finger to help their brothers".
In the end times many will say Lord Lord but not all will enter the Kingdom of God.
In the day of Judgment people will say "Lord let me in, for I have cast out evil in your name, i sang praise and worship in the church, etc."
Jesus then said "Depart from me you evil doers! Hungry u didnt feed me, lonely u didnt visit me, deppressed u didnt comfort me".
People then say "But Lord since when did i ever see u deprressed, lonely, hungry? after all u r the risen christ and we r happy all the time for you"
Jesus then said "whatever u do to the least of my brothers u do unto me".
This judgment is applied to all, christians or not. God judges only the goodworks and effort, for words mean nothing unless action backs it up/ Many people nowadays who claim to be christian are so focused on entertainment, singing in the church but they forgot about the 3rd world countries who r dying of desease and starvation.
"What good is it if u tell a hungry woman 'go b joyfull and glad" yet not give her bread to eat?" Faith without works is dead.
There are many christians who r going to hell because they are mislead by the false prophet prophesied in the book of revelation. Many church nowadays only teach "Only a faith alone can save a man" martin luther started that, thats prophesied in revelation, a wolf in sheeps clothing. WHEN THE FACT IS FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD the bible mentioned it clearly, I dont care how much u pray, that will go nowhere without works..