Cloning Embryos

[Cephas]

Taken from here (http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/08/clone-050208.html):
Dolly the sheep creator OK'd to clone human embryos

LONDON - The scientist who created Dolly the sheep has been given a licence to clone human embryos for medical research.

Dolly the sheep was created in 1996 and euthanized in 2003. (AP photo)
Professor Ian Wilmut, who led the team behind the world's first cloned mammal at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute in 1996, plans to obtain stem cells for research into motor neuron disease.

The disease is known in Canada and in the United States as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease.

Britain's cloning watchdog, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, approved the licence on Tuesday to Wilmut and Dr. Christopher Shaw from King's College London.

It's the second such licence granted since Britain became the first country to legalize research cloning in 2001.

The researchers – who will use nuclear cell replacement, the same technique used to create Dolly – do not plan to create cloned babies.

"Our aim will be to generate stem cells purely for research purposes," Wilmut said in a statement. "This is not reproductive cloning in any way."

The researchers will take cells from the skin of people with motor neuron disease, which affects nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord and causes muscle weakness, paralysis and eventual death.

They'll put genetic material from the cells into eggs donated by women, which will be grown into six-day-old embryos.

Then they'll extract stem cells – master cells that appear when an embryo is a few days old and have the ability to develop into any type of cell and tissue in the body – and make them develop into nerve cells.

Wilmut and his colleagues will compare how the nerve cells develop in comparison to those harvested from healthy embryos.

They hope to find out what causes ALS, which affects 3,000 Canadians, and kills several of them every day. While their research won't be used to treat people with the condition, they hope it will point the way to effective treatments.

Opponents condemn licence

Cloning opponents denounced the licence Tuesday, arguing that the stem-cell technique is unethical and unnecessary.

"What a sad and extraordinary volte-face for the pioneer of animal cloning," said the London-based Comment on Reproductive Ethics.

"Wilmut has always been the loudest voice in recent years warning of the dangers of mammalian cloning. And we remember how in the years following the birth of Dolly the sheep, he assured the world he would never go near human cloning."

Wilmut has condemned the idea of cloning humans to create babies, but he supports the use of the technique for medical research.

The British researchers say it could enhance the understanding of ALS and other degenerative diseases, and perhaps lead to the discovery of new medications.

"We have spent 20 years looking for genes that cause [motor neuron disease] and to date we have come up with just one gene," Shaw said. "This is potentially a big step forward."

UN to debate cloning in February

The practice of cloning has divided the medical community and spurred debate.

The legality of cloning varies widely. It's banned in Switzerland and in Italy, for example, while Belgium, Singapore, South Korea and Japan allow it for medical research.

Last March, Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act banned the therapeutic cloning of embryonic stem cells. In the U.S., federal funding is forbidden for research on embryonic stem cells created after August 2001.

Later in February, the United Nations is scheduled to revisit the idea of banning human therapeutic and reproductive cloning.
Okay folks, the day has come where human embryos will be cloned. I don't think the fact that I stand against this will be a shock to anyone here. I see life as sacred from conception right through to death.

I'm curious to see how other people view this. When, in your opinion, does life begin? (NO NO NO stupid comments about life starting sometime after 5:00pm on Fridays, please!) What right do we have to toy with it in this manner? Ethically speaking, how do you view this?

[Walrus]

i dont know where i stand on this. it comes down to when you judge a human life as really a "life". if the embryo is destined to ever actually grow up then i would definitely be opposed to it, and yet it seems wrong to just cut down lives before they have even developed.
ill leave it at that since im not in the mood for a really serious discussion :(

[TheBlazedAce]

Taken from here (http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/08/clone-050208.html):

Okay folks, the day has come where human embryos will be cloned. I don't think the fact that I stand against this will be a shock to anyone here. I see life as sacred from conception right through to death.

I'm curious to see how other people view this. When, in your opinion, does life begin? (NO NO NO stupid comments about life starting sometime after 5:00pm on Fridays, please!) What right do we have to toy with it in this manner? Ethically speaking, how do you view this?

Cephas, I've said it time and time again. Stop being late! It's 2:00 pm on Fridays ok! Just joking. I had to be the first to say it. :)

Alright, I'll return to the subject at hand. Ethically I have no querrals with cloning. I have doubts that anyone would see reason to literally clone humans and I strongly doubt almost anyone would want themselves cloned in all seriousness. Just as promised this is primarily used for research purposes. If this research can save so many lives there's almost no reason to stand in its way.

[Shiny Flors]

I have problems with parts of the experimentation with stem cells.

The part I do not have a problem with is using stem cells for research. Just because a cell is a stem cell does not mean it will become a living person. I do believe life begins at conception and the process for making stem cells is what I disagree with. Unfortunately to make immortalized stem cell lines(immortalized stem cells are what is required for repeatable scientific experiments) you have to harvest eggs from a woman and fertilize the eggs using nuclear cell replacement or a sperm, like they do in vitro fertilization. This is why I agree with the US's stand on stem cell research where no new stem cell lines used for research can be federally funded.
And I disagree with the methods that are being used by Professor Wilmut.

[S_K_O_F]

This is why I agree with the US's stand on stem cell research where no new stem cell lines used for research can be federally funded.


this is important...because stem cell research is not illegal...the government just will not fund the research anymore

that doesn't stop it from being researched though
as usual, i believe that this is something the government should stay away from...but this time, apparently someone else agrees with me

[Office_Shredder]

Well, if the government doesn't fund stem cell research, then when there is a big breakthrough, whichever country funded it will have a significant edge in the medical world (which, in case you didn't notice, eats up a huge chunk of the economy)

[DeadFishGuy]

I don't believe 'life' (in this context) starts until the brain is developed enough to experience things.

When you're talking about embryos that are only 6 days old, they are just a bunch of cells. They can't think or experience anything, so they won't mind not getting to experience life, because they can't mind.

Also, if the research is successful many lives could be saved. So those people who think of cloning as murder may in fact be supporting the death of the people with motor neurone disease.

[Goldberg]

Oh god, this thread is going in the same direction as all the others before it. Well, I might as well join until the soup is still warm.

- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism -

I believe that life starts when a baby is conceived in the mother's womb. When the cells are formed, it is a form of life however badly you wish to contradict it. It is not dead; it has cells that function, and organs that perform little tasks of digestion later on. Fully functioning brain is not required to consider a being alive; plants, algae, and many others do not have those and still contribute to their population.

In regards to cloning, I am opposed to it as well. If 'cloning' is to be done for research purposes, then I heavily look down on those that do because life is never made for artificial purpose.

edit: few grammar errors :o

[old_man_killer]

I agree with both Cephas and Goldberg. Life does begin with comception. Once the egg splits, it has now become a separate and viable life form. As Goldberg stated so well, brain function is not a prerequisite for life. After all look at Washington DC, they are all considered alive but there hasn't been any brain function there since Truman! LOL.

[Office_Shredder]

So... everyone who opposes stem cell research because the cells are alive should also oppose using rats to test medicines on, right? And hunting also... because those are alive... hell, anti-biotics are just weapons of mass destruction!

[TheBlazedAce]

Oh god, this thread is going in the same direction as all the others before it. Well, I might as well join until the soup is still warm.

- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism -

I believe that life starts when a baby is conceived in the mother's womb. When the cells are formed, it is a form of life however badly you wish to contradict it. It is not dead; it has cells that function, and organs that perform little tasks of digestion later on. Fully functioning brain is not required to consider a being alive; plants, algae, and many others do not have those and still contribute to their population.

In regards to cloning, I am opposed to it as well. If 'cloning' is to be done for research purposes, then I heavily look down on those that do because life is never made for artificial purpose.

edit: few grammar errors :o

I agree with both Cephas and Goldberg. Life does begin with comception. Once the egg splits, it has now become a separate and viable life form. As Goldberg stated so well, brain function is not a prerequisite for life. After all look at Washington DC, they are all considered alive but there hasn't been any brain function there since Truman! LOL.

According to your definition viruses, bacteria, diseases, even cells of cancer are considered "life". I'm not saying the definition is wrong, you can call it whatever you like. It's just I don't see you rallying against cancer killing research or how about just every anti-biotic in your local pharmacy. You might as well be yelling at people who undergo chemo-therapy for their blatant murder of innocent, living cancer cells!

At leats admit that stem-cell research can and probably will save many lives in the future. Are you willing to tell me the countless lives this research can save is going to be outweighed because it sort of hurts what is your definition of "life"?!

[S_K_O_F]

So... everyone who opposes stem cell research because the cells are alive should also oppose using rats to test medicines on, right? And hunting also... because those are alive... hell, anti-biotics are just weapons of mass destruction!

i disagree...i believe human life is above other life
but obviously you must believe in a higher power to follow suit with this
If i were an athiest, I would believe exactly what you are saying OS...without question

[Office_Shredder]

Except these cells aren't really humans at all (sure, they may be in nine months or whatever, but right now they're just a bunch of cells)

[S_K_O_F]

Except these cells aren't really humans at all (sure, they may be in nine months or whatever, but right now they're just a bunch of cells)

which is what i would believe if I were an athiest

but I believe that humans have souls, and I believe the soul exists at conception
i believe there is more to being human than a existing as a bunch of cells

[old_man_killer]

According to your definition viruses, bacteria, diseases, even cells of cancer are considered "life". I'm not saying the definition is wrong, you can call it whatever you like. It's just I don't see you rallying against cancer "

You won't see me rallying against the mass destruction of cock roaches either!

[Walrus]

i disagree...i believe human life is above other life



i hate that phrase :(

within a few 100 years humans will have wrecked this planet if they havent already, while other species are content with their lot, humans are not. how does this make us higher and better? because of our intelligence? our physical structure? our ambition? im not saying im opposed to ambition and intelligence, but i hate it when people talk about how much better humans are than other species...life is life, if you were born as a deer then you would probably see it differently ;)

[Office_Shredder]

Walrus, here's where we hit the impasse where all logical debate fails for the simple fact that the other side doesn't want to analyze the facts

[old_man_killer]

Personally, I see humans as having dominion over this planet, but I wouldn't say we are the higher level of intellegence. I think it would be much more intellent to live as the animals do, in harmony with nature. Man is the only species that sends off its young, healthy males to die in wars while the sick of mind and body stay alive to reproduce. Think about that one.

[DeadFishGuy]

I believe that humans have souls, and I believe the soul exists at conception
i believe there is more to being human than a existing as a bunch of cells

Your brain controls all of your muscles and various other actions of the body. To do so, it has to have some sort of physical effect on the path through the nervous system that leads to the organ/muscle/whatever in question. The brain sends impulses along the nerves, which is a physical effect.

Souls would have to have to be acting physically on the brain to control us. There is no evidence for this.

We seem to have a conciousness, not because we have some sort of spirit, but simply because our brains are much much much more complex than other organisms' brains.

[Office_Shredder]

Personally, I see humans as having dominion over this planet, but I wouldn't say we are the higher level of intellegence. I think it would be much more intellent to live as the animals do, in harmony with nature. Man is the only species that sends off its young, healthy males to die in wars while the sick of mind and body stay alive to reproduce. Think about that one.

It means the sick minds are in the white house ;)

[Goldberg]

According to your definition viruses, bacteria, diseases, even cells of cancer are considered "life". I'm not saying the definition is wrong, you can call it whatever you like. It's just I don't see you rallying against cancer killing research or how about just every anti-biotic in your local pharmacy. You might as well be yelling at people who undergo chemo-therapy for their blatant murder of innocent, living cancer cells!

At leats admit that stem-cell research can and probably will save many lives in the future. Are you willing to tell me the countless lives this research can save is going to be outweighed because it sort of hurts what is your definition of "life"?!

Hilarious, I am almost laughing my head off reading this. Blazed, you and many others know exactly what I mean when you try and twist my words. Please refrain from doing so. Stop don't try and make it so I am opposed to antibiotics, for crying out loud don't be so foolish. Have you seen the innocent animals that are being tested on?

Healthy and strong animals like rats, rabbits, and what have you are taken from the wild to be tested for certain side-effects. People inject them with god know's what and see if it causes any harm. I am not saying stem-cell research will never save quadruple tuple quple millions of life in the future, they may. What I'm saying is that I am opposed to the use of humans through cloning for research purposes.

edit: secret :)

[Tama Drummer]

Taken from here (http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/08/clone-050208.html):

Okay folks, the day has come where human embryos will be cloned. I don't think the fact that I stand against this will be a shock to anyone here. I see life as sacred from conception right through to death.

I'm curious to see how other people view this. When, in your opinion, does life begin? (NO NO NO stupid comments about life starting sometime after 5:00pm on Fridays, please!) What right do we have to toy with it in this manner? Ethically speaking, how do you view this?

I don't feel like reading that lnog quote, so this is just my opinion of cloning in general.

I think it's stupid.

What good is cloning going to do us? We allready have a constantly increasing population, there's no need to make duplicates of ourselves. Personally, there are many MUCH more important things to be spent money on and research, such as working on different cars, as I think it's been predicted in 20 years there will be no more gas to power the cars.


I haven't read any posts, cause I don't have time at the moment, so sorry if someone said this allready, but what even is the point to cloning? What really is so good about cloning people? I really think there is absolutely no point at all.

[TheBlazedAce]

I don't feel like reading that lnog quote, so this is just my opinion of cloning in general.

I think it's stupid.

What good is cloning going to do us? We allready have a constantly increasing population, there's no need to make duplicates of ourselves. Personally, there are many MUCH more important things to be spent money on and research, such as working on different cars, as I think it's been predicted in 20 years there will be no more gas to power the cars.


I haven't read any posts, cause I don't have time at the moment, so sorry if someone said this allready, but what even is the point to cloning? What really is so good about cloning people? I really think there is absolutely no point at all.

This article is about stem-cell research, not really cloning. Honestly, don't ever post again if you can't even read the first post which starts a thread.

Hilarious, I am almost laughing my head off reading this. Blazed, you and many others know exactly what I mean when you try and twist my words. Please refrain from doing so. Stop don't try and make it so I am opposed to antibiotics, for crying out loud don't be so foolish. Have you seen the innocent animals that are being tested on?

Healthy and strong animals like rats, rabbits, and what have you are taken from the wild to be tested for certain side-effects. People inject them with god know's what and see if it causes any harm. I am not saying stem-cell research will never save quadruple tuple quple millions of life in the future, they may. What I'm saying is that I am opposed to the use of humans through cloning for research purposes.

edit: secret

You're the one being foolish. People like you consider this whole "sanctity of life" argument half-way so long as it suits your needs. If it applies to bunny rabbits it applies to diseases, cancer, viruses, ameobos, bacteria, etc. I guess one bunny rabbit is more important than the lives of millions. If new medication or anything used to test on animals isn't tested what do you suppose will happen? Nevermind possibly saving millions, you have a few rabbits to save!

[DeadFishGuy]

Tama, the quote specified that the embryos would only be used for medical research. Not reproductive purposes.

So cloning is being used to help find cures for things like motor neurone disease and not overpopulating the planet.

[Goldberg]

You're the one being foolish. People like you consider this whole "sanctity of life" argument half-way so long as it suits your needs. If it applies to bunny rabbits it applies to diseases, cancer, viruses, ameobos, bacteria, etc. I guess one bunny rabbit is more important than the lives of millions. If new medication or anything used to test on animals isn't tested what do you suppose will happen? Nevermind possibly saving millions, you have a few rabbits to save!

Oh so now you don't care about the "bunny rabbits" just so humans can strive in the world? How ironic, for this is the exact mindset humans have when it comes to betterment. Maybe you should go to some 'cloning laboratory' and get yourself a baby that will bloom into what you are twenty years from now. While you're there, I'll be wearing a bunny-rabbit costume and jab you with a carrot.

[Dark*Demon]

I'll be wearing a bunny-rabbit costume and jab you with a carrot.
you better not be jabbing any1 with me...

[DeadFishGuy]

Are a few rabbits really significant at all, Goldberg?

Come to think of it, is ANY form of life significant?

[Bottle]

This and every other discussion about life issues will come down to one thing: whether you're religious/believe in the sanctity of life, or if you're an atheist/scientist.

The problem is that the law deals with black and white, open and shut cases. The law requires there to be a definite beginning to life. The problem is, the subject isn't black and white, but a series of grey colours with black at one end and white at the other. You can't actually define when life begins no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you debate. We simply don't know. It's a matter of opinion.

My personal opinion is that the research should go ahead, but again, that's an opinion. My reasoning is that it could potentially save thousands of lives without actually ending any. In fact, these "cloned" embryos would never get the chance to grow and develop into full human beings anyway if they weren't used for research purposes. I don't see them as alive. Alive, in my view, is (broadly) the ability to think and be aware of yourself and your surroundings.

But these discussions will always begin and end in smoke and arguments over opinions. They're fun for a while though, so you guys carry on.

*sits back to watch argument*

[MokoToko]

Bottle is right, it comes down to religous views and such

*sits next to bottle*

*tosses him one of Hugh's beers*

[TheBlazedAce]

Oh so now you don't care about the "bunny rabbits" just so humans can strive in the world? How ironic, for this is the exact mindset humans have when it comes to betterment. Maybe you should go to some 'cloning laboratory' and get yourself a baby that will bloom into what you are twenty years from now. While you're there, I'll be wearing a bunny-rabbit costume and jab you with a carrot.

As I first stated, because you obviously can't think back more then one post, there is literally no reason to entirely clone a human and no human wants to make a clone of themselves. This entire debate is less about cloning and more about stem-cell research.

You're the one that's putting the lives of probably 100 rabbits above the lives of potentialy millions of people. We're not killing every rabbit in existance you duffus, but experimentation must be done, and a sacrfice must be made for the safety of the rest of the world. Stop thinking inside your little box already!

[Goldberg]

Why do you keep putting emphasis on rabbits anyway? Do you really think it is just rabbits that are being tested on? It starts from rats, to rabbits, then dogs, now potentially HUMANS. Go sacrifice yourself, "duffus"! :)

[S_K_O_F]

i hate that phrase :(

within a few 100 years humans will have wrecked this planet if they havent already, while other species are content with their lot, humans are not. how does this make us higher and better? because of our intelligence? our physical structure? our ambition? im not saying im opposed to ambition and intelligence, but i hate it when people talk about how much better humans are than other species...life is life, if you were born as a deer then you would probably see it differently ;)

it would appear to me that each different species of animal feels just like I do...must be why they get so territorial when other animals get too close

[S_K_O_F]

This and every other discussion about life issues will come down to one thing: whether you're religious/believe in the sanctity of life, or if you're an atheist/scientist.

The problem is that the law deals with black and white, open and shut cases. The law requires there to be a definite beginning to life. The problem is, the subject isn't black and white, but a series of grey colours with black at one end and white at the other. You can't actually define when life begins no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you debate. We simply don't know. It's a matter of opinion.

My personal opinion is that the research should go ahead, but again, that's an opinion. My reasoning is that it could potentially save thousands of lives without actually ending any. In fact, these "cloned" embryos would never get the chance to grow and develop into full human beings anyway if they weren't used for research purposes. I don't see them as alive. Alive, in my view, is (broadly) the ability to think and be aware of yourself and your surroundings.

But these discussions will always begin and end in smoke and arguments over opinions. They're fun for a while though, so you guys carry on.

*sits back to watch argument*

I want to make it clear that I also believe that stem cell research should be continued. I just believe it should be privately funded.
I haven't read into this a lot but I do know there are ways of gaining stem cells without cloning. it is just a little more difficult.

And also to everyone, I may believe, because of religion, that humans are more important than all other life on this planet, but I do not use that belief to justify animal abuse. I have a great deal of respect for all life. It still bothers me that animals are used in laboratories. somewhat

but having respect for life doesn't mean I don't consider myself and all human life first before all other life...the only reason we are capable of surviving is our intelligence. without that, we would have been hunted to extinctions by our "fellow animals" because of their physical superiority, thousands of years ago

[TheBlazedAce]

Why do you keep putting emphasis on rabbits anyway? Do you really think it is just rabbits that are being tested on? It starts from rats, to rabbits, then dogs, now potentially HUMANS. Go sacrifice yourself, "duffus"! :)

Yes, that's exactly why I was using rabbits, becuase I think that only rabbits are tested on and no other animal. It couldn't be because you were talking about rabbit costumes, that would just be too logical, but I forget that you don't abide by that form of debate. Let's look at the trend here. First rats, "to" rabbits (this is what Goldberg is really scared of), then dogs (although I haven't heard of the last testing on dogs I know it's been done, but honestly where the hell are you taking this?), boom into potentially HUMANS! A big jump there, I guess we decided that the next scary thing right after a gigantic leap from rabbits to dogs was humans.

If you're going to point out my first spelling error in the last 20 or so posts at least make sure the post you're pointing it out on is gramatically correct, nincompoop!

[Goldberg]

You sound like Mokotoko from a previous thread. Read between the lines. The animals I have stated are not the only ones, you immature nine year old. Those are examples, I repeat EXAMPLES, of what are being tested on. I predict you are going to ask for proof: go read in the newspaper, search in google, of this matter. Your petty responses are getting you nowhere in arguing your side.

I feel like I am talking to a child who, upon seeing a man wearing a monster mask, thinks the person behind the mask is in fact A REAL MONSTER!! Oh I'm sorry, please resume to your make-believe world of candies and rainbows.

[Walrus]

it would appear to me that each different species of animal feels just like I do...must be why they get so territorial when other animals get too close


the problem lies within the concept of society itself. humans grouped together into larger and larger cultures until they become entire nations. at the risk of sounding like an anarchist, if humans had stayed in small clans and tribes then the world would be a better place.

[S_K_O_F]

the problem lies within the concept of society itself. humans grouped together into larger and larger cultures until they become entire nations. at the risk of sounding like an anarchist, if humans had stayed in small clans and tribes then the world would be a better place.

you wont get any disagreement from me here

[Walrus]

motion passed; next topic, the arising problem of banff being so much better than the other servers...

[xerent]

You're all a bit late. There are some 30 odd genetically produced people living in the world right now.

That number has also probably at least doubled.

[Serge]

That's bologna! *nervous laughter* There's no way that can be true! *shifty eyes* Genetically produced people...*scratches neck*...who ever heard of such a thing. *wipes sweaty palms on jeans*

[bludhoundz]

After all look at Washington DC, they are all considered alive but there hasn't been any brain function there since Truman! LOL.
At least Clinton knew that blunts filled with weed were illegal...unlike Bush at age 12.

[xerent]

And by genetically produced, I mean cloned.

</sigh> ^^;

[Serge]

And by genetically produced, I mean cloned.

</sigh> ^^;

:smile:

[Cephas]

My issue is not with cloning. I don't really have major issues with that, although I might if I gave it real thought. My problem is with cloning embryos for the express purpose of destroying them for research. Adult stem cells are available in abundance, and I don't know of anyone who has a problem with them being used for research. Their potential is as of yet untapped, why is the big focus on the ebryotic stem cell research? Sometimes I wonder if the whole thrust of it is for media coverage in order to get funding...

[Serge]

It could be because scientests know that embryiotic stem cells are more likely to work? I'm don't know if that's true, but it makes sense to me.

[Realist]

It could be because scientests know that embryiotic stem cells are more likely to work? I'm don't know if that's true, but it makes sense to me.

It is very true.

I think there is actually a consensus on this thread: The only way to justify the prevention of stem cell research is religion.

Its illegal for our government to base legislation off of religion (1st amendment); and even beyond the constitution, making decisions based on false religions rather than reason is stupid by definition.

[old_man_killer]

Yes, that's exactly why I was using rabbits, becuase I think that only rabbits are tested on and no other animal. It couldn't be because you were talking about rabbit costumes, that would just be too logical, but I forget that you don't abide by that form of debate. Let's look at the trend here. First rats, "to" rabbits (this is what Goldberg is really scared of), then dogs (although I haven't heard of the last testing on dogs I know it's been done, but honestly where the hell are you taking this?), boom into potentially HUMANS! A big jump there, I guess we decided that the next scary thing right after a gigantic leap from rabbits to dogs was humans.

If you're going to point out my first spelling error in the last 20 or so posts at least make sure the post you're pointing it out on is gramatically correct, nincompoop!

In all actuality, testing has and does happen to Dogs, Rabbits, Monkeys and even humans. Sometimes the human subjects know they are in a blind study (IE half get placibos the other half a medication being tested) but sometimes they just use the military without telling them. Don't be shocked but during the 1950's they used to line up our soldiers in the dessert to "observe" nuclear blasts, but what they were doing was testing how close they could safely put the soldiers to a blast without affecting thier ability to fight. Unfortunately for our boys, no one realized just how lethal the fallout was then.
But to the subject at hand, stem cell research. I am against it because, like everything else. Once you allow the scientists a foothold into this research, then it will slowly progress to the point of someone somewhere feeling it is OK to try the cloning of a human just to see if it can be done. Let me give you an example of this mentality. In Ft. Myers FL where I live, there was a large undeleloped area of land. This area was inhabited by lots of native wildlife including the Fl. Panther which is protected. The land owners pushed to get a new University built there and the selling point was that NO other building or developement would happen there and the area would stay natural. Well the school was built, followed quickly by 2 shopping malls and 5 golf course communities. The area is all built up. The point is that if you give in a little, then they take a little more, then more, then more. It never stops unless it is not allowed to start.

[old_man_killer]

It is very true.

I think there is actually a consensus on this thread: The only way to justify the prevention of stem cell research is religion.

Its illegal for our government to base legislation off of religion (1st amendment); and even beyond the constitution, making decisions based on false religions rather than reason is stupid by definition.

OK, then, what the hell Realist old boy, why bother with stem cell cloning, lets just use real babies. Afterall, research shouldn't be limited by moral issues. BTW, morality is not a religion.

[Ignition]

why bother colning or even give birth the real way the earth is over populated anyway.
or at least it will be by the time thy start cloning people (or babys what ever).

[Shiny Flors]

To Realist,
Human cloning has been outlawed in many countries, there are a few that have not oulawed it and there are reports that privately funded groups have cloned humans but there is much speculation in the scientific community becasue they will not allow genetic tests done of the donor and the clone, saying it is to protect the rights of the indivuduals involved.


It could be because scientests know that embryiotic stem cells are more likely to work? I'm don't know if that's true, but it makes sense to me.


Embryonic stem cells are more likely to work becuase there has not been any differentiation of the cells. There are other types of stem cells that have already begun to form a type of tissue and while they still have the potential to become anything it is unlikely that they will change the course they have begun. There are other sources of stem cells besides embryonic stem cells like in babies cord blood and all other tissues of the human body but they are rare and are extremely diffecult(i.e. expensive) to isolate. The problem with cord blood stem cells is there cannot be a reproduction of the experiment which is necessary for "good" research. The easiest source for stem cells is then embryo's, becasue they are cheaper to make or they can be collected from in vitro fertilizations that were not implanted and abortions.

The question of human embryotic research is a morality and ethical question of when does a human life begin. Does life begin at conception or is an embryo just a mass of cells, a potential for life?

For me, I think life begins at conception so I cannot condone human embryotic research. Human embryotic research is not a proven method it only has potential to give us clues as to the cause of various genetic diseases. I see advocates for human embryonic research saying irreguardless of whether an embryo is a life, the end justifies the means.

[TheBlazedAce]

You sound like Mokotoko from a previous thread. Read between the lines. The animals I have stated are not the only ones, you immature nine year old. Those are examples, I repeat EXAMPLES, of what are being tested on. I predict you are going to ask for proof: go read in the newspaper, search in google, of this matter. Your petty responses are getting you nowhere in arguing your side.

I feel like I am talking to a child who, upon seeing a man wearing a monster mask, thinks the person behind the mask is in fact A REAL MONSTER!! Oh I'm sorry, please resume to your make-believe world of candies and rainbows.


Yes, that's exactly why I was using rabbits, becuase I think that only rabbits are tested on and no other animal. It couldn't be because you were talking about rabbit costumes, that would just be too logical, but I forget that you don't abide by that form of debate.

How can anyone not notice the blatant sarcasm in my post!?


Let's look at the trend here. First rats, "to" rabbits (this is what Goldberg is really scared of), then dogs (although I haven't heard of the last testing on dogs I know it's been done, but honestly where the hell are you taking this?), boom into potentially HUMANS!

I even said "I know it's been done"! You're either a) not reading (which I wouldn't put past someone like you) or b) purposfully being an immature jerk who enjoys being an idiot to attract everyone's attention, just the way a child you are accusing me of being would act, hypocrit!

Honestly Goldberg, do you understand anything that I say? You take what I say and for some reason pull something out that amounts to absolutely nothing I have stated. What dillusioned moron would assume any of the things you've said I did in the previous post?! How stupid are you?! You're taking every point I make and ignoring it! I ask you for the last time, why are you putting the possible saving of millions of lives above the lives of maybe a few thousand animals? Why, if you care for all those animals are you not rallying against cancer-killing research or anti-biotics (they all kill life)?! I ask you them over and over, but you continue to ignore my questions and continue to pull half-assed responses out of who knows where. When you decide to stop acting like an immature imbecille then I'll be waiting for an actual response from you.

[Office_Shredder]

OK, then, what the hell Realist old boy, why bother with stem cell cloning, lets just use real babies. Afterall, research shouldn't be limited by moral issues. BTW, morality is not a religion.

Because there's no research we can do with babies...

[Cephas]

xyx, or Realist, if you prefer; I love the way you slip in insults into everything you say. You claim to have changed, but I have yet to see anything to indicate that. Northwind, while I disagree with him often, has my respect because he is respectful in how he does things. My respect probably doesn't matter a whit to you, but I want to go on record stating that I have never had the priviledge of meeting someone so blatantly disrespectful, so intolerant, and so flippant about insulting people in my life.

Now, for some reading:

There are proven results from Adult Stem Cell Research, and there is little to show for the Embryotic equivalent (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4038281.stm)

The IL court sees Embryos as human (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-egg05.html) (I suppose that xyx would see the court as religious)

There are other viable sources that have yet to be tapped (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107903011703&call_pageid=970599119419)

A testimony in favour of legislation to ban human cloning in Missouri (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/2005-02-01-smith.pdf) (on PDF, it might take a while to pull up)

This one relates to what I was saying about media coverage... (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/062pkvsn.asp)

Have fun reading folks!

[S_K_O_F]

xyx, or Realist, if you prefer; I love the way you slip in insults into everything you say. You claim to have changed, but I have yet to see anything to indicate that. Northwind, while I disagree with him often, has my respect because he is respectful in how he does things. My respect probably doesn't matter a whit to you, but I want to go on record stating that I have never had the priviledge of meeting someone so blatantly disrespectful, so intolerant, and so flippant about insulting people in my life.


I have been saying the same things to him since he came on the site as realist

he hasn't been listening

[Northwind]

OK, I tried to stay out of this, I really did. Curse you Cephas for your compelling threads!

The point that almost everyone has missed thus far is that establishing new stem-cell lines does not rely on the killing of embryos that would otherwise mature into actual people. There are literally _thousands_ of leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization that will never be implanted. Thus, the prospective "life" will already not occur. Being opposed to stem-cell research therefore is arguing for the position that it is better that these already created embryos should simply be wasted for the good of no one than it is for them to be used to potentially cure deadly and debilitating diseases. I don't think the math adds up.

If people were truly opposed to the destruction of embryos, they would argue vehemently against in-vitro fertilization (which almost always results in extra fertilized embryos). It seems like pure hypocrisy to me to be against stem-cell research but not in-vitro fertilization. My sense is that certain politicians oppose stem-cell research and not in-vitro fertilization because it would be politically unviable to come out against in-vitro fertilization. This might make good politics, but it has nothing to do with morals.

[Cephas]

OK, I tried to stay out of this, I really did. Curse you Cephas for your compelling threads!

The point that almost everyone has missed thus far is that establishing new stem-cell lines does not rely on the killing of embryos that would otherwise mature into actual people. There are literally _thousands_ of leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization that will never be implanted. Thus, the prospective "life" will already not occur. Being opposed to stem-cell research therefore is arguing for the position that it is better that these already created embryos should simply be wasted for the good of no one than it is for them to be used to potentially cure deadly and debilitating diseases. I don't think the math adds up.

If people were truly opposed to the destruction of embryos, they would argue vehemently against in-vitro fertilization (which almost always results in extra fertilized embryos). It seems like pure hypocrisy to me to be against stem-cell research but not in-vitro fertilization. My sense is that certain politicians oppose stem-cell research and not in-vitro fertilization because it would be politically unviable to come out against in-vitro fertilization. This might make good politics, but it has nothing to do with morals.
Have I yet made a thread you could keep your nose out of, Northwind? :D

At least you can't call me a hyppycrite here. I don't think that IVF is good either. I recall hearing about a couple that after finding out that there were severable viable fertilized eggs, put them up for adoption through Christian agencies and had a few couples adopt them. Unfortunately, similarly to abortion, it is a fact of our society. In my opinion, it is still murder to destroy them for research...

[old_man_killer]

Northy, this is an interesting point except the part about "left over" embryo's with in vitro. Having been involved with that process once, I can of course only comment from experience and not from books and here say like some here. Whereas they harvested the eggs from the donor and fertilized it, once fertilization took place then it became the embryo. There were no others, just the one. That one was placed into the womb by in-vitro. Which of course developed into a human being. The left over eggs and sperm was destroyed and not saved. They did not fertilize multiple eggs and then randomly pick one and throw away the rest. The female body disposes of un fertilized eggs every month (menstruation) and well you boys know the flip side of that too.

[TheBlazedAce]

The female body disposes of un fertilized eggs every month (menstruation) and well you boys know the flip side of that too.

old_man_killer is a girl?! :eek: :eek:

[old_man_killer]

old_man_killer is a girl?! :eek: :eek:

Not the last time I checked.

I was of course trying to be polite about how the males dispose of unwanted sperm. I am sure you have a good grasp of the method of which I refer.

[Northwind]

I was of course trying to be polite about how the males dispose of unwanted sperm. I am sure you have a good grasp of the method of which I refer.
OK, THAT was funny. :)

Though I'm sure you won't deny that most in-vitro fertilizations results in a number of fertilized embryos. (http://www.ncfmc.com/progsum.htm#embryo) As they allude in the article, they typically fertilize a number of eggs in order to find the most viable embryos to implant. This is not hearsay, it is simply how it's done. I'm not sure what might have happened in your case, but this is not the norm. How else would Cephas have had the experience he had? (I put this in as I assume you find Cephas a more credible source of information than me.)

[TheBlazedAce]

Not the last time I checked.

I was of course trying to be polite about how the males dispose of unwanted sperm. I am sure you have a good grasp of the method of which I refer.

I know, it was a joke, expecting an equally hilarious response, which indeed occured. :D

[Bottle]

*is still chugging beer*

*offers bets on whether someone will get banned as a result of this discussion with Moko*

[S_K_O_F]

Not the last time I checked.

I was of course trying to be polite about how the males dispose of unwanted sperm. I am sure you have a good grasp of the method of which I refer.

lol...that was a perfect way to say that OMK

"grasp"

[drakonfire]

*offers bets on whether someone will get banned as a result of this discussion with Moko*


i'll join you in a second, and as it hasnt happened yet, i doubt it will

*walks into the convo*

okay as i understand it they do fertalize multiple eggs for IVF (i have a lil cousin now thanks to this) and implant them all into the woman, but only one ever takes (usually) the reason they do fertalize multiple eggs is because there is a high probablity that they will not take (be rejected? i dont know exactly how it works) and nothing will develope because of it

anyway, back to the topic, i'm against it for the same reason OMK is, i'm also against animal testing, but thats just out of respect for the world around me, i dont think it is morally wrong though (if anyone is interested as to why, God gave man dominion over the earth and all that was in it in Genesis) as i believe killing an embryo is

and i guess i havent really formed an opinion on IVF because i never considered that side of it, north you have given me something to chew on...
[/2 cents]

*sits on the other side of bottle with a 12 pack of dew*

[Cephas]

Though I'm sure you won't deny that most in-vitro fertilizations results in a number of fertilized embryos. (http://www.ncfmc.com/progsum.htm#embryo) As they allude in the article, they typically fertilize a number of eggs in order to find the most viable embryos to implant. This is not hearsay, it is simply how it's done. I'm not sure what might have happened in your case, but this is not the norm. How else would Cephas have had the experience he had? (I put this in as I assume you find Cephas a more credible source of information than me.)
I have to agree with Northwind here. Normally there are exess embryos. Here is something I read regarding this:
The average cost of an IVF cycle in the United States is $12,000. Each cycle offers infertile couples a 25 to 30 percent chance of having a baby. Due to the expense and effort involved in IVF, some couples may create more embryos than they transfer in a given IVF cycle. In 2000, 65 percent of IVF procedures transferred three or fewer embryos to reduce the likelihood of multiple births, which may put mother and children at risk.

The creation of additional, non-transferred embryos raises moral concerns for many. If frozen and thawed for a subsequent IVF cycle, some of the embryos may not survive. If frozen embryos remain after the couple completes all intended IVF cycles, it is common for infertility clinics to offer the parents the following options for the remaining embryos

-Donate the embryos to another infertile couple for transfer and adoption;
-Donate the embryos for scientific research that results in the destruction of the embryo;
-Authorize the destruction of the embryos.
And to sum up:
Cephas [...] more credible source of information than me.)
Aww, I'm glad you see me that way! :o

[Bottle]

*sits on the other side of bottle with a 12 pack of dew*
Thanks my friend... *takes one*

[Realist]

OK, then, what the hell Realist old boy, why bother with stem cell cloning, lets just use real babies. Afterall, research shouldn't be limited by moral issues. BTW, morality is not a religion.

There has been no moral argument on this thread for the prevention of stem cell research, just religious ones. Give me a rational, moral argument and we can talk.

[Realist]

To Realist,
Human cloning has been outlawed in many countries, there are a few that have not oulawed it and there are reports that privately funded groups have cloned humans but there is much speculation in the scientific community becasue they will not allow genetic tests done of the donor and the clone, saying it is to protect the rights of the indivuduals involved.


I'm not sure what the point of this paragraph is.

[Cephas]

There has been no moral argument on this thread for the prevention of stem cell research, just religious ones. Give me a rational, moral argument and we can talk.
:rolleyes: turn off the blinders... Ray Charles could see better than you. :cool:

Did you take the time to read through the links I posted earlier? You like to chalk everything you disagree with off to religion...

[drakonfire]

There has been no moral argument on this thread for the prevention of stem cell research, just religious ones. Give me a rational, moral argument and we can talk.

okay wait wait wait... the guy who hates relativism is asking for a _moral_ argument?

arent morals relative?

my morals are based (heavily) on my 'religion,' but they are still moral objections, does that make my argument 'religious' or 'moral'?

dang it realist! i was so enjoying my mt. dew with bottle too!

[Realist]

xyx, or Realist, if you prefer; I love the way you slip in insults into everything you say. You claim to have changed, but I have yet to see anything to indicate that.

What ways have I claimed to change? I insult things which deserve insulting. People who are so stuck up in their premedieval superstitions that they are willing to sentence real, thinking people to their deaths and permanant injuries. You and your religion is one of the things harming this world right now and I will fight against it as long as it continues to do so. This isn't based on disrespect; rather, its based on respect- the respect I have for humanity, a respect that says we are able to dispense with our older idiocies and emerge into a true modernity, a state in which reason rules and we use our human capacity for rationality to improve the world into a place where the actual state of humans matters rather than appearances.

Our world is in a really messed up state right now. People are dying unnecessarily all over and yet--we are richer and more able to help them than any time in history! Why don't we! Why isn't this our moral system. To save people, not for some silly conception of a hateful god who will torture those who dont believe in, but to save actual real people on EARTH! Why isn't it our moral system to feed people, to aid them, to help them advance their societies to be self-sustaining...why isn't it our moral system to give people individual dignity and fulfillment, good work and good rewards for their work. Why isn't it our moral system to cure diseases wherever we can using whatever methods we can. Why isn't it our moral system to allow people to be free to choose how to best fulfill themselves sexually. Why isnt it our moral system to prevent kids everywhere from starving, from being worked to death, to being enslaved. Why isnt this our moral system! Because we already have a messed up, crazed, arbitrary, often downright stupid moral system--our Western moral system, composed of a whole bunch of influences, one of the primary ones being a corrupted Christianity.

The thing we need least is a group of people who purposely preach irrationality--who purposely and intently try to convince people to act against the common best interest because of their own stupid traditions and superstitions.

Your religion kills REAL people. Its not your fault. Its our society's. I'm not blaming you personally for all the problems in the world but you are connected to it. Relativism kills real people to. Im not just saying all these things out of nowhere, trying to find argument just for the fun of the debate! I see the world as SO messed up and then I see people purposely preaching irrationalism which does nothing to solve its very solvable problems.

I have nothing against Christians, or relativists for that matter, but I have everything against Christianity and relativism and any other form of intentional irrationalism. The answer is not appeasement of Christianity, the answer is elimination of Christianity. And thats what I fight for! So I'm going to continue to attack it in any place it reaches out its perverted, deforming fingers....anything good and rational it attempts to squelch in its fatal grasp.

[Realist]

okay wait wait wait... the guy who hates relativism is asking for a _moral_ argument?

arent morals relative?

Nope, and thats the whole point.

By moral argument, I mean a morality that doesn't depend on religion. Preferably a rational system of morality (one that can be derived independently of religion).

[Cephas]

What ways have I claimed to change? I insult things which deserve insulting. People who are so stuck up in their premedieval superstitions that they are willing to sentence real, thinking people to their deaths and permanant injuries.
So by protecting embryos which courts have decided are humans, we are sentencing real, thinking people to death and permanent injury? By saving people we kill people... smart, real smart...
You and your religion is one of the things harming this world right now and I will fight against it as long as it continues to do so.
Funny, I didn't see an outpouring of support for the Tsunami victims (in largely Islamic countries) from Islamic nations, but I did see it from nations deemed as 'Christian' nations. I would debate how 'christian' these governments are, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are basing your opinions here on them. I haven't heard of a single follower of Christ who would not step up to aid the opressed and hurting peoples of the world. They did for the tsunami, we do it for war torn Angola, we will do it anywhere!
This isn't based on disrespect; rather, its based on respect- the respect I have for humanity, a respect that says we are able to dispense with our older idiocies and emerge into a true modernity, a state in which reason rules and we use our human capacity for rationality to improve the world into a place where the actual state of humans matters rather than appearances.
Funny, I agree with you wholeheartedly here. There are many idiocies that need to be dispenced with, and many of them are religious. BUT, a person who lives according to biblical precepts (not what they perceive to be those, but the real ones) is a reasonable person, who cares for the state of humans, rather than appearances.
Our world is in a really messed up state right now. People are dying unnecessarily all over and yet--we are richer and more able to help them than any time in history! Why don't we!
I am. Are you?
Why isn't this our moral system. To save people, not for some silly conception of a hateful god who will torture those who dont believe in, but to save actual real people on EARTH!
What do you want here? A divine hand to come down from the sky and slap dictators silly? Perhaps food to rain from the sky? God gave mana from heaven to the Israelites for 40 years, and they were ingrates. Why do you think he should be obedient to your ideals when the people of the earth spit in his face? I think he's being plenty patient and merciful and gracious considering the state of things here.
Why isn't it our moral system to feed people, to aid them, to help them advance their societies to be self-sustaining...why isn't it our moral system to give people individual dignity and fulfillment, good work and good rewards for their work. Why isn't it our moral system to cure diseases wherever we can using whatever methods we can. Why isn't it our moral system to allow people to be free to choose how to best fulfill themselves sexually. Why isnt it our moral system to prevent kids everywhere from starving, from being worked to death, to being enslaved. Why isnt this our moral system!
You tell me. What steps have you taken to deal with this? You live in a democratic society, don't you? Go ahead and do something. Maybe you should join yourself to a Christian relief organization, and see what your 'corrupted' Christians are doing while you stand on your soap box complaining.
Because we already have a messed up, crazed, arbitrary, often downright stupid moral system--our Western moral system, composed of a whole bunch of influences, one of the primary ones being a corrupted Christianity.
Hey, look at that, I agree with you again! If morals are being dictated by 'corrupted Christianity', then it is inevitable that the morals will be messed up. If society lived by morals as Christ would have us, then things would be better.
The thing we need least is a group of people who purposely preach irrationality--who purposely and intently try to convince people to act against the common best interest because of their own stupid traditions and superstitions.
Agreed again. Does this mean that you'll stand down from your soapbox and be silent for once? No? Too bad, I was getting hopeful there for a second...
Your religion kills REAL people. Its not your fault. Its our society's. I'm not blaming you personally for all the problems in the world but you are connected to it. Relativism kills real people to. Im not just saying all these things out of nowhere, trying to find argument just for the fun of the debate! I see the world as SO messed up and then I see people purposely preaching irrationalism which does nothing to solve its very solvable problems.
I HAVE NO RELIGION! Get this into your head, and we might be able to get along a bit better. I do not fit in with your conception on Christianity. Popular christianity is just that: popular. I am not a Christmas and Easter christian. I am a disciple of the most high God, who is as much displeased with 'corrupted christianity' as I am, just as we are unimpressed with the sad moral state of the world, especially 'christian' nations. It is shameful to associate His name with some of the actions that these nations engage in!
I have nothing against Christians, or relativists for that matter, but I have everything against Christianity and relativism and any other form of intentional irrationalism. The answer is not appeasement of Christianity, the answer is elimination of Christianity. And thats what I fight for! So I'm going to continue to attack it in any place it reaches out its perverted, deforming fingers....anything good and rational it attempts to squelch in its fatal grasp.
Ah, the end of your homily. So the answer to the worlds problems is genocide? Funny, Hitler had similar ideas. I had yet to see someone that I was able to identify with him, do you fit that description?[/Cephas' High Horse]

[Realist]

So by protecting embryos which courts have decided are humans, we are sentencing real, thinking people to death and permanent injury?

The idea that embryos are people is pure idiocy. They are alive, as alive as any bacteria. They don’t think! They don’t feel. They aren’t people. How can you not be willing to sacrifice a few unthinking, unfeeling cells to allow real people who think and feel and grow to live? Anti-Choice positions I can understand; killing an actual, near-life size fetus can be disgusting and there is some room to argue there (not much, but more than here). But an embryo is just a mass of cells. Assigning them human rights is absolutely ridiculous.

Funny, I didn't see an outpouring of support for the Tsunami victims (in largely Islamic countries) from Islamic nations, but I did see it from nations deemed as 'Christian' nations.

Maybe that’s because Islamic nations already have many horrible problems of their own. The industrialized world (which also happens to be the Western, mostly Christian world, but also Japan, which is a much bigger aid giver than US per GDP and is certainly not a Christian nation) has the vast majority of the money and the unindustrialized world has the vast majority of the problems. You can’t criticize some famine infested Muslim nation for not aiding tsunami victims when their money would be better spent at home; you can very much criticize the industrial nations of the world for not spreading the wealth a bit more.

I haven't heard of a single follower of Christ who would not step up to aid the opressed and hurting peoples of the world. They did for the tsunami, we do it for war torn Angola, we will do it anywhere!

Then why are they all still oppressed? Why do they still starve when Fundie Christians here seem to care way more about arbitrarily denying certain people the right to marry than about helping those “oppressed and hurting people?” Its not like we don’t have the money here to actually solve problems, its just that we’d rather spend it on other things, like preventing people here from having the freedom to intake the chemicals they choose. There is a reason the government focuses on stupid matters rather than ones which actually help the world, and that reason is twofold: 1. irrationalism 2. messed up moral systems. Christianity has its hands all over both of those.

BUT, a person who lives according to biblical precepts (not what they perceive to be those, but the real ones) is a reasonable person, who cares for the state of humans, rather than appearances.

I’ve read the Bible, start to finish (I skipped some OT poetry, it gets dreary after a while). I see nothing in it that would forbid stem cell research! Nothing whatsoever. The message of the NT is very mystical, I don’t see how modern Christianity rose out of it (I actually do, but its not that important for this thread). The message of the NT is one of departure from the ways of the world, of anti-materialism, of not caring so much what happens here because what matters is the next place.

KJV

Mathew 5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Matthew 19:12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Look what I found just in a single book of the Bible! How many Christians follow these? Do you? I highly doubt you’ve followed the second or third. If Christians did, I think the world would be a much better place! But no, Christians care more about their non-biblical moral crusades criticizing the actions of other people than about following these very anti-materialistic Biblical verses. :(

What do you want here? A divine hand to come down from the sky and slap dictators silly? Perhaps food to rain from the sky?

No, I want us humans to do this! To solve the actual problems of the world rather than worrying about stupid things like preventing the use of a bunch of cells to save peoples lives.

What I personally am doing about it is irrelevant. The strength of my argument and the necessity of my suggestions do not depend on how well I personally follow them. Beyond that, being a minor with virtually zero money at hand, my ability to affect things relies primarily on my ability to advance myself to a position where I can progress my beliefs in the future.

And no, the answer is not genocide. I said I have nothing against Christians, just Christianity. I search for a cultural answer to this problem as well as some more radical ones I’ve mentioned before, but stating them would only be a distraction from my above argument which I care more about at present.

[Goldberg]

How can anyone not notice the blatant sarcasm in my post!?

Perhaps I was a tad little carried away with the "nincompoops" and "duffus's"(where did those come from?) you threw my way while trying to carry on a sanitary discussion. :)


I ask you for the last time, why are you putting the possible saving of millions of lives above the lives of maybe a few thousand animals?

It seems that it is time to clear up the fog in your glasses. I disputed the use of animals because that is just who I am. I am never one to abuse anything or anyone; that just isn't me. Those animals I reasoned before are innocent, blazed. My morals just cross that of those who are not as bothered as me. Growing up as a child, I have witnessed terrible things the elders in our community do. I would like to go no further into detail, but if you wish to know so, give me a PM.

However, I acknowledged it before that stem-cell research could possibly save millions of lives. It is an excellent opportunity; but I would like to stress out one more time that I am opposed to this idea for the very reason Cephas is.

[Shiny Flors]

The debate over stem cell research is not purely a biblical one but a moral one. There are plenty of non-Christians who are against stem cell research becasue they believe life begins at conception. When a sperm and an egg are joined this is conception. It doesn't matter if it is in a womb or if it is in a test tube.

Northwind was correct when he said stem cells are not killed when they are used for creating new stem cell lines and they will just be thrown away. Again this is a moral issue, if life begins at conception are not these embryo's that are being thrown away, people at their earliest stage of development?

And my post about scientific controversy over cloning humans was a clarification of your previous post that could be misleading. The main reason, I think, behind the outlawing of human cloning is because getting dolly the sheep cloned was not successful the first time it was attempted. There are human rights that would be violated if these failed experiments were allowed to progress. And would it be morally right to end the life of a clone that has no arms and legs because it was a failed experiment. (this is just a hypothetical example)

[Realist]

There are plenty of non-Christians who are against stem cell research becasue they believe life begins at conception.

Life OBVIOUSLY begins at conception. It actually begins even before conception, but whatever. Bacteria is life too, yet we find nothing wrong with killing that life. The only reason to believe that human life before it has any feelings or senses or thoughts whatsoever has any value is to believe that humans have souls, as SKOF stated very well earlier in this thread. A belief in souls is a religious belief. Show me a rational argument against stem cells which doesn't rely on this thought process!

I agree that cloning humans for the purpose of actually giving birth to a clone is a very bad idea and is immoral. The vast majority of scientists agree with both of us on this. It is NOT the issue here, so there is no need to discuss it except to say that this is not it.

[drakonfire]

What I personally am doing about it is irrelevant. The strength of my argument and the necessity of my suggestions do not depend on how well I personally follow them. Beyond that, being a minor with virtually zero money at hand, my ability to affect things relies primarily on my ability to advance myself to a position where I can progress my beliefs in the future.


this made me laugh, if a bit cynically, unfortunately i cannot sum up this paragraph in the word i would like to, because the definition does not fit, you think being a minor means you can enact change? change starts with us xy! we are tomorrow, and if today does not listen to us then it has no tomorrow, you want to make a difference? start speaking at your school, start a club, you may be minors, but the politicions will take note, you are the vote of tomorrow and they will cater to you if they think you will become powerful enough, you want to enact change? do something, stop talking about doing something and just DO IT

as to the rest of your grand plan, its great, i like it (except for that part that verged on genocide) but it has several problems that this world will throw in the way

whos going to pay for it? even bill gates might be hard pressed to foot the bill... or do you just expect humanity in its 'goodness' to volanteer all the resources needed to end hunger?

whos going to organize it? you? and when all that power has been placed in your hands, you wont be the _least_ bit tempted to misuse it, only in a small way, no one would ever notice, the historians would glaze right over that part in the glory that was your biography... do you think a commitee would work? isnt that what government is today? just one giant commitee? we see how well THAT works

speaking of organizing things, have you ever tried to organize a few dozen people to do something? even something they all want to get done? now then lets try and imagine what it would be like to organize the thousands upon thousands of workers needed to end hunger

and then you have the issue of african warlords, what do you think they would do when those bright shiny UN trucks came rolling in with food? just sit idly by and watch? maybe even cheer? wouldnt that be great!

you said it yourself xy, society is messed up, big time, and it has had a LOT of influences to mess it up, not the least of which is corrupted christianity, key word there, CURRUPTED, soceity is itself corrupted, it has had a hand in corrupting christianity, which in turn fed the corruption, why? why do people feel the need to mess things up? because people are basically BAD, you cannot deny this fact xy, doing so is just stupid and ignorant, and dont give me any of this BS about how its "how they grew up" or its "their parents fault" "better education would have solved it" and if wishes were two-pence bill gates would be a pauper!

"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" remember this axiom 'Realist' i get the feeling you may need it later in life

and where do you get off saying that morality isnt relative? many people object to stem cell research on MORAL GROUNDS, while others, yourself included, do not, what is not RELATIVE about that?!

"Life OBVIOUSLY begins at conception."

un-holy HELL! am i the only one whos jaw dropped at this statement? dont start in on that bullcrap about bacteria and whatnot, are you a vegetarian xy? because if not you are so... ohhhh... what gives you a right to eat those cows? eh? why can we get away with killing them? if life begins at conception which it _obviously_ does then how is it NOT murder to END that life of a HUMAN BEING?

how can we justify stopping stem cell research which could possibly save millions? i'm more worried about the ends starting to justify the means

you want all the worlds crap to end? get real man, 99% of the world may agree with you but those 1% will do everything in their power to stop you, and then what? you just kill them in the name of progress? am i the only one frightened by this concept?

[/RANT!]

i apologize for my harsh tone, but i could find no other way to express what i wished to say

[TheBlazedAce]

Perhaps I was a tad little carried away with the "nincompoops" and "duffus's"(where did those come from?) you threw my way while trying to carry on a sanitary discussion. :)




It seems that it is time to clear up the fog in your glasses. I disputed the use of animals because that is just who I am. I am never one to abuse anything or anyone; that just isn't me. Those animals I reasoned before are innocent, blazed. My morals just cross that of those who are not as bothered as me. Growing up as a child, I have witnessed terrible things the elders in our community do. I would like to go no further into detail, but if you wish to know so, give me a PM.

However, I acknowledged it before that stem-cell research could possibly save millions of lives. It is an excellent opportunity; but I would like to stress out one more time that I am opposed to this idea for the very reason Cephas is.

The varied vocabulary was used because I thought it would soften the dialogue a bit becuase I have no intention of insulting you or your beliefs. I don't understand why though you don't want to give reason for them. Finally you cut to the chase and the only thing you can say is I have my reasons, but I'd rather not discuss them. Why talk in the first place?

Realist, I completely agree with you 100%, but I must spread reputation around first before giving it to you again. :D

Drakonfire, as I said I agree with realist 100% and for your information I go to a community cervice "club" through my cinaggog once a week to help those less fortunate then myself. I'll continue to take action to do exactly that which realist stated already, trying to fix this effed up world. More people have died in the name of god then anything else. Perhaps if we spent more time trying to tell people to think for themselves then maybe they wouldn't have wasted their lives for such a cause. Every person is born with the understanding of what is right and wrong. If people are told what it is, then we take their ability to decide for themselves away from them and this is exactly how every irrational idea spreads to so many people. This is exactly why I'm not surprised in the least that man named Hitler could convince so many of his cause. This is exactly why so many cults exist. So much blatant stupidity and people just accept it becuase that's exactly what they needed to do for religion so why would they do it differently now?!

[drakonfire]

Drakonfire, as I said I agree with realist 100% and for your information I go to a community cervice "club" through my cinaggog once a week to help those less fortunate then myself. I'll continue to take action to do exactly that which realist stated already, trying to fix this effed up world. More people have died in the name of god then anything else. Perhaps if we spent more time trying to tell people to think for themselves then maybe they wouldn't have wasted their lives for such a cause. Every person is born with the understanding of what is right and wrong.


you'll note my post about doing something was directed towards xy, i think its wonderful that you do community service

now i have a question for you, have you ever worked with young children? and i dont mean once in a blue moon, i mean consistently work with kids? i do, i have watch a three year old walk right over to another one and punch him! for no reason other than he was bigger, i have watched one child steal another childs car and the ensuing fight usually ends up with one or both crying, i have also watch another child soothe the fighting ones, but these Godsends are few and far between :( for the most part, kids will do whatever they want, whenever they want, because they can

why do i have morals? because someone told me about them, if i did not fear my parents wrath, or feel it was wrong (mostly because of my parents teaching) i had some opportunities as a kid to do some really terrible things... i still could

whats stopping me? my 'natural' sense of right and wrong? thats bullcrap and you know it, my moral system did not develope during a growth spurt, it was learned

So much blatant stupidity and people just accept it becuase that's exactly what they needed to do for religion so why would they do it differently now?!

i've had this discussion once before, being christian is NOT i repeat NOT blind faith

this brings a whole 'nother can of worms into the mix, like why do people feel the need for religion or cults? is it genetic? and if so isnt that something that evolved and is therefore good? or is it something else? something deeper that cannot be explained away or satisfied with all the possessions of the world?

EDIT: minor spelling mistakes, added some stuff

[TheBlazedAce]

you'll note my post about doing something was directed towards xy, i think its wonderful that you do community service

now i have a question for you, have you ever worked with young children? and i dont mean once in a blue moon, i mean consistently work with kids? i do, i have watch a three year old walk right over to another one and punch him! for no reason other than he was bigger, i have watched one child steal another childs car and the ensuing fight usually ends up with one or both crying, i have also watch another child soothe the fighting ones, but these Godsends are few and far between :( for the most part, kids will do whatever they want, whenever they want, because they can

why do i have morals? because someone told me about them, if i did not fear my parents wrath, or feel it was wrong (mostly because of my parents teaching) i had some opportunities as a kid to do some really terrible things... i still could

whats stopping me? my 'natural' sense of right and wrong? thats bullcrap and you know it, my moral system did not develope during a growth spurt, it was learned



i've had this discussion once before, being christian is NOT i repeat NOT blind faith

this brings a whole 'nother can of worms into the mix, like why do people feel the need for religion or cults? is it genetic? and if so isnt that something that evolved and is therefore good? or is it something else? something deeper that cannot be explained away or satisfied with all the possessions of the world?

EDIT: minor spelling mistakes, added some stuff

I've seen all of those things happen. You're not willing to accept that through simple deduction almost any person can understand the difference between right and wrong? I'll also bet you that EVERY SINGLE one of those children had parents that told their kids what to do/think and didn't tell them to think for themselves, or another words were affiliated with religion. Guiding doesn't have to be dictating. How many children do you know of that act this way that haven't had some kind of influence to do so. Most of the time the children who act in such a way tend to have immoral parents or a lot of outside forces pushing them in this general direction. You can't tell me that most morals aren't at least logical, that's why most of them are there in the first place. Then why do we have to tell people to think them, why can't we let them figure it out by guiding them in that general direction? What happens when people encounter a problem that isn't black and white, but rather on the line, why is it so hard for most people to come up with an answer then? Because they've never been taught to!

[Realist]

To Drakon's first post to me:

as to the rest of your grand plan, its great, i like it (except for that part that verged on genocide) but it has several problems that this world will throw in the way

First of all, my plan doesn’t involve any killing of innocents. Second, genocide is destroying a race, not a religion.

whos going to pay for it? even bill gates might be hard pressed to foot the bill... or do you just expect humanity in its 'goodness' to volanteer all the resources needed to end hunger?

The government. I’ve written a bunch (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=225521#post225521) about the ideal government in other threads; that’s not the important thing here; what is more important is the cultures that are preventing the culture of rational morality from prevailing. One of those is Christianity with its false moral systems.

speaking of organizing things, have you ever tried to organize a few dozen people to do something? even something they all want to get done? now then lets try and imagine what it would be like to organize the thousands upon thousands of workers needed to end hunger

Think of the organization that goes into the drug war. For that matter, think of the organization that goes into just plain old war! It wouldn’t be that much more difficult, and the benefits would be much greater.

and then you have the issue of african warlords, what do you think they would do when those bright shiny UN trucks came rolling in with food? just sit idly by and watch? maybe even cheer? wouldnt that be great!

We need an organized reconstruction of the world. We need an ascendancy to true modernity. This has to start in the industrialized nations, who can then spread it to others through a variety of means. The problems in large parts of this world are political and require political answers to them.

because people are basically BAD, you cannot deny this fact xy, doing so is just stupid and ignorant, and dont give me any of this BS about how its "how they grew up" or its "their parents fault" "better education would have solved it" and if wishes were two-pence bill gates would be a pauper!

People are basically social creatures, and social creatures respond to cultural influences. Thus, the average American now is less racist than the average American fifties years ago. As our culture (and therefore us) improved in our tolerance of other races, so too can we progress in other areas as a culture. When our culture improves, all members of our culture improve without having to go through the earlier steps the culture went through. My basic idea, though this is only tangential to the main point of my argument on this thread, is to establish a culture of rational morality. A culture which tells its members that the correct course of action is the one which is 1) reasonable 2) helps other people. This makes sense because reason is the best method of accomplishing goals and morality is the best goal for the happiness of humanity as a whole.

and where do you get off saying that morality isnt relative? many people object to stem cell research on MORAL GROUNDS, while others, yourself included, do not, what is not RELATIVE about that?!

Many people believed at one point that the sun revolved around the Earth, while most people now believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. What is not relative about those beliefs? Everything; the truth is that the earth does revolve around the sun regardless of whether we believe it or not. There is one (or zero) correct moral system just as there is one correct physical reality.

un-holy HELL! am i the only one whos jaw dropped at this statement? dont start in on that bullcrap about bacteria and whatnot, are you a vegetarian xy? because if not you are so... ohhhh... what gives you a right to eat those cows?

Excellent point. In fact, it’s the exact same point that I was making only modified slightly to refer to cows instead of bacteria. Killing cows is killing a much more developed animal than an embryo, so why don’t opponents of stem cell research oppose meat eating instead?

if life begins at conception which it _obviously_ does then how is it NOT murder to END that life of a HUMAN BEING?

Because life is NOT inherently valuable, not even human life. There is no difference between that embryo and that cow you mentioned except that the cow is an animal much more physically and sensually developed (obviously there are other differences but you know what I mean). What gives life value to people who don’t subscribe to the soul belief? Our consciousness. But I’m not getting into the precise argument about why consciousness is important that I normally do in abortion debates, because this seems way more clear cut! In arguments I’ve had with proponents of anti-choice legislation, a lot of talk about the pain a fetus suffers is mentioned. But an embryo feels no pain! It feels nothing! This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no rational argument against killing embryos. Its as stupid as saying that having sex is murder because only one sperm at max can actually reach the egg (you’re killing millions of potential fully grown human lives!)

[Realist]

One more thing, Drakon, can you respond to the verses from Mathew I quoted to Cephas? How many of those do you follow? Do you think all Christians should follow them? Because most Christians I talk to won't let me borrow their money without agreeing to pay it back or to take their coat without paying for it. :( And I don't know any who've castrated themselves! I guess none of them feel they're worthy.

[old_man_killer]

I've seen all of those things happen. You're not willing to accept that through simple deduction almost any person can understand the difference between right and wrong?

And just exactly does this concept of right and wrong come from? What is your baseline? Remember, you have to keep religion out of the equation, so where my good friend does the concept of right and wrong come from? Someone here mentioned Hitler, he thought it was right to kill millions, in the Old South they thought it was right to enslave the Blacks, and all around the world people feel it is right to insult and sometimes kill Christians. At the very least (and there is so much more) Religion gives us that moral baseline to train up our children. We cannot rely on governments to teach us right from wrong, they are controlled by lobbyists. Remember the very basic laws of the US are in fact based on the Ten Comandments.

[old_man_killer]

To Drakon's first post to me:
First of all, my plan doesn’t involve any killing of innocents. Second, genocide is destroying a race, not a religion.

Actually, Genocide is the murdering of a group of people weither the group is designated by national, cultural or religious beliefs.

The holocaust was genocide, Sadam Hussiens poisoning of the Kurds in northern Iraq was genocide, both were religion based.

[Realist]

Not true. Hitler was fighting a racial war; he killed even Jews who converted to Christianity. The Kurds are also an ethnic group, not a religious one.

[old_man_killer]

Not true. Hitler was fighting a racial war; he killed even Jews who converted to Christianity. The Kurds are also an ethnic group, not a religious one.

WHAT? Dude, Judism is a religion, he killed polish Jews, German Jews and any other JEW he could find. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Genocide is still the killing of a GROUP of like minded people, weither it be nationally, ethnically, religiously or race based.

Now, are you telling me that you support this kind of behavior? Please oh please don't tell me the world has come to the point where Hilter is considered GOOD and Jesus is considered BAD. That like of thinking if all messed up.

EDIT: BTW the Kurds were killed because they were NOT Sunni Muslims, in this case they were murdered because they were NOT of the right religion.

[Realist]

OMK, you seem to have very little understanding of either situations. Hitler killed Jews because he believed that Jews were inherently, racially, in conflict with his perfect Aryan race. Read ANYTHING from the Nazis; they don't mention the Jewish religion they talk about the Jewish race. Thus, the grandchildren of Jews whose parents had lived and died Christians were murdered along with the rest of them.

Saddam hated the Kurds because they wanted independence from his power, as an ethnic group. This is the idea of nationalism that has fomred most modern countries and causes most European/Asian conflict- ethnic groups want their own independence and governments don't want to give it to them. Is religion intermixed in this? Yes, and in the Balkan wars as well. But the much more important factor is ethnicity, which is basically inhereted race + culture. Fundie Christians can not be considered a true ethnic group because they are racially pretty much the same as any other American; they intake people who weren't born to them and lose people who were. Saddam hated the Kurdish Shiite's much more than the other Shiites, how do you explain that?

Just look at the word: Genocide. Christians don't transmit Christianity via genes.

Now, are you telling me that you support this kind of behavior? Please oh please don't tell me the world has come to the point where Hilter is considered GOOD and Jesus is considered BAD. That like of thinking if all messed up.

I have said many time that I don't support killing people at all. I want a cultural solution to the Christian problem.

[old_man_killer]

I want a cultural solution to the Christian problem.

Zieg Hiel!

BTW there is NO Christian problem. There is however, a growing number of narrow minded people that believe that Christians are a threat to their free thinking. So sad for them. I guess it is pretty lucky for us that this country was founded in the belief of FREEDOM of RELIGION! Source: Constitution of the United States of America. Try reading that document a couple of times.

And chew on this:

Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate actions leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories.

[Office_Shredder]

Several points: Realist, there is no problem. So people disagree with you... why do you feel that they MUST change their ways? Is it so horrible? You claim that you're smarter than most people here... surely you understand that one of the fundamentals of a free society is allowing people to think how they want... even if you think their beliefs involve not being free.

Realist, you really bicker over word choice here. You claim that Hitler killed Jews because they were a race, and that's what makes it a genocide? So if he referred to the Jewish religion instead of the Jewish race, what would it become? It's still the exact same event.... just some madman who uses a different word (and apparently you believe that we should follow Hitler's interpretation of the holocaust?)

[Serge]

You guys are jumping the gun. Realist said he wants to get rid of Christianity. He didn't say he wanted to kill Christians. How he would get rid of a religion without killing people is unknown to me, but that doesn't mean he's advocating Hitler's actions.

[Realist]

I'll reply to your genocide definition first: While the UN does include religious groups in its definition 1) it makes no sense to do so from the word itself, it makes the characterization too broad 2) there has never been a "genocide" based on religion.

Genocide is killing of a nation, a people, an ethnic group in every time it has been seriously attempted by a government. It is these killings that have motivated the defnition of genocide and these killings that concern us now oever whether or not they are genocides.

Also from your wikipedia article:

The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in 1944, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere, to kill).

genos=family, tribe, race, NOT religion. Why is this distinction so important? First, a person can convert out of a religion, but not out of a family, tribe, etc. The dynamics of killing the members of a religion are therefore very different and cannot be qualified under genocide. Look at the Spanish inquisition, for example-it was horrible, but you can't consider it genocidal-lots of not-Catholics could escape, to some extent, through conversion.

Second, related to tthe first; the purpose of genocide is extermination, while the purpose of killing members of a religion is to eliminate a religion. It has been determined that genocide only refers to actions whose purpose is extermination; massive political killings are not included. Religion is more like political ideology or social status than ethnic group; and elimination of a religion is usually for religious, political or social reasons, not for extermination of a people for the sake of killing those people. The mass killings carried out by the early Christian after they gained control of Rome were not genocidal because their purpose was not killing people, but establishing their own view of Jesus as superior to their enemies view of Jesus. This is a somewhat subtle point and I'm not explaining it very well, I apoligize, but I am correct here.

I guess it is pretty lucky for us that this country was founded in the belief of FREEDOM of RELIGION! Source: Constitution of the United States of America. Try reading that document a couple of times.

I have. In fact, I think you should actually read the very amendment you are referring to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Note the first part-you can't establish your religious views onto the laws. You can't forbid stem cell research just because your religious views go against it. Anyways, this is just a side point to demonstrate how your view of the constitution is just as one sided and incomplete as your view of the Bible.

One final remark-how our country was founded is irrelevant to how we should run it today. We should make the best decisions we can regardless of whether they agree with the decisions of our founders.

[Realist]

Several points: Realist, there is no problem. So people disagree with you... why do you feel that they MUST change their ways? Is it so horrible?

Yes, it is. It kills people. I believe that when the Nazis killed people we should have stopped them. I think that we should have stopped the massive killings in Central Africa. And I similarly believe we have to stop Christianity from killing people, even if it does so indirectly.

Why is the world so messed up? Because people act against the principles of rational morality (which I'm willing to explain in detail in a seperate post sometime). Christianity is against both reason and a reasonable moral system. Therefore, it must be eliminated along with all other religions and relativism and other false, culturally generated beliefs.

Now, when I say I want a cultural solution I mean that there will not be a restriction on freedom. If someone randomly comes up with Christianity on their own, I wouldn't stop them from being Christian. But most people are Christian because they were taught to be Christian. What I want to stop is the teaching. Allow people to think freely on their own; stop the brainwashing and indoctrination of Christians (and relativists, and others).


Realist, you really bicker over word choice here. You claim that Hitler killed Jews because they were a race, and that's what makes it a genocide? So if he referred to the Jewish religion instead of the Jewish race, what would it become? It's still the exact same event.... just some madman who uses a different word (and apparently you believe that we should follow Hitler's interpretation of the holocaust?)

Fact: People who had grown up Christian and who had Christian parents were murdered by the Nazis for being Jews because they had Jewish grandparents.

Obviously, this would not have occured if the religion had been focused on rather than the race.

The important implications of this I put in my post to OMK.

[old_man_killer]

ok how about Encyclopedia Britannica?

genocide
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. The term, derived from the Greek genos (“race,” “tribe,” or “nation”) and the Latin cide (“killing”), was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II.

You will notice the word "religion" is there.

[Realist]

Again, my point is sort of subtle, but correct. A word does not mean exactly what a dictionary definition says. To expand genocide to the point of religion turns it into a word that doesn't mean anything due to its generality.

And again, look at the word: Genos != Religion.

[old_man_killer]

the purpose of genocide is extermination, while the purpose of killing members of a religion is to eliminate a religion. It has been determined that genocide only refers to actions whose purpose is extermination; massive political killings are not included. Religion is more like political ideology or social status than ethnic group; and elimination of a religion is usually for religious, political or social reasons, not for extermination of a people for the sake of killing those people. The mass killings carried out by the early Christian after they gained control of Rome were not genocidal because their purpose was not killing people, but establishing their own view of Jesus as superior to their enemies view of Jesus. This is a somewhat subtle point and I'm not explaining it very well, I apoligize, but I am correct here.


Yo, let me explain - this - in - simple - terms. To KILL a group of people just because they belong to that group, is genocide. Hitler killed Jews because they were Jews. The Romans killed Christians because they were Christians. Hussien killed the Kurds because they were Kurds. It doesn't matter the reasons or the supposed justification for the killings.

[old_man_killer]

One final remark-how our country was founded is irrelevant to how we should run it today. We should make the best decisions we can regardless of whether they agree with the decisions of our founders.

Really? My appologies to you sir, Obviously your 17 years of knowledge is far superior to the 229 years of experience of this contry. The 229 years of sacrafice by American boys not much older than you have made so that you can sit there in your self rightousness and spew such foolish drivel. This country was founded on good Christain priciples. The law separating chjurch and state did not, and does not preclude the inclusion of these same fundamental priciples into our daily lives. It has only been in the last 40 years that the laws of our founding fathers have been bastardized. One day my young friend you will grow up and face reality.

[old_man_killer]

Again, my point is sort of subtle, but correct. A word does not mean exactly what a dictionary definition says. To expand genocide to the point of religion turns it into a word that doesn't mean anything due to its generality.

And again, look at the word: Genos != Religion.

So what you are saying is that a major book of knowledge is WRONG!

[Realist]

So the Roman killing of Christians (and then the Christian killing of different Christians) is now genocide? I don't know anyone who would agree to that....

Was the French Reign of Terror a genocide because it attempted to kill all opponents of the revolution?

Is the American death penalty genocide because it kills members of the group "murderers sentenced to the death penalty"?

I see you say "just because they belong to the group"...in other words, its not genocide to kill convicted murderers because there is a reason besides their group affiliation. Hitler would agree; he didn't kill Jews just because they were Jews he killed them because he thought they were in a permanant racial war against him.

See how useless a term meant to apply to a very specific thing becomes when you define it too broadly?

[Realist]

So what you are saying is that a major book of knowledge is WRONG!

Is a dictionary wrong whenever it defines a word that is used in different ways than its precisely stated definition? Not really. Since genocide is a recently created word which is very politically charged, its meaning isn't very set--but we can derive a good meaning from what makes sense from the killings generally accepted as genocides, notably Hitler's killing of Jews, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocides, the Balkan genocides, the Ukrainian genocide, and so on. All of which consisted of one ethnic group mass killing another ethnic group. I have never seen someone call the Inquisition a genocide; not the Protestant-Catholic wars.

In other words: Yes, I do not think the term "religion" should be included in the definition, and I have very good reasons for this.

[old_man_killer]

And I similarly believe we have to stop Christianity from killing people, even if it does so indirectly.

What ???!!!
Christianity is against both reason and a reasonable moral system.

What???!!!


Now, when I say I want a cultural solution I mean that there will not be a restriction on freedom.

oh so we have the freedom to be anything YOU feel is appropriate?
Maybe you'd prefer the Communist form of life?

Allow people to think freely on their own; stop the brainwashing and indoctrination of Christians (and relativists, and others).

Physician heal thyself. You don't seem to allow any free thoughts here.

Fact: People who had grown up Christian and who had Christian parents were murdered by the Nazis for being Jews because they had Jewish grandparents.

I am not denying that Hitler killed the Jews, He hated all Jews even though he himself had Jewish parents.

[Office_Shredder]

The French Reign of Terror doesn't count as genocide because it was targetted at a "political" (I use the word loosely) group. The killing of the Christians would count as a genocide.

I like your supposed Hitler saw the Jews as an enemy argument.... OK, so are you saying that in any other genocide the victims aren't seen as enemies too? That's the whole PURPOSE of commiting racial genocide nine times out of ten, to get rid of someone who is inferior to you, and might one day rise up to get their petty revenge (in the eyes of the commiter of course)

[Realist]

Really? My appologies to you sir, Obviously your 17 years of knowledge is far superior to the 229 years of experience of this contry.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...I think my ideas are superior to the writer's of the constitution not because I'm more intelligent but because I 1) have a greater amount of evidence 2) am using a lot of ideas and information from people who came after them 3) I know the effects of the laws they enacted. The fact that I'm 16 has nothing to do with anyhing.

Remember that the constitution allowed and implicitly supported slavery via the 3/5 clause, do you think thats a good thing? Answer this question; if you avoid it I'll assume that you admit that I'm correct on this point.

Beyond that, though, and answer this too, what is a better choice?

1. Follow the beliefs of our founders.
2. Follow what will be the best for our country and the world.


This country was founded on good Christain priciples. The law separating chjurch and state did not, and does not preclude the inclusion of these same fundamental priciples into our daily lives.

No, but it does mean that congress can't pass a law based on instituted a religion-based restriction such as stem cell research.

[old_man_killer]

Is a dictionary wrong whenever it defines a word that is used in different ways than its precisely stated definition? Not really. Since genocide is a recently created word which is very politically charged

The word came about during WW2 that was 60 years ago. not very recent.

its meaning isn't very set

Yes it is, you've been given 2 distict and clear definitions. Or are you saying that because they don't meet your definition then they are incorrect?

--but we can derive a good meaning from what makes sense from the killings generally accepted as genocides,

What makes sence from the killings? These killings and all others like them make no sence. Nor would they to one possessing any morals.

In other words: Yes, I do not think the term "religion" should be included in the definition, and I have very good reasons for this.

Then maybe someone should call all the dictionaries and encyclopedias to change their definitions because a 17 year old kid has good reasons.

Do me a big favor and print all your statements out and keep them somewhere safe. Then on your 25th birthday re-read them. I am sure you will get a chuckle out of them.

[Realist]

OMK:

I repeat, Christianity is against both reason and a reasonable moral system. Reason—obvious; Christianity says you should accept things on faith and base your actions on these things rather than reason (in modern times, tradition has replaced faith as the most important determinant of Christian action, but that is just as anti-reason as faith is and just as damaging). A reasonable moral system, well, this is obvious too—against stem cell research which will save actual lives because they care more about a mass of cells.

oh so we have the freedom to be anything YOU feel is appropriate?
Maybe you'd prefer the Communist form of life?
No, you’ll be put into a culture of rational morality and be allowed to choose from their how you want to develop your beliefs. Since their will be no Christian cultural influences there will be no Christians.

I am not denying that Hitler killed the Jews, He hated all Jews even though he himself had Jewish parents.

Wow!!! What a statement! Have any backup? You’re wrong here. Hitler did not have Jewish parents. And I’m not surprised you make such an inane statement since you clearly didn’t understand the racial motivation of Hitler’s murder. You’re not a stupid person, that’s clear to me, but PLEASE learn about these topics before making such ignorant statements.

[old_man_killer]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...I think my ideas are superior to the writer's of the constitution not because I'm more intelligent [Quote] I agree with this because you aren't. [Quote]but because I 1) have a greater amount of evidence 2) am using a lot of ideas and information from people who came after them 3) I know the effects of the laws they enacted. The fact that I'm 16 has nothing to do with anyhing. you know what you want to know and use that as an arguement. You do not have ALL the evidence because you are not old enough to have studied ALL the evidence. As far as the effects, yeah, it's real hard looking backward to see the mistakes. Lets go forward and prevent them. EI Stem Cell Research.

Remember that the constitution allowed and implicitly supported slavery via the 3/5 clause, do you think thats a good thing? Answer this question; if you avoid it I'll assume that you admit that I'm correct on this point.

3/5 clause, another case where someone tried to make thier present day better with disasterous results. I am against slavery in any manner, Some of the changes that our current government is trying to ,ake will result in you the student being nothing lass than a slave of sorts. The new Student tracking ID's they are trying to get will make it possible for the schools to track you every minute of the day. Stripping you of some rights. Stripping you of some freedoms. But then what is a slave but a human without freedoms.

Beyond that, though, and answer this too, what is a better choice?

1. Follow the beliefs of our founders.
2. Follow what will be the best for our country and the world.

Follow the beliefs of our founding fathers which is the best for our contry and the world. It is what has made us the country we are and the world power that we are. Unfortunately, there are many people today trying to destroy the fabric of our nation from within. What no other country could do, we are doing to ourselves.

No, but it does mean that congress can't pass a law based on instituted a religion-based restriction such as stem cell research. The sanctity of life is NOT a religious concept.

[Realist]

OMK,

Sixty years is a very short time in this history of words. And most words don’t get defined by international government bodies. The fact is, genocide is never used to refer to religion based killings; it is always used to refer to ethnic based killings. Whether or not a dictionary somewhere defines it with religion included isn’t that relevant.


What makes sence from the killings? These killings and all others like them make no sence. Nor would they to one possessing any morals.
????

You obviously completely missed by point. I mean, from the events everyone accepts as genocides we can derive the definition of the word.

Then maybe someone should call all the dictionaries and encyclopedias to change their definitions because a 17 year old kid has good reasons.

I’m 16 years old and I’m obviously much more knowledgeable of history and the world than you are already, so who knows?

[drakonfire]

KJV

Mathew 5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Matthew 19:12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

okay first thing is first, when speaking to the crowds of people keep this verse in mind, KJV
"Matthew 13:34 - All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:"

the first peice you quoted NONE, i repeat NONE of even Jesus' apostles carried out litarally, it is a parable, a reference to cutting yourself off from things that harm you spiritually (or physically, such as drugs, etc.) kind of like what you think christianity is doing to society

as to the second, whats so wrong about that? there is a point where i believe defense of oneself or ones family is necesary, but if someone insults me i dont really care that much, i 'turn the other cheek' as it were, whats so wrong with that? i see nothing wrong with letting someone borrow something, or giving someone more than they demanded of me

your 3rd quote is... confusing to me, what point are you trying to make?
matt. 19:9-12
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

from what i can understand, basically Jesus is saying here that if you cannot accept the teaching about marriage(that is, divorce is valid for no reason, other than adultry) then it is better to be a eunuch

that sufficient answer for you?

what about christianity preaches against common sense? or agains a GOOD moral system?

and another thing

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

you make a very good point about paying attention to the first part, but you seem to ignore the second part, the very part of the constitution you are using as part of your argument, in the VERY SAME SENTENCE says that you cannot make a law AGAINST a religion either, IE you cant ban christianity, so in order to "remove" christianity from the equation, your going to have to change the constitution some

Remember that the constitution allowed and implicitly supported slavery via the 3/5 clause, do you think thats a good thing? Answer this question; if you avoid it I'll assume that you admit that I'm correct on this point.
i'll field this one if you dont mind

ya know the Bible actually does not prohibit slavery? it even gives guidelines for how it should be done

BUT, before you jump all over me for that comment, let me clarify

according to the Bible one could sell oneself into slavery, or could be sold into slavery if unable to pay off ones debts (and slavery would consequently end once said debts were gone) what we did to african americans was WRONG, we took them off their continent by FORCE and MADE them slaves, that was wrong, and i am extremely glad it was rectified

uhmmm more stuff i would like to give a reply to, but i'll edit this in a bit or post again as this one is getting a bit long

EDIT: one final note about the slavery issue, i'm not saying we should make a return to the old testament times and re-instate it, the Bible says one should respect the laws that have been placed by those in authority, and since our constitution now bans it, it is no longer a valid practice, Biblically or lawfully

[old_man_killer]

OMK:

I repeat, Christianity is against both reason and a reasonable moral system. Reason—obvious; Christianity says you should accept things on faith and base your actions on these things rather than reason (in modern times, tradition has replaced faith as the most important determinant of Christian action, but that is just as anti-reason as faith is and just as damaging). A reasonable moral system, well, this is obvious too—against stem cell research which will save actual lives because they care more about a mass of cells.

You speak voumes but say nothing. Have you ever been a Christian? Have you really read the Bible with understanding? The faith of which you speak is the faith in the Existance of our GOD in heaven. It is the faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ. It is the faith in the 10 Commandments of which are as moral as anyone can get. They define moral.


No, you’ll be put into a culture of rational morality and be allowed to choose from their how you want to develop your beliefs. Since their will be no Christian cultural influences there will be no Christians.

eh comrade? you think you will put me there, but you again are wrong on that concept.


Wow!!! What a statement! Have any backup? You’re wrong here. Hitler did not have Jewish parents.

My bad, I concede, erroneous info.

And I’m not surprised you make such an inane statement since you clearly didn’t understand the racial motivation of Hitler’s murder.

Help me on this one, all the reports and accounts I ever read was that he committed suicide.

You’re not a stupid person, that’s clear to me, but PLEASE learn about these topics before making such ignorant statements.

Practice what you preach....oops sorry bad word.

[Realist]

you know what you want to know and use that as an arguement. You do not have ALL the evidence because you are not old enough to have studied ALL the evidence.
Learn to read. I didn’t say I had all the evidence, I said I have more evidence than the founding fathers did.
As far as the effects, yeah, it's real hard looking backward to see the mistakes.
You’re right; its not hard. That’s why my beliefs can be vastly superior even when I’m only a few degrees more intelligent.
3/5 clause, another case where someone tried to make thier present day better with disasterous results. I am against slavery in any manner
It was our founding fathers who supported this clause! In the constitution! And many owned slaves! But I thought you agreed with our founding fathers and thought their ideas were better than mine? So you’re actually agreeing with a 16 year old that our founding fathers were wrong on something??????

Follow the beliefs of our founding fathers which is the best for our contry and the world.
So you think they never contradict? Ever? Our founding fathers were perfect? Even though you just agreed that you disagreed with them on the slavery issue? I sense a contradiction….
The sanctity of life is NOT a religious concept.
Give me a reasonable argument for it then.

And you mean the sanctity of HUMAN life. You don’t believe in the sanctity of all life.

[old_man_killer]

And you mean the sanctity of HUMAN life. You don’t believe in the sanctity of all life.
Yes I mean Human life, though I respect ALL life except Cockroaches.

[Office_Shredder]

realist, the 3/5ths clause was only left in so all the southern states would join the union.

[Serge]

African slaves were sold to Europeans and slave traders by African kings. The White Man didn't storm in with guns'a'blazin' and kidnap them. They bought them. I'm not justifying slaverly, merely correcting what you said.

[Shiny Flors]

The sanctity of life is NOT a religious concept.

Give me a reasonable argument for it then.



You say people can develop their own moral code. Is murdering humans against your own personal moral code? Now I think that if I could kill someone and their were no consequences, and I could improve my life as a result of someone else being dead isn't this survival of the fittest, the strongest natural clause that the evolutionary world has evolved around? People somewhere along the evolutionary pathway came up with the idea of the sanctity of life. Hence, murder was outlawed and there was punishment for those who did murder.

Is this a reasonable arguement for the sanctity fo life, completely separate from religion? This arguement has no religious overtones in it at all.

[old_man_killer]

African slaves were sold to Europeans and slave traders by African kings. The White Man didn't storm in with guns'a'blazin' and kidnap them. They bought them. I'm not justifying slaverly, merely correcting what you said.
Maybe you might want to research that some more before you correct anyone.

[old_man_killer]

Learn to read. I didn’t say I had all the evidence, I said I have more evidence than the founding fathers did.


I disagree, your answer is most arrogant. You have no clue as to how much they knew and it's relevence to the state of the world at that time. You only surmise that because there is more knowledge in the world today that you naturally should know more than they. That is an erroneous statement with no practical method available to prove or disprove. The microfraction of the available knowldge today that you in fact know could very well still be less than that of the founding fathers.

[old_man_killer]

So you think they never contradict? Ever? Our founding fathers were perfect? Even though you just agreed that you disagreed with them on the slavery issue? I sense a contradiction….


I never said any such thing, so please do not put words into my mouth. As far as perfection, there is no such thing.

to err is human to forgive devine......
all fall short of the glory of God.....

I can spout more, but the point there is we all make mistakes and we all sin. No one is perfect. No one ever was with the sole exception of Jesus. And because he was perfect and blameless he was sent as a sacrafice for all our sins. Thank you for giving me that opportunity to get that in. :)

[Serge]

Maybe you might want to research that some more before you correct anyone.
My mistake, I was only half-correct. The White Man didn't go in with guns blazing, they started off like sleazy drug dealers, buying them from African chiefs who had captured them. And then they moved on to capturing them themselves.

[old_man_killer]

My mistake, I was only half-correct. The White Man didn't go in with guns blazing, they started off like sleazy drug dealers, buying them from African chiefs who had captured them. And then they moved on to capturing them themselves.

:) Bingo

[Realist]

Drakonfire,

okay first thing is first, when speaking to the crowds of people keep this verse in mind, KJV
"Matthew 13:34 - All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:"
You’re taking that verse out of context. Jesus said a lot of parables in chapter 13, and they are called parables in that chapter. The verses I quoted are not called parables; they are stated as actual “suggestions.” If you get to determine for yourself what is and what isn’t a parable in the Bible without sufficient textual evidence (and, "I don’t think Jesus actually meant that" is NOT textual evidence by itself), the entire concept of literal interpretation goes out the window immediately.
the first peice you quoted NONE, i repeat NONE of even Jesus' apostles carried out litarally, it is a parable, a reference to cutting yourself off from things that harm you spiritually (or physically, such as drugs, etc.) kind of like what you think christianity is doing to society
There is absolutely no evidence for this interpretation! Or if there is, show it to me, I don’t see it. Maybe none of Jesus’ apostles needed to carry it out because none of their eyes or hands were causing them to commit sin. But Jesus said this in the middle of a bunch of other statements which are definitely NOT parables, like:

Mathew 5:
31: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Plus, let’s just consider this logically. If your right hand would literally prevent you from getting into the kingdom of heaven because it was causing you to sin, lose faith, etc., wouldn’t it be worth losing it for the short period of earth life rather than going to eternal hell? I’m not quoting this verse because I think this is a commandment to Christians to actually sever their limbs, just to show the extreme anti-materialistic message of the Bible which modern Christians seem to have forgotten.

Oh, and it of course doesn't only apply to eyes and limbs; that represents other things as well. But it certaintly includes eyes and limbs and any other materialistic part of this world.
as to the second, whats so wrong about that? there is a point where i believe defense of oneself or ones family is necesary, but if someone insults me i dont really care that much, i 'turn the other cheek' as it were, whats so wrong with that? i see nothing wrong with letting someone borrow something, or giving someone more than they demanded of me
There’s nothing particularly wrong with it except that it allows you to be abused, but I doubt you do it. If someone asks you for something do you give it to them without considering if they will give it back? If some stranger went up to you and asked for your coat would you give it to them? If you have reached such a level, that is impressive even if I don’t agree with it. I highly doubt you have though. No Christian I know has.

from what i can understand, basically Jesus is saying here that if you cannot accept the teaching about marriage(that is, divorce is valid for no reason, other than adultry) then it is better to be a eunuch
I’m pretty sure that’s not what it’s saying. His apostles are saying that if it is adultery to divorce in remarry, its better to just not marry in the first place. And Jesus agrees, except that he says its not absolutely necessary; just the correct thing to do for people who are able to do so.
“And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
That doesn’t seem to be referring to the people who can’t accept the marriage ruling; (if they can’t even accept that how could they accept castration?) “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” seems pretty clear—anyone who is willing to accept castration for the sake of the kingdom of heaven should do so.
I’m willing to go through this passage verse by verse…I’ve looked at a bunch of different translations and none are really very clear about it, but I think my interpretation is the supported one.

in order to "remove" christianity from the equation, your going to have to change the constitution some
As I told OMK, I don’t believe the constitution is a sacred document. I’m willing to change it if I think it will be what is best for this country.
You’re remark about Biblical attitudes towards slavery seem tangential; American enslavement of Africans as supported by our constitution and as practiced by many of our founders is not Biblical slavery.

[old_man_killer]

As I told OMK, I don’t believe the constitution is a sacred document.

I know, it is an excerpt of a statement but I think it clearly defines your attitudes and Ideals. You hold nothing as sacred.

[Cephas]

I have always taken that teaching on eunuchs to talk about position. A eunuch is celebate (like he really has a choice!), and if a Christian can remain celebate for the sake of Christ, than that is good. I know of many saints who have lived very godly lives because they were not tied down by family. A man with a family has responsibilities, and doesn't always have the freedom that a celebate man does in serving God.

[theburning]

I know, it is an excerpt of a statement but I think it clearly defines your attitudes and Ideals. You hold nothing as sacred.

Which is quite depressing, isn't it?

[old_man_killer]

Which is quite depressing, isn't it?
Yes Ma'm it sure is.

[drakonfire]

let me give you a slightly different twist on that eunuch passage xy, this is verses 11 and 12 from The Message

"But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked--or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it"

the message is, admittaly, a very modernized translation of the Bible, but it does come straight from the greek and hebrew, it is not a translation of a translation, and it was written by a biblical scholar who is very respected

now then, you want to answer OMK and myself as to how christianity teachers things that are against common sense or a good moral system? i still havent seen a satisfactory answer to this

[Realist]

OMK,

Thanks for accepting your incorrectness on the religion of Hitler’s parents. Most of your information is similarly flawed, I wonder where you get it? Perhaps now you should stop criticizing my sources of knowledge, considering that you haven’t been able to demonstrate any information I’ve posted to be false.

And I meant that Hitler’s murder of other people was racially motivated, which you did not seem to initially understand, not his suicide.

I notice that not one person on this thread has been able to give me a rational reason to accept the innate sanctity of human life, even when that life is only a bunch of completely insentient cells. In fact, here’s a challenge: Give me a biblical reason to accept the innate sanctity of human life, and I won’t even require a rational one, because its more fun to show how far modern Christianity has deviated from Biblical Christianity than to argue dry rational arguments.

[Realist]

OS,

I don’t see your point…why they did it isn’t important, they did do it. The Southern states sent representatives, they were among our founders. Its very well known that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, as well as a whole bunch more of our founders. So obviously any moral opposition they had to slavery was supplanted by economic wants. What ideal behavior. No, actually its not. Our founders had many bad attributes and today we have improved a lot from there.

[Realist]

Shiny Flors,

People somewhere along the evolutionary pathway came up with the idea of the sanctity of life. Hence, murder was outlawed and there was punishment for those who did murder.

This isn’t a moral argument, this is an explanation for why people hold certain views. Let me first say that even if you were correct, it would not be a reason to accept the sanctity of life; surpassing our innate impulses given to us by evolution is something humans do all the time to advance other desires. Morality is more than just innate feelings of good and bad. But I think you are wrong even separate from that.

While its true than in general murder is disliked in societies, the idea of the innate sanctity of life is a very new. War, ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, slavery, human sacrifice, all have very prominent places in certain human societies. It is very common (and used to be much more common) to kill girl children in certain parts of this world for economic reasons. So, I don’t think a belief in the innate sanctity of all life is inherent in us. Not that I don’t agree with it; I basically do, with one small modification: I believe in the “sanctity” of conscious life. I’ll give my argument for this later in the thread.

[Realist]

OMK post II,

You have no clue as to how much they knew and it's relevance to the state of the world at that time. You only surmise that because there is more knowledge in the world today that you naturally should know more than they.

I know that the racist views of our founders were wrong and incredibly damaging later in US History. I have good evidence for this. This is a great example because it shows how modern evidence can surpass older beliefs even of intelligent people. Cultures advance, and humans advance with their cultures, even without living in the previous culture. (Cultures also sometimes regress but that’s not the point).

And to reply to your next post as well, you did imply our founding fathers were perfect: You said that following our founding fathers was the best possible choice for our country and the world. This means there is no better choice to make than to follow them, which means that what they said was perfect!

I’ll give you a chance to rectify though, because I don’t think you actually meant what you said. Which path should the US go on now?

1. Follow our founding fathers to the letter, regardless of consequences.
2. Do what is best for our country and the world, regardless of whether our founding fathers would have approved.

[Realist]

Cephas,

I have always taken that teaching on eunuchs to talk about position. A eunuch is celebate (like he really has a choice!), and if a Christian can remain celebate for the sake of Christ, than that is good. I know of many saints who have lived very godly lives because they were not tied down by family. A man with a family has responsibilities, and doesn't always have the freedom that a celebate man does in serving God.

I’ll admit that this is actually a possibility from the verse; it makes more sense to me than Drakon’s interpretation and I’ve seen this argument used. And I’m no Biblical scholar and I don’t know Greek so I have to rely on the generally accepted English translators. But, that said, the literal translation of the verse seems to give some support my view:

Eunuchs from “mother’s womb” or “eunuchs of men” are actually, literally eunuchs. So why would “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” necessarily be any different? Once you take that one step of departure from the literal without justification (I suppose there actually is good justification since the question of the disciples was about marriage) how do you deny everyone the ability to take their steps away from the literal meaning?

Moreover, why does it make sense that Jesus actually meant real eunuch? From my reading of the Bible, as I’ve stated a lot on this thread, one of the main messages of Jesus that has been lost in modern times is a sort of mystical anti-materialism. Suppressing sexual urges through physical means is a way of gaining a greater spiritual connection; a greater single-handed focus on the “Kingdom of Heaven.” To most people, sex is acceptable as long as its with only one person and you’re married to that person, but to the best, not even sexual thoughts are allowed.

[Realist]

Drakonfire,

Wow, that is a different translation which seems to say the exact opposite of every translation I’ve ever read. Reading more of The Message…you’re right on the modernized translation part. The problem I see with this, though as I told Cephas, I don’t know Greek, is that this translator seems to mix interpretation and translation to give a version which is easily readable to anyone. But I wonder how much this detracts from the literal meaning. Why does every other translation get this passage wrong? And, if most of the translations can’t be trusted, then is it not true that most people who read the Bible are getting wrong ideas? Do you know Greek?

Reading over The Message more, perhaps the KJV and all other generally accepted translations do have the literal translation and The Message is imposing its own interpretation into its translation. If this is the case, I have to disagree with it; it doesn’t match up with any of the other translations.

In any case, even this translation seems to get Mathew 5:38-42 as I stated it:

8"Here's another old saying that deserves a second look: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' 39Is that going to get us anywhere? Here's what I propose: "Don't hit back at all.' If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. 40If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. 41And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. 42No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

And again, no Christian I know follows this. They all seem to want something back if someone asks for their coat.

[Realist]

To answer a bunch of posts in one:

What is morality? How can we come up with a good, reasonable moral theory that actually makes sense? The first step to establishing a system of rational morality is to understand what reason is.

Reason is, by definition, the best means towards solving a problem. A rational approach tells us to examine all the evidence and form conclusions from this evidence which will then determine how we act. Reason examines facts; it also uses these facts to give us understanding. Science and business are good examples of rational institutions. Science examines the evidence and forms conclusions based on this evidence. Scientists in the 16th and 17th century looked through their telescopes, observed evidence in space, and concluded through that evidence and mathematics that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the Earth. They were correct; the faith of millions of Europeans that the sun revolved around the Earth was proven false. Why should you trust reason? Because it works; not perfectly because sometimes there is not enough evidence and sometimes the reasoning is flawed, but it has a much better track record than faith does.

Now, to connect that to morality. The first important admission to make is; morality cannot be derived directly from reason and evidence. We cannot create a moral code without making some initial assumptions. So the question becomes, which of these assumptions is the most valid?

Here’s my idea: Warning: This is not a rational argument, it is a justification for why my moral assumption is the best assumption.

1. Humans, as conscious beings, know what they want and don’t want
2. We recognize in others a similarity to ourselves, a consciousness similar to our own. We can do this because other people act and talk about similar things as we do, so we can assume that they feel some of the basic feelings we do (happiness, sadness, etc.)
3. We recognize in others that they, like us, want and don’t want certain things, and we can tell which things these are because of their attitude towards these things, which we can analyze based on our knowledge of our own attitudes. If someone acts happy when they have something, we know that that something makes them happy.
4. Self-advancement is giving ourselves things we want and getting rid of things we don’t want. This is what makes us happy.
5. Therefore, advancement of others (morality) is making them happy by giving them what they want; and we know this because we know we want ourselves to be happy and recognize this similarity in other people.

To simplify this; giving other people happiness is the basis of morality. We recognize this; killing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; stealing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; helping people is right because it makes them happier.( I define “happiness” as what people actually want, a very general term) The most basic, simple assumption of morality and human conception of morality is that the increase of another person's happiness is good, while the decrease of another person’s happiness is evil. If this system was universally followed, and people were universally good, the world would clearly be a much better place—if everyone makes everyone else happier we will all become happier.

So let’s review: Reason is the process of using evidence to come up with conclusions, and the moral basis is that good=making people happy while evil=making people unhappy. How to connect the two? If we accept that morality is the greatest goal (since it will lead to the best world) and reason is the best method to accomplish a goal, then it follows that we should use reason to advance morality. This idea is what I define as “rational morality.”

This idea has a LOT of implications, but I’ve been writing for a long time so I’m not going to go into them yet. Instead, I’ll demonstrate how Christianity goes against both the reason aspect and moral aspect.

Christianity claims to accept things on faith. Faith is inherently against reason; reason says look at the evidence and faith says believe without evidence. However, in actuality, faith doesn’t cause Christians to act as they do; if it did:

KJV
Mathew 17:14: And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
15: Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
16: And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17: Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
18: And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19: Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20: And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

For some reason I don’t see any mountains moving at a Christian’s request.

The real basis of Christianity today is cultural tradition. Tradition is also against reason; it says to believe and do things that people believed in the past regardless of their validity. It is tradition that causes Christians to be against homosexuality, for example, an irrational attitude with no basis in reality.

Its moral system is also flawed. The idea that a few insentient cells has inherent value is a good example of this. Embryo’s don’t feel; therefore there is no way to make them happy; therefore we no more need to care about their lives than we need to care about any rock or tree or ant. Another example: Christianity has a strong anti-sexual attitude which has caused a lot of damaging and harmful sexual repression. It is irrationally anti-sexual, and this brings real damage to real people. This is why I can’t accept the toleration argument: Christianity harms real people, I’m just fighting back in the arena of ideas.

[Foundation]

holy realist 7 posts in a row, all long and thought out

[drakonfire]

1. Humans, as conscious beings, know what they want and don’t want
2. We recognize in others a similarity to ourselves, a consciousness similar to our own. We can do this because other people act and talk about similar things as we do, so we can assume that they feel some of the basic feelings we do (happiness, sadness, etc.)
3. We recognize in others that they, like us, want and don’t want certain things, and we can tell which things these are because of their attitude towards these things, which we can analyze based on our knowledge of our own attitudes. If someone acts happy when they have something, we know that that something makes them happy.
4. Self-advancement is giving ourselves things we want and getting rid of things we don’t want. This is what makes us happy.
5. Therefore, advancement of others (morality) is making them happy by giving them what they want; and we know this because we know we want ourselves to be happy and recognize this similarity in other people.

To simplify this; giving other people happiness is the basis of morality.


Christianity claims to accept things on faith. Faith is inherently against reason; reason says look at the evidence and faith says believe without evidence. However, in actuality, faith doesn’t cause Christians to act as they do; if it did:

20: And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

For some reason I don’t see any mountains moving at a Christian’s request.

The real basis of Christianity today is cultural tradition. Tradition is also against reason; it says to believe and do things that people believed in the past regardless of their validity. It is tradition that causes Christians to be against homosexuality, for example, an irrational attitude with no basis in reality.

Its moral system is also flawed. The idea that a few insentient cells has inherent value is a good example of this. Embryo’s don’t feel; therefore there is no way to make them happy; therefore we no more need to care about their lives than we need to care about any rock or tree or ant. Another example: Christianity has a strong anti-sexual attitude which has caused a lot of damaging and harmful sexual repression. It is irrationally anti-sexual, and this brings real damage to real people. This is why I can’t accept the toleration argument: Christianity harms real people, I’m just fighting back in the arena of ideas.


okay first thing is first, this made me laugh, a lot! you realize your rational system of morality is the very same thing that Jesus commanded? you've read the Bible front to back, do you not recognize this?
Matthew 22:35-40
35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38. This is the first and great commandment.
39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

as to your mountains comment, you want mountains to move xy? i wish my faith were that great, and maybe it is, maybe no mountains are moving because it is not God's will, after all, is someone really converted if they just believe because they saw a mountain move? where is the faith in that?

it is not tradition that causes christians to be against homosexuality, the bible strictly forbids it

and the comment about the strong anti-sexual attitude that christians have? WHAT? anti-sexual before marriage, yes, but not after, most definitely not after, and whats wrong with either of these things? both homesexuality and sex before marriage promote the spread of STDs, teens who have sex before marriage often talk about how broken they felt after they broke up with the person they lost their virginity too, most of them are not happy even on the outside, and none are truly happy on the inside, go talk to and older married person, non-christian if you prefer, who had sex with multiple people before being married, ask them if it was worth it and see what kind of answers you get, then go ask the ones who saved themselves, see what kind of answer you get


Give me a biblical reason to accept the innate sanctity of human life, and I won’t even require a rational one

"Thous shalt not murder"

and

matt. 10
29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
31. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

that tells me life is pretty sacred

i'm sorry no christian you know seems to be very generous xy, that is an unfortunate developement of living to much 'of this world'

[old_man_killer]

Reason is, by definition, the best means towards solving a problem. A rational approach tells us to examine all the evidence and form conclusions from this evidence which will then determine how we act. Reason examines facts; it also uses these facts to give us understanding. Science and business are good examples of rational institutions. Science examines the evidence and forms conclusions based on this evidence. Scientists in the 16th and 17th century looked through their telescopes, observed evidence in space, and concluded through that evidence and mathematics that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the Earth. They were correct; the faith of millions of Europeans that the sun revolved around the Earth was proven false. Why should you trust reason? Because it works; not perfectly because sometimes there is not enough evidence and sometimes the reasoning is flawed, but it has a much better track record than faith does.

Sometimes the reasoning is flawed? That would be an understatement. For I remember it was these same learned men that would "bleed" patients that had any number of ailments, sometimes to the point of death. Science, looks at the evidence, makes a hypothisis,(an educated guess) then makes tests. Then depending on the "rational" business controlling the tests, will determine the results. Not a very good arguement. History of full of scientists and businessmen that put profits and fame over the truth.

Now, to connect that to morality. The first important admission to make is; morality cannot be derived directly from reason and evidence. We cannot create a moral code without making some initial assumptions. So the question becomes, which of these assumptions is the most valid?

Here’s my idea: Warning: This is not a rational argument, it is a justification for why my moral assumption is the best assumption.

1. Humans, as conscious beings, know what they want and don’t want
2. We recognize in others a similarity to ourselves, a consciousness similar to our own. We can do this because other people act and talk about similar things as we do, so we can assume that they feel some of the basic feelings we do (happiness, sadness, etc.)
3. We recognize in others that they, like us, want and don’t want certain things, and we can tell which things these are because of their attitude towards these things, which we can analyze based on our knowledge of our own attitudes. If someone acts happy when they have something, we know that that something makes them happy.
4. Self-advancement is giving ourselves things we want and getting rid of things we don’t want. This is what makes us happy.
5. Therefore, advancement of others (morality) is making them happy by giving them what they want; and we know this because we know we want ourselves to be happy and recognize this similarity in other people.

To simplify this; giving other people happiness is the basis of morality. We recognize this; killing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; stealing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; helping people is right because it makes them happier.( I define “happiness” as what people actually want, a very general term) The most basic, simple assumption of morality and human conception of morality is that the increase of another person's happiness is good, while the decrease of another person’s happiness is evil. If this system was universally followed, and people were universally good, the world would clearly be a much better place—if everyone makes everyone else happier we will all become happier.

So let’s review: Reason is the process of using evidence to come up with conclusions, and the moral basis is that good=making people happy while evil=making people unhappy. How to connect the two? If we accept that morality is the greatest goal (since it will lead to the best world) and reason is the best method to accomplish a goal, then it follows that we should use reason to advance morality. This idea is what I define as “rational morality.”

There are 3/4 of the worlds population that would disagree with you. They would like nothing better to equate your death with thier happiness for the only reason that you are an American. Not all people have the same goals, or interpretations of what happiness is. And aren't you, but criticizing my religion and my faith, causing unhappiness, then be guilty of evil by the standard of you own "rational Morality" . Fear not, I still love you as a person, though I do not agree with your views. Regardless of the extensive thought you put behind them.

Christianity claims to accept things on faith. Faith is inherently against reason; reason says look at the evidence and faith says believe without evidence. However, in actuality, faith doesn’t cause Christians to act as they do; if it did:

KJV
20: And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Now it is you that is taking scripture out of context. To the diciples Jesus had given his teachings and with them the power to cast out demons. It was to them that he spoke about having Faith. Faith that the Father would work through them.

For some reason I don’t see any mountains moving at a Christian’s request.

Maybe you cannot see the forrest for the trees. Christianity is on the rise, the world over. Mountains baby, are being moved.

The real basis of Christianity today is cultural tradition. Tradition is also against reason; it says to believe and do things that people believed in the past regardless of their validity. It is tradition that causes Christians to be against homosexuality, for example, an irrational attitude with no basis in reality.

Two points I'd like to address. One from the Christian perspective and one from the natural world perspective.

1) God clearly states to not sleep with another man. So duh, it is not allowed.
2) It is not a natural act within the natural world, Males do not sleep with other males. Period. Nature does not work that way.

Its moral system is also flawed. The idea that a few insentient cells has inherent value is a good example of this. Embryo’s don’t feel; therefore there is no way to make them happy; therefore we no more need to care about their lives than we need to care about any rock or tree or ant.

How do you know what it feels? You are guessing right, because there is no way to know. But that is not the basis of my objection. My objection is against the future rushing, balls to the wall, free thinking, lets do it first and figure if its wrong later, people like yourself that cannot feel anything or care about anything. these are the ones that scare me. Cloning stem cells is just the beginning. I have already stated the reasons and examples earlier. But as I have come to expect, you'd rather play with words and use isolated tid bits of informatiion and very long winded important sounding excerps that you copied from other sources to raise questions. Questions that have been sufficiently answered. But incase you missed them, lets try once more.

Once man has a foot hold into anything, no matter how inoquious (sp) or innocent, the greed factor will slowly permiate and manipulate until we are condoning genetic abominations. It is alot easier to fix a problem by not letting the problem start. Stem cell cloning is just the beginning. Then in a year or two, then cloning alittle more. Then someone will inevitably try cloning a human. Who knows, maybe they will start cloning humans to farm organs for wealthy patrons who need them. It is not as far fetched as one may believe. Money can be a very powerful motivator. Why else do people risk everything including thier lives to bring drugs into this country? Money and greed, these are evil.

You touched on that Christianity is inherently anti-materialistic. Yes it is! That is because what we have here stays here. So it is of little importance.

Another example: Christianity has a strong anti-sexual attitude which has caused a lot of damaging and harmful sexual repression. It is irrationally anti-sexual, and this brings real damage to real people. This is why I can’t accept the toleration argument: Christianity harms real people, I’m just fighting back in the arena of ideas.

No, I cannot agree. Christianity (Judism and Islam also) have rules for sexuality. They are basically. No sex before marrage, Don't get married unless you plan on staying with her for life, Sex only between man and woman, Sex only with your spouse. This does not cause damage. My wife and I have practiced this concept for the last 22 years. And it works. How long have you? nevermind, I guess your information is coming from speculation and books. By following the free thinking open sex plan of to day you get what benefits for man kind?

1) Un wed mothers (some having to drop out of high school to care for thier babies)
2) the rampant spread of STD's, AID's, herpes, VD etc.
3) Spouses whom are unfaithful resulting in divorce ( this is real good for any children involved)
4) Broken homes
5) the increased need for abortions which has become the retroactive contraceptive.

You need to change your name from Realist to Idealist. Because you have a very Idealist view on how life and the world should be.

[old_man_killer]

holy realist 7 posts in a row, all long and thought out

Just because it is long winded doesn't make it correct. Do you own research into the matter and do not trust what anyone says as truth. Yeah, even me. Wake up your curiosity and stretch the mind and open your hearts.

[theburning]

Wow! This thread is pretty intense!

Cephas! You really know how to start the war threads. :)

[Cephas]

Cephas,

I’ll admit that this is actually a possibility from the verse; it makes more sense to me than Drakon’s interpretation and I’ve seen this argument used. And I’m no Biblical scholar and I don’t know Greek so I have to rely on the generally accepted English translators. But, that said, the literal translation of the verse seems to give some support my view:

Eunuchs from “mother’s womb” or “eunuchs of men” are actually, literally eunuchs. So why would “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” necessarily be any different? Once you take that one step of departure from the literal without justification (I suppose there actually is good justification since the question of the disciples was about marriage) how do you deny everyone the ability to take their steps away from the literal meaning?

Moreover, why does it make sense that Jesus actually meant real eunuch? From my reading of the Bible, as I’ve stated a lot on this thread, one of the main messages of Jesus that has been lost in modern times is a sort of mystical anti-materialism. Suppressing sexual urges through physical means is a way of gaining a greater spiritual connection; a greater single-handed focus on the “Kingdom of Heaven.” To most people, sex is acceptable as long as its with only one person and you’re married to that person, but to the best, not even sexual thoughts are allowed.
If you are going to rely on the English translations, then be careful which ones you rely on. KJV is solid, but faulty. It was translated in 1611 for an established 'Church', and the translators were not to change any of the church's current practices. A prime example is the word 'baptize'. It is simply a transliteration of the Greek, while a translation would have been 'immerse'. If you want to steer to a more litteral translation look for the Darby version, and a more dynamic translation would be the NIV (although don't count on me for this, I lean more to the litteral translations).

Continuing this discussion seems pointless, it seems like we agree on this for the most part, based on your bracketed statement. I take the teachings in the Bible literally when it makes them literally, but do I think there are literal 'windows in heaven' that open to drop down blessings, or is it a turn of phrase. We both have some discernment, we should use it.

[Cephas]

Wow! This thread is pretty intense!

Cephas! You really know how to start the war threads. :)
Who, me? I really don't try to... really! To be honest, I don't want to cause problems. I actually thought that most people would agree with me on the hate literature thread, and on this one. Go figure, I misjudged... :(

[TheBlazedAce]

To answer a bunch of posts in one:

What is morality? How can we come up with a good, reasonable moral theory that actually makes sense? The first step to establishing a system of rational morality is to understand what reason is.

Reason is, by definition, the best means towards solving a problem. A rational approach tells us to examine all the evidence and form conclusions from this evidence which will then determine how we act. Reason examines facts; it also uses these facts to give us understanding. Science and business are good examples of rational institutions. Science examines the evidence and forms conclusions based on this evidence. Scientists in the 16th and 17th century looked through their telescopes, observed evidence in space, and concluded through that evidence and mathematics that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the Earth. They were correct; the faith of millions of Europeans that the sun revolved around the Earth was proven false. Why should you trust reason? Because it works; not perfectly because sometimes there is not enough evidence and sometimes the reasoning is flawed, but it has a much better track record than faith does.

Now, to connect that to morality. The first important admission to make is; morality cannot be derived directly from reason and evidence. We cannot create a moral code without making some initial assumptions. So the question becomes, which of these assumptions is the most valid?

Here’s my idea: Warning: This is not a rational argument, it is a justification for why my moral assumption is the best assumption.

1. Humans, as conscious beings, know what they want and don’t want
2. We recognize in others a similarity to ourselves, a consciousness similar to our own. We can do this because other people act and talk about similar things as we do, so we can assume that they feel some of the basic feelings we do (happiness, sadness, etc.)
3. We recognize in others that they, like us, want and don’t want certain things, and we can tell which things these are because of their attitude towards these things, which we can analyze based on our knowledge of our own attitudes. If someone acts happy when they have something, we know that that something makes them happy.
4. Self-advancement is giving ourselves things we want and getting rid of things we don’t want. This is what makes us happy.
5. Therefore, advancement of others (morality) is making them happy by giving them what they want; and we know this because we know we want ourselves to be happy and recognize this similarity in other people.

To simplify this; giving other people happiness is the basis of morality. We recognize this; killing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; stealing is wrong because it makes others unhappy; helping people is right because it makes them happier.( I define “happiness” as what people actually want, a very general term) The most basic, simple assumption of morality and human conception of morality is that the increase of another person's happiness is good, while the decrease of another person’s happiness is evil. If this system was universally followed, and people were universally good, the world would clearly be a much better place—if everyone makes everyone else happier we will all become happier.

So let’s review: Reason is the process of using evidence to come up with conclusions, and the moral basis is that good=making people happy while evil=making people unhappy. How to connect the two? If we accept that morality is the greatest goal (since it will lead to the best world) and reason is the best method to accomplish a goal, then it follows that we should use reason to advance morality. This idea is what I define as “rational morality.”

This idea has a LOT of implications, but I’ve been writing for a long time so I’m not going to go into them yet. Instead, I’ll demonstrate how Christianity goes against both the reason aspect and moral aspect.

Christianity claims to accept things on faith. Faith is inherently against reason; reason says look at the evidence and faith says believe without evidence. However, in actuality, faith doesn’t cause Christians to act as they do; if it did:

KJV
Mathew 17:14: And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
15: Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
16: And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17: Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
18: And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19: Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20: And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

For some reason I don’t see any mountains moving at a Christian’s request.

The real basis of Christianity today is cultural tradition. Tradition is also against reason; it says to believe and do things that people believed in the past regardless of their validity. It is tradition that causes Christians to be against homosexuality, for example, an irrational attitude with no basis in reality.

Its moral system is also flawed. The idea that a few insentient cells has inherent value is a good example of this. Embryo’s don’t feel; therefore there is no way to make them happy; therefore we no more need to care about their lives than we need to care about any rock or tree or ant. Another example: Christianity has a strong anti-sexual attitude which has caused a lot of damaging and harmful sexual repression. It is irrationally anti-sexual, and this brings real damage to real people. This is why I can’t accept the toleration argument: Christianity harms real people, I’m just fighting back in the arena of ideas.

I now owe you two rep points which I can't give yet. The similarities I find between us is continueing to shock me. :eek: Honestly, besides quoting those bible passages I swear the exact words you speak have come out of my mouth more then once before in arguments between my and my friends. If you consider someone's contribution to the world in terms of how much happiness he gives to others... I don't want to get into it, but seriously, this is freaking me out!

[Realist]

Drakonfire,

okay first thing is first, this made me laugh, a lot! you realize your rational system of morality is the very same thing that Jesus commanded? you've read the Bible front to back, do you not recognize this?
Matthew 22:35-40
35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38. This is the first and great commandment.
39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Yes, Christianity recognizes to an extent the same moral basis that I recognize (I think humans realize it intrinsically). But they add on a LOT of irrational baggage which removes them from any system of true rational morality; and I have demonstrated this in my posts.
as to your mountains comment, you want mountains to move xy? i wish my faith were that great, and maybe it is, maybe no mountains are moving because it is not God's will, after all, is someone really converted if they just believe because they saw a mountain move? where is the faith in that?
The point Jesus is clearly making is that if his disciples had enough faith, they would be able to move mountains using that faith. God’s will isn’t mentioned. Why isn’t there a single Christian today with the faith to move mountains, or to heal the sick, etc.? My semi-sarcastic answer was that Christianity today is not based on faith but on tradition. In truth, obviously, faith is never enough to move mountains on its own (though faith + a bunch of dynamite might do the trick).

it is not tradition that causes christians to be against homosexuality, the bible strictly forbids it
Nope, it actually doesn’t. The OT does, but no one follows the OT anymore. Show me anything from the NT which would forbid homosexuality.

and the comment about the strong anti-sexual attitude that christians have? WHAT? anti-sexual before marriage, yes, but not after, most definitely not after, and whats wrong with either of these things?
Christian tradition is also against general sexual expression beyond the restraints of privacy, monogamy and marriage; I blame the Christian tradition for the stigma sex has in today’s Western culture compared to the relative liberalism of classical attitudes towards sex and those in certain non-Western cultures. Why don’t Westerners talk directly about sex? I blame Christianity. I also blame Christianity for all those silly sex comedies made in modern times. Sex isn’t naturally funny until you make it embarrassing. I’m not going to go in detail since this forum is highly influenced by a Western culture which tries to shield the kids that make up the majority of this forum from any sexual information.
both homesexuality and sex before marriage promote the spread of STDs,
First of all, monogamous homosexual relationships don’t promote STDs any more than monogamous heterosexual relationships. Of course, its you people who want to discourage monogamous homosexual relationships by forbidding gay marriage.
Second, it is patently obvious that the purpose of Biblical restrictions on sex before marriage is not the prevention of STDs. This is a silly argument.
Finally, I know some people who are very happy with their pre-marital sexual experiences and some others who are not. But I can tell you that the added stigma and status our Christian Western culture imparts on sex doesn’t do anything to help the latter group.

"Thous shalt not murder"
This doesn’t specify who you shouldn’t murder. Obviously, “murdering” animals is acceptable. But beyond that, there are many occasions when people ARE supposed to be killed in the OT, which is the first place that statement is made. So obviously, this is not a blanket statement about the sanctity of life, but rather a law against killing other members of your society outside the legal system. The question is still though, what constitutes a person which this law would protect from murder? I seriously don’t think an embryo was what was in mind here! Even if it was, this statement is not evidence on its own.


matt. 10
29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
31. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
that tells me life is pretty sacred


Really? It seems to be saying that their souls are sacred, but life intrinsically? Especially when you consider the next line:

“28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Death is irrelevant! What matters is your soul. This puts a pretty low value on life in comparison to that.

i'm sorry no christian you know seems to be very generous xy, that is an unfortunate developement of living to much 'of this world'

Agreed with the “too much of this world” part. But what Jesus was asking was a lot more than just generosity. It’s a very strong anti-materialistic message. Drakon, answer this truthfully: If you were wearing a coat in the winter; like 30 F, it won’t kill you if you lose it for a bit since you have a couple of layers under it anyways, and some random stranger comes up to you and asks you politely, non-threateningly, “can I have your coat? I’m cold.” Do you give him your coat? Asking for nothing in return? In complete truthfulness? Because what Jesus was asking is a lot more than that even.

[Realist]

OMK,

Sometimes the reasoning is flawed? That would be an understatement. For I remember it was these same learned men that would "bleed" patients that had any number of ailments, sometimes to the point of death.

Their medical beliefs were based on the same sources as their belief that the sun revolved around the Earth, Aristotle and the Bible. Medieval knowledge (in fact, knowledge until basically the scientific revolution) was based on accepting things on authority, NOT rationalism. And while the Bible cannot be solely blamed for this (Aristotle was pre-Christianity) it is undoubtedly true that a lot of the resistance to the scientific methods that would eventually have medical benefits was from Christian groups who rejected reason due to their faith beliefs.


Science, looks at the evidence, makes a hypothisis,(an educated guess) then makes tests. Then depending on the "rational" business controlling the tests, will determine the results. Not a very good arguement. History of full of scientists and businessmen that put profits and fame over the truth.

Irrelevant; my point is that reason is the best means towards solving problems, so obviously scientists can be wrong to the extent that they depart from reason.

Not all people have the same goals, or interpretations of what happiness is. And aren't you, but criticizing my religion and my faith, causing unhappiness, then be guilty of evil by the standard of you own "rational Morality"
This is what I meant by my ideas having a lot of implications, which solve all these reasonable objections. Basically, the fact that different things make different people happy, to the extent that it is true, doesn’t make my idea any less valid, it just means we need to recognize this difference in people and deal with them. Also, causing unhappiness for the overall purpose of greater happiness is acceptable; it brings overall benefit.
Now it is you that is taking scripture out of context. To the diciples Jesus had given his teachings and with them the power to cast out demons. It was to them that he spoke about having Faith. Faith that the Father would work through them.
So the average Christian can’t move mountains no matter how much faith they have? Why is it included in the Bible then? What makes Jesus’ disciples better than any of you? I think this verse is meant to be taking out of context; i.e., its supposed to tell everyone that they should have faith, not just the disciples.
Maybe you cannot see the forrest for the trees. Christianity is on the rise, the world over. Mountains baby, are being moved.
Last time I looked all the mountains were still in the same place they were before…oh, I get it, you mean figurative mountains. lol. Nice one.
1) God clearly states to not sleep with another man. So duh, it is not allowed.
God states this in the OT! You don’t follow the OT. I thought the law can’t save anymore. Do you wear clothes of wool and linen together?
2) It is not a natural act within the natural world, Males do not sleep with other males. Period. Nature does not work that way.
Uhh…wrong. Lots of animals have gay sexual relationships. And who cares how nature works?? In nature, animals and people both have sex without getting married. And often have sex with multiple partners. The Bible is clearly sending a message to overcome nature! If the natural state was good there would be no need for a Bible, obviously. This is an inane argument, you can’t possibly win it, just drop it and I won’t follow up on it.
How do you know what it feels?
How do we know what anything feels? You know because of the actions they take, as I stated in my previous post. But beyond that, an embryo has no capacity to feel because it is such a simple organism.
But as I have come to expect, you'd rather play with words and use isolated tid bits of informatiion and very long winded important sounding excerps that you copied from other sources to raise questions.
lol. I wonder if I should take it as a compliment that you think my arguments are so well stated that I must have taken them from another source. In any case, everything I say here is 100% original and my ideas. Other people might also have those ideas but I’ve developed them on my own. What a weak personal attack. Just because some random 16 year old knows more than you about a few subjects doesn’t mean they copied it from someone else, just that you have to learn a few things before you can expect to reasonably, if still insufficiently, counter his arguments.


Once man has a foot hold into anything, no matter how inoquious (sp) or innocent, the greed factor will slowly permiate and manipulate until we are condoning genetic abominations. It is alot easier to fix a problem by not letting the problem start. Stem cell cloning is just the beginning. Then in a year or two, then cloning alittle more. Then someone will inevitably try cloning a human. Who knows, maybe they will start cloning humans to farm organs for wealthy patrons who need them. It is not as far fetched as one may believe Money can be a very powerful motivator. Why else do people risk everything including thier lives to bring drugs into this country? Money and greed, these are evil.
Nice, this is actually an interesting argument. You’re basically saying that progress is bad because it can be abused. I agree that progress can be abused, but you must admit that it also has a lot of benefits. Do you really believe that the damage will outweigh the advantages? You might be correct in that belief, only the future will tell us. But do know that by stopping scientific research you are also condemning to death possibly millions of people who could utilize life saving technology brought on my improved genetic research.
The industrial revolution might be an interesting comparison—a lot of farmers lost work; a whole way of life basically was destroyed. We fought two massive world wars with millions of deaths. New governments used the new technology to kill hundreds of millions of people in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and Nazi German. But now; what are the consequences? Industrialized countries have virtually eliminated starvation. We have tons of new products like televisions and cars and computers. Disease has vastly decreased and life expectancy has increased in turn. We generally live much better lives, in my observations, than people did in pre-industrialized times. Was industrialization a good thing or not?

You need to change your name from Realist to Idealist. Because you have a very Idealist view on how life and the world should be.

My name has nothing to do with the fact that I see reality as it is. :)

[Realist]

Cephas,

I use KJV because there are a lot of KJV fundies who won’t accept any other version. I’ll remember your suggestions though and keep them in mind when quoting from the Bible.

Even if I accept your translation of the passage though; most Christians still don’t follow it. The vast majority get married, and even claim that marriage is an inherently good thing; something everyone should do. Jesus’ statement seems to be saying, with your interpretation in mind, that while marriage is the best possibility for people who can’t possibly reach the high point that is abstinence, it is not the ideal: No sex whatsoever is the ideal.

[Realist]

Blazed,

Since the conclusions I come to are reasonable conclusions, and you are to whatever extent a reasonable person, it makes sense that you would reach the same conclusions I did. :)

[theburning]

Realist!
What exactly is your opinion on marriage?

[Realist]

I'm generally for it! Especially if it's between me and you.

[Dark*Demon]

I'm generally for it! Especially if it's between me and you.
but, not when its between tb and someone else...

[theburning]

I'm generally for it! Especially if it's between me and you.

lol.
I was looking for a more detailed opinion?

Also, shouldn't it be 'between you and I' ?

[Realist]

Well, once you take out all the negative cultural influences and replace it with a culture of rational morality, you still are left with the basic, intrinsic human emotions like love. Part of maximizing happiness is maximizing the positive effects of such emotions. Marriage is a means, though not the only one, towards doing so--especially between two people in complete and exclusive love with each other, like you and I.

[theburning]

Well, once you take out all the negative cultural influences and replace it with a culture of rational morality, you still are left with the basic, intrinsic human emotions like love. Part of maximizing happiness is maximizing the positive effects of such emotions. Marriage is a means, though not the only one, towards doing so--especially between two people in complete and exclusive love with each other, like you and I.

It's sort of interesting to hear you say that?
I wouldn't expect someone like you to think such thoughts?

At your age it's really quite impossible to differentiate love from love.

[Realist]

I wouldn't expect someone like you to think such thoughts?

Why not?

[theburning]

Why not?

I'm not totally sure!
Just judging from most of the posts you've been making lately I guess you sort of are coming across to be the sort who wouldn't?

[Realist]

Not to turn this into a personal thread, there is no part of my ideology that would be against marriage with the consent of both partners.

[theburning]

Not to turn this into a personal thread, there is no part of my ideology that would be against marriage with the consent of both partners.

Yeah I know that.

I guess I just didn't consider you to be the sort of person who would be interested in marriage? I can picture you being the sort who would be into polygamous relationships.

[Realist]

I do think our culture overvalues monogomy at times. But that doesn't mean pologomy is naturally better. Whichever relationship works best for the people involved should be followed without stigma attached; that is the rational morality way of looking at this.

[drakonfire]

God states this in the OT! You don’t follow the OT. I thought the law can’t save anymore. Do you wear clothes of wool and linen together?


i dont have much time to post right now, but i would like to make one quick point

matt 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20

sounds to me like the OT law is still pretty valid

and one more thing

it is undoubtedly true that a lot of the resistance to the scientific methods that would eventually have medical benefits was from Christian groups who rejected reason due to their faith beliefs.

uhm, ya wanna back this up? undoubtedly? but you have no proof? kinda sounds to me like you're making an assumption based on your preconceptions

oh and as to your coat question, i guess it would depend, what kind of condition is the guy in? will i be able to make it back to somewhere warm without suffering permenent damage... i'm not realyl sure what my answer would be truthfully, but i pray that if the situation ever came up, i would have the courage and compassion to say yes

[TheBlazedAce]

Drakonfire, are you kosher? You can't take half of the laws from the Old Testament and then only consider them correct. Although realist's argument for this specific facet does brake down if he was to argue with a Jewish person who was against stem-cell research. Coincidently though, much fewer Jewish people are against stem-cell research even though it's in the OT where most of the original laws for the whole "sanctity of life" argument were raised in the first place. Just another reason why it's probably not as much the faith, but more like the sheer stubborness of most people. While they stand in the way of taking small risks in the hopes of saving millions the reasonable people welcome the change.

[drakonfire]

Drakonfire, are you kosher? You can't take half of the laws from the Old Testament and then only consider them correct

no, i'm not, its a downfall i admit, i try not to eat things that the Bible says not to, i dont buy kosher foods, and yeah sometimes i have pork, *shrug* i just dont think about it most of the time, and then i do and i stop mid meal, its kinda awkward actually, lol... i keep the laws i can and try my hardest with those i cant

[TheBlazedAce]

Very few of the Christians who are against stem-cell research hold all the laws from the Old Testament to be true. At least you hold them true, even if you don't always abide by them. Don't you at least admit that the saving of millions of lives outweighs the cells of life in the embryo (I don't know if you people realize this, but 3/4 of pregnancies are lost due to a miscarriage)?

[drakonfire]

Very few of the Christians who are against stem-cell research hold all the laws from the Old Testament to be true. At least you hold them true, even if you don't always abide by them. Don't you at least admit that the saving of millions of lives outweighs the cells of life in the embryo (I don't know if you people realize this, but 3/4 of pregnancies are lost due to a miscarriage)?


i'll admit it would be nice to save those millsions of lives, but even my christian morals aside, your getting into the whole "ends justifying the means" thing and that is dangerous ground indeed, and the means, in my mind, is the murder of countless future people, PEOPLE, not a mass of cells, a real, living human being, and i just cant justify that in my mind

and there ARE alternatives to embryo stem cells, as ceph pointed out, adult stem cells are viable to, and i'm sure other possabilities as well, just embryonic stem cells seem to be the easiest path to follow, but i cant justify it to myself, i will never agree with it


EDIT: oh and a small note on the eating of unclean food, there are 2 passages in the NT which, depending on how you interpret them, state that no food is unclean anymore, but thats just certain interpretations of what it says, i still debate this with myself quite often and so try to avoid eating 'unclean' foods until such a time as i have resolved the issue permenently

[TheBlazedAce]

i'll admit it would be nice to save those millsions of lives, but even my christian morals aside, your getting into the whole "ends justifying the means" thing and that is dangerous ground indeed, and the means, in my mind, is the murder of countless future people, PEOPLE, not a mass of cells, a real, living human being, and i just cant justify that in my mind

and there ARE alternatives to embryo stem cells, as ceph pointed out, adult stem cells are viable to, and i'm sure other possabilities as well, just embryonic stem cells seem to be the easiest path to follow, but i cant justify it to myself, i will never agree with it


EDIT: oh and a small note on the eating of unclean food, there are 2 passages in the NT which, depending on how you interpret them, state that no food is unclean anymore, but thats just certain interpretations of what it says, i still debate this with myself quite often and so try to avoid eating 'unclean' foods until such a time as i have resolved the issue permenently

I've never heard of adult stem-cells. If you could show me proof of this it would be a different story. If these are actually that easy to recieve why in the world do you think this argument is even taking place. I can't believe that adults can have stem-cells, in which case all that would take to remove them would be a needle of some sort, and instead people chose to take embryos. Obviously if both means were available scientists would take the first to make everyone happy.

You have to have degrees to everything. Nothing is black and white drakon. You can't say that killing a 3 year-old is just as wrong as using a mass of cells (which like I said before might not have even been born). Just like realist said before, if you're going to say that these cells may be future humans then that's just like saying that every time a girl has her period it's killing a possible human or every time a man ejaculates without doing so to have a baby it's killing possible humans or that every sperm that doesn't reach the egg is killing possible humans. Lots of sperm are made so that one might reach the egg (a means to an end).

I just want to underline this for some people who probably don't know it,
3/4 of all pregnancies are lost due to a miscarriage, meaning that the fertalized egg never attaches to the uterus' wall.

[drakonfire]

i dont have a lot of time right now, but in this thread i believe ceph posted about adult stem cell research and some of the promise it has shown, the problem with adult stem cells as far as i'm aware is that they are a lot harder to get to 'take' to whatever it is they are being added to, i think... i could be wrong though so dont quote me on that

excpet that when a girl has her period, none of her eggs are viable to turn into a child without a sperm, same goes for the guys and ejaculation (excpet, eggs are missing) the thing with the "mass of cells" is that a sperm and egg have met, beginning the life of a future human being

and the 3/4s of pregnancies ending in miscarrage is a crap statistic, i know its probably true (i say probably because i havent heard that before, but i'll trust you on it) what i mean by crap statistic this this, using that as justification is like killing a starving kid and saying "well 80,000 kids die a day from starvation! i was just making the process faster and more garanteed!"

a miscarriage is usually a natural event, there is nothing natural about a needle being stuck into the devoloping fetus to snuff its life out (overly dramatic probably, but you see my point?)

[TheBlazedAce]

i dont have a lot of time right now, but in this thread i believe ceph posted about adult stem cell research and some of the promise it has shown, the problem with adult stem cells as far as i'm aware is that they are a lot harder to get to 'take' to whatever it is they are being added to, i think... i could be wrong though so dont quote me on that

excpet that when a girl has her period, none of her eggs are viable to turn into a child without a sperm, same goes for the guys and ejaculation (excpet, eggs are missing) the thing with the "mass of cells" is that a sperm and egg have met, beginning the life of a future human being

and the 3/4s of pregnancies ending in miscarrage is a crap statistic, i know its probably true (i say probably because i havent heard that before, but i'll trust you on it) what i mean by crap statistic this this, using that as justification is like killing a starving kid and saying "well 80,000 kids die a day from starvation! i was just making the process faster and more garanteed!"

a miscarriage is usually a natural event, there is nothing natural about a needle being stuck into the devoloping fetus to snuff its life out (overly dramatic probably, but you see my point?)

Define natural. Natural is the biggest load of BS word ever used in the world. Nature encompesses all things. Therefore, everything is natural and that the word is practically useless, especially for what you're using it for. People like you use it becuase you need to justify your horrible arguments. My point of the 3/4 misscariage thing (which I read in my book in family studies class) is that most of the time these possible humans die all the time.

[old_man_killer]

OMK,



Their medical beliefs were based on the same sources as their belief that the sun revolved around the Earth, Aristotle and the Bible. Medieval knowledge (in fact, knowledge until basically the scientific revolution) was based on accepting things on authority, NOT rationalism. And while the Bible cannot be solely blamed for this (Aristotle was pre-Christianity) it is undoubtedly true that a lot of the resistance to the scientific methods that would eventually have medical benefits was from Christian groups who rejected reason due to their faith beliefs.



Irrelevant; my point is that reason is the best means towards solving problems, so obviously scientists can be wrong to the extent that they depart from reason.


This is what I meant by my ideas having a lot of implications, which solve all these reasonable objections. Basically, the fact that different things make different people happy, to the extent that it is true, doesn’t make my idea any less valid, it just means we need to recognize this difference in people and deal with them. Also, causing unhappiness for the overall purpose of greater happiness is acceptable; it brings overall benefit.

So the average Christian can’t move mountains no matter how much faith they have? Why is it included in the Bible then? What makes Jesus’ disciples better than any of you? I think this verse is meant to be taking out of context; i.e., its supposed to tell everyone that they should have faith, not just the disciples.

Last time I looked all the mountains were still in the same place they were before…oh, I get it, you mean figurative mountains. lol. Nice one.

God states this in the OT! You don’t follow the OT. I thought the law can’t save anymore. Do you wear clothes of wool and linen together?

Uhh…wrong. Lots of animals have gay sexual relationships. And who cares how nature works?? In nature, animals and people both have sex without getting married. And often have sex with multiple partners. The Bible is clearly sending a message to overcome nature! If the natural state was good there would be no need for a Bible, obviously. This is an inane argument, you can’t possibly win it, just drop it and I won’t follow up on it.

How do we know what anything feels? You know because of the actions they take, as I stated in my previous post. But beyond that, an embryo has no capacity to feel because it is such a simple organism.

lol. I wonder if I should take it as a compliment that you think my arguments are so well stated that I must have taken them from another source. In any case, everything I say here is 100% original and my ideas. Other people might also have those ideas but I’ve developed them on my own. What a weak personal attack. Just because some random 16 year old knows more than you about a few subjects doesn’t mean they copied it from someone else, just that you have to learn a few things before you can expect to reasonably, if still insufficiently, counter his arguments.


Nice, this is actually an interesting argument. You’re basically saying that progress is bad because it can be abused. I agree that progress can be abused, but you must admit that it also has a lot of benefits. Do you really believe that the damage will outweigh the advantages? You might be correct in that belief, only the future will tell us. But do know that by stopping scientific research you are also condemning to death possibly millions of people who could utilize life saving technology brought on my improved genetic research.
The industrial revolution might be an interesting comparison—a lot of farmers lost work; a whole way of life basically was destroyed. We fought two massive world wars with millions of deaths. New governments used the new technology to kill hundreds of millions of people in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and Nazi German. But now; what are the consequences? Industrialized countries have virtually eliminated starvation. We have tons of new products like televisions and cars and computers. Disease has vastly decreased and life expectancy has increased in turn. We generally live much better lives, in my observations, than people did in pre-industrialized times. Was industrialization a good thing or not?



My name has nothing to do with the fact that I see reality as it is. :)

I was going to answer you point for point, but I realized that you are arguing against every point just to argue. Your rationale is flawed. You are nothing more than a political speech writer with an ablity to throw out so much rhetoric. So I am "kicking the dust off my sandals" and I'll not trouble your door. I will however, PRAY for you. OMK

[drakonfire]

Define natural. Natural is the biggest load of BS word ever used in the world. Nature encompesses all things. Therefore, everything is natural and that the word is practically useless, especially for what you're using it for. People like you use it becuase you need to justify your horrible arguments. My point of the 3/4 misscariage thing (which I read in my book in family studies class) is that most of the time these possible humans die all the time.

for the purposes of this arguments the definitions i'm relying on are these

# Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
# Not altered, treated, or disguised

something happens naturally when there is little to no outside interference, and as i'm sure you can get from my previous post, i see going in and harvesting the stem cells as extremely un-natural

[Cephas]

Cephas,

I use KJV because there are a lot of KJV fundies who won’t accept any other version. I’ll remember your suggestions though and keep them in mind when quoting from the Bible.

Even if I accept your translation of the passage though; most Christians still don’t follow it. The vast majority get married, and even claim that marriage is an inherently good thing; something everyone should do. Jesus’ statement seems to be saying, with your interpretation in mind, that while marriage is the best possibility for people who can’t possibly reach the high point that is abstinence, it is not the ideal: No sex whatsoever is the ideal.
The problem here is that you can't expect everyone, myself included, to be up to speed 100% on what the Bible teaches. Especially when it comes to passages that require more in depth thought. As much as I hate to say it, it is all too often the case that when one becomes a Christian, the check their brain at the door. To follow Christ though, is to follow with mind as well, and not just give lip service.

[TheBlazedAce]

for the purposes of this arguments the definitions i'm relying on are these

# Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
# Not altered, treated, or disguised

something happens naturally when there is little to no outside interference, and as i'm sure you can get from my previous post, i see going in and harvesting the stem cells as extremely un-natural

Define "outside interference". Honestly, realist went over before that half of what is considered natural is against christianity. Animals don't get married, they have sex as often as possible, sometimes with more then one mate. If you want to live like an animal go do it. Anything that is touched in any way by humans is considered "un-natural" and it just gets on my nerves. Whether or not we do it ourselves or it happens "naturaly" it happens and perhaps you should have better things to do with your time then try and stop every human interaction with your so called "natural" world.

[Office_Shredder]

Except... what humans do is inherently natural, since we're natural organisms too.

Wait! I mean we're created in the image of god! I swear! That's what I meant to say! :D

[Serge]

How is an embryo 'potential' human life if it was created with the intentions of using it for research?

[drakonfire]

Define "outside interference". Honestly, realist went over before that half of what is considered natural is against christianity. Animals don't get married, they have sex as often as possible, sometimes with more then one mate. If you want to live like an animal go do it. Anything that is touched in any way by humans is considered "un-natural" and it just gets on my nerves. Whether or not we do it ourselves or it happens "naturaly" it happens and perhaps you should have better things to do with your time then try and stop every human interaction with your so called "natural" world.


ace you've stopped debating the point and started debating semantics, you know perfectly well what i mean when i say 'outside interference' you are very intelligent, at least respect me enough to know that i know that

serge: thats just the point, who are we to create life only to destroy it, if an embry is alive (as i believe) then we have no right to create it just to destroy it, you see my point?

[TheBlazedAce]

ace you've stopped debating the point and started debating semantics, you know perfectly well what i mean when i say 'outside interference' you are very intelligent, at least respect me enough to know that i know that

serge: thats just the point, who are we to create life only to destroy it, if an embry is alive (as i believe) then we have no right to create it just to destroy it, you see my point?

My point is that the entire debate of "it's not natural" is a load of BS. Nature encompasses all that is, so to say that just becuase a human being did something that changed anything about is unnatural is pointless. Who cares? Honestly, if you want to live life with the animals go do it, but are you to say that all human influence is negative in some way?

[drakonfire]

My point is that the entire debate of "it's not natural" is a load of BS. Nature encompasses all that is, so to say that just becuase a human being did something that changed anything about is unnatural is pointless. Who cares? Honestly, if you want to live life with the animals go do it, but are you to say that all human influence is negative in some way?

okay ace, lets look at it this way, an embryo is designed to develope inside a womans womb, correct? the womb is there to nurture and protect the developing fetus until it is ready to be born (or is forced out by something else) anywhat, the point is the fetus is safe from outside interefences which might harm it, i do not believe ALL human involvement is a bad thing, i think there is a lot we screw up, but it goes both ways, this is one of those ways which i believe we should not mess with

you're taking my statement that i meant to be applied in this situation and blanketing it over all of existance, thats called taking someone's words out of context... we've drifted away from the subject at hand, shall we get back to it or do we continue this useless rant about whose arguements are in our eyes crap

or we could just face it, and realize we both have such differing views we'll never come to any sort of agreement of any kind, and thus agree to disagree

[TheBlazedAce]

okay ace, lets look at it this way, an embryo is designed to develope inside a womans womb, correct? the womb is there to nurture and protect the developing fetus until it is ready to be born (or is forced out by something else) anywhat, the point is the fetus is safe from outside interefences which might harm it, i do not believe ALL human involvement is a bad thing, i think there is a lot we screw up, but it goes both ways, this is one of those ways which i believe we should not mess with

you're taking my statement that i meant to be applied in this situation and blanketing it over all of existance, thats called taking someone's words out of context... we've drifted away from the subject at hand, shall we get back to it or do we continue this useless rant about whose arguements are in our eyes crap

or we could just face it, and realize we both have such differing views we'll never come to any sort of agreement of any kind, and thus agree to disagree

No, you're just not willing to accept anything I tell you. What about a cesarean, where the baby would die if surgery isn't undertaken to save it? It's not the way it's "supposed" to be (even though I've been trying to say again and again there is no "supposed to be" what happens is just as natural had it been without human intervention). What about every time intervention must be undertaken to "save" that "possible" baby's life? Do we decide not to proceed because someone like you might say it's not "natural"?!

[Cephas]

How is an embryo 'potential' human life if it was created with the intentions of using it for research?
The scientists involved in cloning say there is no difference between an embryo for research and an embryo for cloning. Based on this, I would say that any one made, whether for research or not, should be viewed the same way.

[Warcow]

The scientists involved in cloning say there is no difference between an embryo for research and an embryo for cloning. Based on this, I would say that any one made, whether for research or not, should be viewed the same way.

But since it wouldn't exist WITHOUT the cloning whos intent was research, it wouldn't have any potential to live anyway.

[S_K_O_F]

Very few of the Christians who are against stem-cell research hold all the laws from the Old Testament to be true. At least you hold them true, even if you don't always abide by them. Don't you at least admit that the saving of millions of lives outweighs the cells of life in the embryo (I don't know if you people realize this, but 3/4 of pregnancies are lost due to a miscarriage)?

The old testament laws are only followed by Jews who do not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

The new testament gives us a new covenant with God and many of the old laws were discarded, like sacrificing lambs and goats as payment for sin.

Christians can eat pork now

[old_man_killer]

The old testament laws are only followed by Jews who do not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

The new testament gives us a new covenant with God and many of the old laws were discarded, like sacrificing lambs and goats as payment for sin.

Christians can eat pork now

In all actuallity S_K_O_F Jesus said he did not come to change the laws (Torah) but to fulfill them. There are an increasing number of Christians that are observing the Old Testament Feasts and Celebrations while no longer following the secular Holidays that were in fact based on Pagan holidays. There are also an increasing number of Jews who are coming to accept that Jesus was the Messiah while maintaining their traditional Holidaysand celebrations as outlined in the Old Testament.

EDIT: The new covenent was that we no longer needed the Pharasies and sacrafices to atone for thier sins. Jesus was here as the ultimate scrafice and allows us the oppurtunity to pray directly to GOD and ask for forgiveness of our sins.

[Cephas]

But since it wouldn't exist WITHOUT the cloning whos intent was research, it wouldn't have any potential to live anyway.
If a rapist didn't intend to father a child, does it make the child any less of a human?

[Shiny Flors]

But since it wouldn't exist WITHOUT the cloning whos intent was research, it wouldn't have any potential to live anyway.


With this logic a women who gets pregnant unintentionally, is that embryo okay to disgard too? The fact still remains the embryo is created.

[S_K_O_F]

if a child in the womb is not a person, then why is a man charged with 2 murders when killing a pregnant woman?

but then why is it not murder at all to abort?

something here needs to be fixed to be consistent

[old_man_killer]

If a rapist didn't intend to father a child, does it make the child any less of a human?

What I am about to say could be used as an arguement for both sides. But I am a child of a rape victim. My Mother held to her belief that all life is sacrite(sp) and at the time she wasn't married which in 1959 (I told you I was old) was a scandal. But I am here today because she refused to give into pressure by friends and family to abort the bastard child. I have 3 great kids of my own now and I have a grandchild due in June.

To answer your question Cephas, NO it does not make it any less of a child!

[Warcow]

With this logic a women who gets pregnant unintentionally, is that embryo okay to disgard too? The fact still remains the embryo is created.

There is a very large difference, that embyro was created because of a mistake, and wasn't bred for a specific purpose. The embryo's we are discussing are maybe specifically for the purpose of research, in which case, they were never destined to become living. We are not destroying life in this case, because it never truely existed. Nor did the potential for life, since the embryo was never intended to become a full human being. The options here are that, A) the tissue that makes up the embryo are harvested for research, or B) the embryo never exists and in either case, the embryo will never achieve life. What is the big dillema?

[Warcow]

If a rapist didn't intend to father a child, does it make the child any less of a human?

Once the child is born? No, they will still make an excellent person if that is the way they are raised. (In the example of OMK, who is clearly, and excellent individual) This is basically a pro/con abortion thread. The fact that a man is charged for two murders is because that child was being raised with the intent of becoming a person etc. The embryo's I am referring to differ in one fashion, the fact is, they never had a chance to become people. There was no mother, no father in the traditional sense, they were not bred to become anything, they were merely created for research purposes. Does that mean if these embryo's were rasied they would NOT be normal or good people? No, but that isn't the arguement here.

[Shiny Flors]

There is a very large difference, that embyro was created because of a mistake, and wasn't bred for a specific purpose. The embryo's we are discussing are maybe specifically for the purpose of research, in which case, they were never destined to become living. We are not destroying life in this case, because it never truely existed. Nor did the potential for life, since the embryo was never intended to become a full human being. The options here are that, A) the tissue that makes up the embryo are harvested for research, or B) the embryo never exists and in either case, the embryo will never achieve life. What is the big dillema?

The differences is that A) the embyro does exist and B)the embyryo doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what the intent of creating the embryo is, the fact is it still exists.

This arguement still I belive revolves around the question is a embryo a mass of tissue or is an embyro a person, a very early form of a person, but a person nonetheless.

[old_man_killer]

There is a very large difference, that embyro was created because of a mistake, and wasn't bred for a specific purpose. The embryo's we are discussing are maybe specifically for the purpose of research, in which case, they were never destined to become living. We are not destroying life in this case, because it never truely existed. Nor did the potential for life, since the embryo was never intended to become a full human being. The options here are that, A) the tissue that makes up the embryo are harvested for research, or B) the embryo never exists and in either case, the embryo will never achieve life. What is the big dillema?

Warcow, how ever an embryo comes into being dos not degrade it's existance. If it is, then it is. But where does it end? Where do we draw that line between research for humanities sake and just plain meddling with things we just ought not to? At what point do we decide we have crossed that line into abomination? And when we do, will we even be able to recognize that line, or will we as humans become so insensitized that we no longer hold human life as sacrite?

[Warcow]

The differences is that A) the embyro does exist and B)the embyryo doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what the intent of creating the embryo is, the fact is it still exists.

This arguement still I belive revolves around the question is a embryo a mass of tissue or is an embyro a person, a very early form of a person, but a person nonetheless.

Which is exactly why we aren't going to get anywhere, because it basically comes down to when do you define a person as a person, and as we all know, there are some seriously contrasting views on these forums.

[old_man_killer]

(In the example of OMK, who is clearly, and excellent individual) .

You are obviously a great judge of character! :D

[Warcow]

Warcow, how ever an embryo comes into being dos not degrade it's existance. If it is, then it is. But where does it end? Where do we draw that line between research for humanities sake and just plain meddling with things we just ought not to? At what point do we decide we have crossed that line into abomination? And when we do, will we even be able to recognize that line, or will we as humans become so insensitized that we no longer hold human life as sacrite?

That was a very religious post. You are assuming we are meddling in the work of god, and from your standpoint, I accept that, however you are defining existance in a different way than I am. I don't believe that these embryo's exist to become people, for them, I believe they have reached their final stage.

Embryo: An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

For it to be an embryo in the traditional sense, it would have to be in it's early stages, but for the cloned embyro's it is the final stage. They are not going to become people, so I don't agree with you there. The bottom line is, the embryo implanted will keep on living provided the mother does, and stay alive, in general terms. If we let the cloned embyros float around in their test tubes would they keep growing?

[old_man_killer]

That was a very religious post. You are assuming we are meddling in the work of god, and from your standpoint, I accept that, however you are defining existance in a different way than I am. I don't believe that these embryo's exist to become people, for them, I believe they have reached their final stage.

Embryo: An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

For it to be an embryo in the traditional sense, it would have to be in it's early stages, but for the cloned embyro's it is the final stage. They are not going to become people, so I don't agree with you there. The bottom line is, the embryo implanted will keep on living provided the mother does, and stay alive, in general terms. If we let the cloned embyros float around in their test tubes would they keep growing?

Warcow, That part I do understand. But my response was more from a "what will prevent them from going further" stand point.

Lets remember that sometimes when we meddle into genetics, it sometimes has very bad results, example Killer Bees. An experiment to make a better producing honey be that backfired.

[Warcow]

Warcow, That part I do understand. But my response was more from a "what will prevent them from going further" stand point.

Their ability to grow. If we keep the mother fed and nourished, the embryo will continue to grow within her body. If we keep the test tube plugged in the wall, the embryo within with survive, but it will not grow unless we manipulate it.

[old_man_killer]

Their ability to grow. If we keep the mother fed and nourished, the embryo will continue to grow within her body. If we keep the test tube plugged in the wall, the embryo within with survive, but it will not grow unless we manipulate it.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't making my point clear enough. I wasn't refering to the specific embryo research, I was thinking broader, into the whole field of genetic research.

[Warcow]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't making my point clear enough. I wasn't refering to the specific embryo research, I was thinking broader, into the whole field of genetic research.

You mean from cloning people themselves and harvesting grown organs for transplant? To that I would answer that I think most everyone would agree that it would be morally wrong, including the scientists. Those kind of clones would be sentient, and already alive in the sense that they would be able to think, see etc. The reason that this is such a hot button issue is because there is a very large moral rift between the two factions, and a difference in the way they define life. I dont think anyone can argue a full grown man or woman isn't "alive" so the same would be true of their clones. Right now, they allow the research because it is kind of a shady area that is open to interpretation. Once that line has been clearly crossed, reseach will be discontinued, and very few if any will argue with that.

[old_man_killer]

You mean from cloning people themselves and harvesting grown organs for transplant? To that I would answer that I think most everyone would agree that it would be morally wrong, including the scientists. Those kind of clones would be sentient, and already alive in the sense that they would be able to think, see etc. The reason that this is such a hot button issue is because there is a very large moral rift between the two factions, and a difference in the way they define life. I dont think anyone can argue a full grown man or woman isn't "alive" so the same would be true of their clones. Right now, they allow the research because it is kind of a shady area that is open to interpretation. Once that line has been clearly crossed, reseach will be discontinued, and very few if any will argue with that.

I agree with that except you are not factoring in a couple of things.
a) there are people that have no moral issues, they don't feel for human life as we do
b) greed, if offered enough money, man is capable of comitting any number of attrocities. And a very rich person in need of an organ can be very persuasive.

[Warcow]

I agree with that except you are not factoring in a couple of things.
a) there are people that have no moral issues, they don't feel for human life as we do
b) greed, if offered enough money, man is capable of comitting any number of attrocities. And a very rich person in need of an organ can be very persuasive.

The fact that some people will go to any extent isn't what we are arguing here. I never said there wern't sick people out there who would run around killing people to harvest eyes to build a necklace, or clone humans and do unspeakable things with them. However, you would find those people are an extremely minute percentage, and would be opposed by the vast majority of the population. This doesn't mean the research will continue to be authorized because a few people say it's alright. The fact is right now, there is no clear winning side, or majority vote on our current issue of cloning embryos. As far as people being offered enough money, of course, but that is true of everything. People kill, plunder and rape for enough money. Is it allowed? No, do people agree with it? no, Will it continue to happen? Yes. However, that is not something we can do anything about. We are talking about authorized research on a topic that is very open to interpretation.

[old_man_killer]

The fact that some people will go to any extent isn't what we are arguing here. I never said there wern't sick people out there who would run around killing people to harvest eyes to build a necklace, or clone humans and do unspeakable things with them. However, you would find those people are an extremely minute percentage, and would be opposed by the vast majority of the population. This doesn't mean the research will continue to be authorized because a few people say it's alright. The fact is right now, there is no clear winning side, or majority vote on our current issue of cloning embryos. As far as people being offered enough money, of course, but that is true of everything. People kill, plunder and rape for enough money. Is it allowed? No, do people agree with it? no, Will it continue to happen? Yes. However, that is not something we can do anything about. We are talking about authorized research on a topic that is very open to interpretation.

It comes down to a desire to slow down progress, progress that may or may not have lasting benefits and or detriment to human society as a whole. Lets look at the anology of the simple bathing suit. back 100 years ago it was unhear of for a woman to show her ankles at the beach, then slowly it was the calves, then the knees untill we reached to that we have women 95% naked on the beach. OK there are some great looking women (benefit?) but then just check out one 250lb big girl wearing a thong or a fat old man in a speedo and you can see the evil. LOL

[Warcow]

It comes down to a desire to slow down progress, progress that may or may not have lasting benefits and or detriment to human society as a whole. Lets look at the anology of the simple bathing suit. back 100 years ago it was unhear of for a woman to show her ankles at the beach, then slowly it was the calves, then the knees untill we reached to that we have women 95% naked on the beach. OK there are some great looking women (benefit?) but then just check out one 250lb big girl wearing a thong or a fat old man in a speedo and you can see the evil. LOL

LOL while I agree with that analogy somewhat, there are major differences. It REALLY depends on how you perceive beauty, some people love big women, so they enjoy it. Also, many many years ago, those women would have been the prime choice, because they would be able to bear many children, where as the wisp of a woman with the hourglass form will have a harder time. Also, the fact is, while you may find it revolting that a woman of that size would wear something that covers quite litteraly just a fraction of her nakedness, and often get's lost in the great beyond, it isn't ACTUALLY detrimental to your health, other than a momentarily lowered sex drive.

[Cephas]

It comes down to a desire to slow down progress, progress that may or may not have lasting benefits and or detriment to human society as a whole. Lets look at the anology of the simple bathing suit. back 100 years ago it was unhear of for a woman to show her ankles at the beach, then slowly it was the calves, then the knees untill we reached to that we have women 95% naked on the beach. OK there are some great looking women (benefit?) but then just check out one 250lb big girl wearing a thong or a fat old man in a speedo and you can see the evil. LOL
I can't resist this one. Look at who you're talking with, mate! His name is WARCOW for cryin' out loud! He's probably into 450lb Warthog women!

[drakonfire]

No, you're just not willing to accept anything I tell you. What about a cesarean, where the baby would die if surgery isn't undertaken to save it? It's not the way it's "supposed" to be (even though I've been trying to say again and again there is no "supposed to be" what happens is just as natural had it been without human intervention). What about every time intervention must be undertaken to "save" that "possible" baby's life? Do we decide not to proceed because someone like you might say it's not "natural"?!

this is getting frustrating, ace you keep twisting my words, you know good and well if a ceasaren was needed to SAVE the life a baby then i would be all for it, but how can you compare an act that would SAVE a life to an act that would DESTROY one?

[Bottle]

You'rrrrrrrre STILL,LL,LLL discussing thi'?

*Opens 37th beer*

[drakonfire]

*takes bottles keys* *replaces all the beers with mt. dews* *calls cabby* yes, and i'll get your car back to you as soon as i find out where you live :D

[Shiny Flors]

Bottle, 37th beer?, this is only page 20.

you lush.

:) :)

[Warcow]

I can't resist this one. Look at who you're talking with, mate! His name is WARCOW for cryin' out loud! He's probably into 450lb Warthog women!

450??!?! I'd crush her flat! You gotta give me at least 600 pounds to work with here man!

*EDIT* Bottle has finally seen the light, *slowly passes bottle another bottle*

[old_man_killer]

Question: Bottle with a bottle, is that a form of twisted canibalism?

[drakonfire]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to old_man_killer again.

i owe you to many reps now :P

[Warcow]

Question: Bottle with a bottle, is that a form of twisted canibalism?

Not really, he's not actually eating the bottle, he's just drinking what's inside. If he we're to chow down, or disrespect the bottle in any fashion, i'd have to take hm out :cool:

[Realist]

I’m beginning to write too slowly…by the time I’m done responding there are a whole bunch more posts. In any case…here are my responses.

Drakonfire, to your last post to me:

sounds to me like the OT law is still pretty valid
You really try to follow all the laws in Leviticus? No one does, not even any Jews do. The OT laws are extremely stringent and many seem extremely arbitrary; as I asked OMK, do you wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

uhm, ya wanna back this up? undoubtedly? but you have no proof? kinda sounds to me like you're making an assumption based on your preconceptions

I don’t; I have historical evidence for historical statements I make even when I don’t include them explicitly. The Christians were against the science that eventually aided medicine. This is true indirectly, in that they supported the Aristotelian view of medicine which wasn’t backed up by the scientific method; and it was true directly in that they actively opposed much of science and its findings. Its obviously still true now, look at the anti-evolution Christians. Now, as the scientific views became more accepted, the Christian establishment also accepted it more. And I’m sure in 100 years, as our culture improves, Christians will accept stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality and probably even evolution (if Christianity still exists, which I hope it doesn’t), and will have moved on to another target group to focus their hatred on.

I can’t go over all of Modern European history for you, look into it a bit yourself, I’m supported here. Medicine isn’t my focus but it’s the same idea, look at what Christian leaders (Church leaders, Martin Luther, other influential Protestants) said about Copernicus and Galileo. And obviously the Christians were wrong on this and science was right, just like the Christians are wrong on pretty much everything and science, while not always being right, is at least more right than the Christians are.

oh and as to your coat question, i guess it would depend, what kind of condition is the guy in?

Interesting question, considering that Jesus was saying to give your coat to a person who had sued you; in other words, your enemy. Say he was some rich person who could easily just buy the coat and you knew him personally and hated him. Would you give it then? If its hard to make the decision even if the guy is in a bad condition, its hard to believe that you would give it to your enemy whose in an even better condition than you. Yet this seems to be exactly what Jesus is requesting.

[Realist]

OMK to his first post to me,



I was going to answer you point for point, but I realized that you are arguing against every point just to argue. Your rationale is flawed. You are nothing more than a political speech writer with an ablity to throw out so much rhetoric. So I am "kicking the dust off my sandals" and I'll not trouble your door. I will however, PRAY for you. OMK

I am not arguing to argue, I am arguing because I believe vehemently in what I am saying. I understand that you might feel unable to intelligently counter my points, but I wish that you would at least admit that rather than taking the easy way our and personally attack me without any factual basis whatsoever. Rhetoric? Everything I say is factually based, unlike most of what you say, which is either based on false information or no information whatsoever. Just because you’re unable to argue at my level doesn’t mean you need to resort to such childish tactics. And I couldn’t care less if you prayed for me—keep your silly myths if you so choose, Christianity is dead forever and even its perverted outline will wither out eventually as our society matures past its superstitious medievalism.

--

I wrote that piece yesterday, and added another today.

OMK one more remark,
I’ve read over the post you refused to reply to and I must say, I suspect one reason for your rejection is my mocking tone in reference to some of your arguments. My derision is not done as a personal attack against you, but rather to say that I know you are too intelligent to use these stupid arguments, either find better ones or attack weaker points of mine. I rarely mock Northwind’s posts, for example, because he always uses arguments of his level even when he’s completely and totally wrong.

[Realist]

Cephas,

The problem here is that you can't expect everyone, myself included, to be up to speed 100% on what the Bible teaches. Especially when it comes to passages that require more in depth thought. As much as I hate to say it, it is all too often the case that when one becomes a Christian, the check their brain at the door. To follow Christ though, is to follow with mind as well, and not just give lip service.

I understand this; and I would not expect every Christian to be perfect, but they should at least have as a goal to be what the Bible tells them to be should they not? But no, fundie Christians divorce as much or more than anyone else, they are no more anti-materialistic than anyone else (as far as I’ve seen), they get married as much as anyone else. And instead of trying to follow the Bible to the best of their ability, they go on moral crusades against other people!. No stem cell research! Cephas, what do you have to personally sacrifice if stem cell research becomes abolished? Nothing! And gay marriage, if it becomes outlawed, tell me what hurt will come to you? Zero. And abortion, why would you ever need an abortion? Notice the trend? Christians virtually ignore many passages of their own Bible that apply to them, and instead attack other people! This is the perverted Christianity that I see today, and I’m unhappy to say (and please don’t take this as a personal attack) that you are only supporting my view on this. What are your posts about? Pornography! Do you enjoy watching pornography? If porn is banned, will life become less fun for you? Stem cells! Again, doesn’t harm you if stem cells are banned, and least not now. Why don’t you make a thread about all the ways in which you personally don’t live up to the Christian ideal and hope to change in the future? If you did, I’d still probably attack half of what you say, but I’d at the very least applaud you for your courage!

Fundie Christians, almost as a rule, use their Bible to attack others, but fail to follow many of its precepts that apply to them. This is more than just imperfection, it is a perverted form of Christianity (not that I wouldn’t be against Christianity if it was in its true form).

[Realist]

Shiny Flors,

This arguement still I belive revolves around the question is a embryo a mass of tissue or is an embyro a person, a very early form of a person, but a person nonetheless.

This is correct. And so far not a single person has offered a compelling logical argument for why an embryo should be considered a person. Even when I asked for a Biblical argument to be made, only Drakonfire gave any and not one person responded to my effective counter. It seems that there is no basis to one of the sides in this debate besides the simplistic and meaningless argument: It is human, therefore killing it is murder.

Skin cells are human too, yet we have no problem with killing those.

[Realist]

Drakonfire later post,

Blazed is correct. You said that killing an embryo was unnatural and therefore wrong, a cesarean is just as unnatural yet you say its not just as wrong because it is destroying an embryo. In that case, your objection cannot be that killing an embryo is unnatural, but rather that it is destroying an embryo. The next step is to explain why destroying an embryo is wrong.

[Office_Shredder]

Let's also explain why killing cancer is OK.... sure, it'll kill a person, but cancer cells are human cells also! Why should we destroy the potential life that is in these cells?

[old_man_killer]

OK Realist, what is the answer according to Realist? What is the Realist manifesto for the truly enlightened Rational Moralist? Because you've got me convinced now. Obviously I have it all wrong. You see up til now I figured it like this:

OMK= Purpose filled life, striving to be the person and servant God wants me to be, Giver of my resources and time to aid others (and yeah, I am a rarity, I give without even a thought of re-payment). Convinced of an afterlife in a paradise known as Heaven.

Realist= Meaningless life, no hope for an afterlife (it don't exist right?). No restrictions on how to live, because evryone has the right to do as they please.

Please, I am all ears.

[Realist]

I have to agree with you, OS. The Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder," meaning we can't kill any human life, cancer cells included.

[old_man_killer]

Realist, you posed a question to me if I thought that the possible abuse of this research outweighed the possible benefits that could save millions of lives. My answer is yes. Of course you know it had to be yes. But let me ask you, what does it matter? If a life is spared. For how long? Life is meaningless and without purpose, why should we prolong it? Death is inevitable anyway.

[drakonfire]

You really try to follow all the laws in Leviticus? No one does, not even any Jews do. The OT laws are extremely stringent and many seem extremely arbitrary; as I asked OMK, do you wear clothes of mixed fabrics?



I don’t; I have historical evidence for historical statements I make even when I don’t include them explicitly. The Christians were against the science that eventually aided medicine. This is true indirectly, in that they supported the Aristotelian view of medicine which wasn’t backed up by the scientific method; and it was true directly in that they actively opposed much of science and its findings. Its obviously still true now, look at the anti-evolution Christians. Now, as the scientific views became more accepted, the Christian establishment also accepted it more. And I’m sure in 100 years, as our culture improves, Christians will accept stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality and probably even evolution (if Christianity still exists, which I hope it doesn’t), and will have moved on to another target group to focus their hatred on.

I can’t go over all of Modern European history for you, look into it a bit yourself, I’m supported here. Medicine isn’t my focus but it’s the same idea, look at what Christian leaders (Church leaders, Martin Luther, other influential Protestants) said about Copernicus and Galileo. And obviously the Christians were wrong on this and science was right, just like the Christians are wrong on pretty much everything and science, while not always being right, is at least more right than the Christians are.



Interesting question, considering that Jesus was saying to give your coat to a person who had sued you; in other words, your enemy. Say he was some rich person who could easily just buy the coat and you knew him personally and hated him. Would you give it then? If its hard to make the decision even if the guy is in a bad condition, its hard to believe that you would give it to your enemy whose in an even better condition than you. Yet this seems to be exactly what Jesus is requesting.

first, i try to follow the laws as best i can, as i explained already, i know i dont follow them all, heck, i'm still learning that half of them exist! but i'm TRYING, do not judge me by the label 'christian' judge me by who i am

as to your statement about evidence (or lack thereof) this is complete and utter crap and you know it, if i made a "historical claim" without one shred of evidence to back it up, you would dismiss it out of hand, and yet you expect everyone else yo accept your word for it? as i've been taught there have been many christians who have helped science along, many brilliant minds who caleld God their father and Jesus their savior, so from my perspective you are making an un-supported and false statement, and from your view i'm sure i'm doing the same, schism anyone?

your right, i shouldnt have bothered asking that question, Jesus says give, someone asks, i'll give

[old_man_killer]

Realist another question that you've posed to me was weither I thought the founding Fathers were better to run this country as opposed to our current Government. You will please excuse my paraphasing that a bit, the exact words escape me at this moment. I would still choose the founding fathers based on this principle. The founding fathers, though limited in thier knowledge (by todays standards) were in fact interested solely in the future of this country and our freedoms and rights to self rule. Whereas, our current government is more interested it thier election financial support and the lobbyists(Ok those two could be considered the same thing in most cases) that the individual freedoms of the citizens take second priority. But they allow themselves to get bogged down with politically charged issues, that I sometimes believe (ie: an opinion) are used to keep the masses from getting involved with the real important issues. Our government is for the people and by the people, then why don't they put Abortion, Stem Cell Research, and Gay rights (just as a sampling), issues on the election ballot? let the people decide by majority rule. No religion, no lobbyists, nothing but popular opinion. Instead, we discuss and debate these issues while they vote themselves another raise, and a retirement package that is really nice, for them. In a semi related thought, I think the Congress should have to pay into Social Security and also get their benefits from it, then we'd see the program fixed.
Did you know they pay nothing into thier program, but recieve a very large sum, I don't know the exact amount so I won't say, until they die, And thier spouses get money (also alot) until they die.

[drakonfire]

Drakonfire later post,

Blazed is correct. You said that killing an embryo was unnatural and therefore wrong, a cesarean is just as unnatural yet you say its not just as wrong because it is destroying an embryo. In that case, your objection cannot be that killing an embryo is unnatural, but rather that it is destroying an embryo. The next step is to explain why destroying an embryo is wrong.


my post was meant to apply in the context of embryos, not full grown ready to be born babies who are experiencing complications getting out, and the reason i used the term natural was that blazed kept throwing out the fact that 3/4ths of pregnancies end in miscarriage like it should have justified the destruction of the embryos for research, which it should NOT, of al lthe arguements i have heard for it that is the least sound in my mind

[TheBlazedAce]

my post was meant to apply in the context of embryos, not full grown ready to be born babies who are experiencing complications getting out, and the reason i used the term natural was that blazed kept throwing out the fact that 3/4ths of pregnancies end in miscarriage like it should have justified the destruction of the embryos for research, which it should NOT, of al lthe arguements i have heard for it that is the least sound in my mind

[jokingly outraged]JESUS CHRIST[/jokingly outraged]

I meant as I said earlier that you don't even know if this embryo is going to end up being a baby because 3/4 of pregnencies are lost due to a miscarriage. At least some of the embryos taken would have been lost anyway. That was my point. All I was saying is that you don't even know 100% that you're completely changing the outcome of this embryo. It was not an argument "justified the destruction of the embryos for research". Like most people you're misconstruding what I say and debating that which doesn't actually matter at all.

my post was meant to apply in the context of embryos, not full grown ready to be born babies who are experiencing complications getting out, and the reason i used the term natural was that blazed kept throwing out the fact that 3/4ths of pregnancies end in miscarriage like it should have justified the destruction of the embryos for research, which it should NOT, of al lthe arguements i have heard for it that is the least sound in my mind

This is the difference between you and I. When I realize I'm wrong I'll usually admit it and stop argueing that point. You don't admit you're wrong and you don't stop babbling on the same nonsense! I don't mean to say that everything you say is nonsense, but why is it so hard to realize that you're wrong once in a while?!

[old_man_killer]

[jokingly outraged]JESUS CHRIST[/jokingly outraged]

I meant as I said earlier that you don't even know if this embryo is going to end up being a baby because 3/4 of pregnencies are lost due to a miscarriage. At least some of the embryos taken would have been lost anyway. That was my point. All I was saying is that you don't even know 100% that you're completely changing the outcome of this embryo. It was not an argument "justified the destruction of the embryos for research". Like most people you're misconstruding what I say and debating that which doesn't actually matter at all.
Blazed, I am curious where you getb the figure that 75% of all pregnancies end up in miscarrage?

[TheBlazedAce]

Blazed, I am curious where you getb the figure that 75% of all pregnancies end up in miscarrage?

I read it in my text-book for my family-studies class. I believe I said so earlier in this thread.

[old_man_killer]

I read it in my text-book for my family-studies class. I believe I said so earlier in this thread.

OK, now is that PREGNANCIES? or are they talking about eggs being discarded during menstruation. Because 75% is a very high number.

[TheBlazedAce]

OK, now is that PREGNANCIES? or are they talking about eggs being discarded during menstruation. Because 75% is a very high number.

You are very correct OMK, tt is a big percentage, but because it might be misunderstood, I'll go more indepth into it. First of all, no and I'm not sure why you think I was talking about this, eggs being discarded during menstruation happens every month unless there is fertilization of the egg. How would 75% fit anywhere into this process?

It is indeed 75%, but the largest contribution to this percentage is because when the egg finally reaches the uterus it much attach to the uteral lining (I believe I might have said this also earlier in the thread) and at least half the time it can not do this(this is also considered a miscarriage). The number is true and if you think about what I've just said and how many times miscarriages happen afterwards it should be around that percentage. This is a statistic and not something I can argue in any other way.

[old_man_killer]

You are very correct OMK, tt is a big percentage, but because it might be misunderstood, I'll go more indepth into it. First of all, no and I'm not sure why you think I was talking about this, eggs being discarded during menstruation happens every month unless there is fertilization of the egg. How would 75% fit anywhere into this process?

It is indeed 75%, but the largest contribution to this percentage is because when the egg finally reaches the uterus it much attach to the uteral lining (I believe I might have said this also earlier in the thread) and at least half the time it can not do this(this is also considered a miscarriage). The number is true and if you think about what I've just said and how many times miscarriages happen afterwards it should be around that percentage. This is a statistic and not something I can argue in any other way.

Thanks, I was just making sure I understood it correctly. So if I do understand this, then those fertilized eggs are being miscarried sometimes without the host mothers knowledge? Obviously the egg at that time is very very tiny, then this must be an educated assumption?

[TheBlazedAce]

Thanks, I was just making sure I understood it correctly. So if I do understand this, then those fertilized eggs are being miscarried sometimes without the host mothers knowledge? Obviously the egg at that time is very very tiny, then this must be an educated assumption?

I would assume you are correct in that this is most probably a conjecture. That's probably why it was written as such a general number as 3 out of 4. When you say 75% that looks a lot more exact then when it's written down as 3 out of 4. 3 out of 4 makes it seem like the number was broadly estimated, but it's still a reasonable estimation.

[old_man_killer]

I would assume you are correct in that this is most probably a conjecture. That's probably why it was written as such a general number as 3 out of 4. When you say 75% that looks a lot more exact then when it's written down as 3 out of 4. 3 out of 4 makes it seem like the number was broadly estimated, but it's still a reasonable estimation.
Even at 3 out of 4, it still a large sum, I guess I am not too old to learn something. But I am still against cloning embryo's LOL.

[TheBlazedAce]

OMK= Purpose filled life, striving to be the person and servant God wants me to be, Giver of my resources and time to aid others (and yeah, I am a rarity, I give without even a thought of re-payment). Convinced of an afterlife in a paradise known as Heaven.


First of all you don't need to be a christian to live a purpose-fulfilled life. You don't even need to believe in God. You also don't need to be either to give aid to others without a thought of re-payment. This is what makes me so mad at some people. Do you honestly think that those who don't agree with your beliefs are all evil, shelfish, uncaring bastards?

[S_K_O_F]

Do you honestly think that those who don't agree with your beliefs are all evil, shelfish, uncaring bastards?
actually...yes!
but so are all Christians

[TheBlazedAce]

actually...yes!
but so are all Christians

So everyone in the world is horrible? There are no good people? Why are you even saying that?

[Office_Shredder]

Because he's mad that not everyone broods in a dungeon while trying to catch rats for dinner like he does :p

[old_man_killer]

Because he's mad that not everyone broods in a dungeon while trying to catch rats for dinner like he does :p
And what exactly is wrong with rats for dinner? They taste like chicken.

[Bottle]

*glug* *glug* *glug*

*hic*

Whrrrrrrr... wass goin' on?

[drakonfire]

This is the difference between you and I. When I realize I'm wrong I'll usually admit it and stop argueing that point. You don't admit you're wrong and you don't stop babbling on the same nonsense! I don't mean to say that everything you say is nonsense, but why is it so hard to realize that you're wrong once in a while?!

i will usually admit i'm wrong when i'm proved wrong, but so far i dont think anyone has been proved wrong, there is no absolute right here, (well to me there is, but i realize not everyone thinks as i do) so i'm just gonna drop the aguement and agree to disagree with you

[S_K_O_F]

So everyone in the world is horrible? There are no good people? Why are you even saying that?

I believe that from the day we are born, we have nothing but prideful and self-serving intentions. If society did not dictate to each and every one of us that selfish intentions were wrong, then no human on this planet would do anything to help another. but I am also of the type who believes that the only truly selfless act that exists is giving your life to save anothers

[Realist]

OMK,

Realist= Meaningless life, no hope for an afterlife (it don't exist right?). No restrictions on how to live

I obviously do have restrictions on how people should act, or I’d have no problem with Christianity. The doctrines of rational morality are very restrictive on what should be allowed in certain circumstances. You do raise a good point though—doesn’t pure reason contradict morality? How can morality be derived without some god figure, or at least something greater than us in the universe?

The truth is that it can’t. There is no logically good “reason” to be moral. Moreover, since life is inherently meaningless, there is no advantage to morality beyond what occurs on the physical level. I really wish there was. I wish I could prove that being moral, that helping others, made perfect sense in our real world. But you’re right; it just doesn’t, and as depressing as that can be, we’ve just got to live with it because it is the reality.

Why should you listen to me then?

I can’t offer you a rationally consistent philosophy combining my Rational Morality beliefs and my “nihilist” ones, but I can assert that, if you follow Rational Morality, the world will be the best it can be: That is, happiness will be maximized. And since this world is the only one we have, it seems intelligent to me to make it the best we can, just common sensibly. You just have to accept that morality is the correct path of action without any firm reason to—on impulse. Most people do.

As for meaningless life…another powerful argument. If religion gives people meaning, why should I be against it, even if its false? I wouldn’t be against it if it didn’t assert its own system of knowledge instead of reason; in other words, if it didn’t have negative worldly affects that outbalanced any good it did in giving higher meaning. I have no doubt that there will be meaning found in a culture of rational morality which doesn’t interfere negatively with the rational or moral aspects of the society. Although I personally believe that life is inherently meaningless, there is nothing in the idea of rational morality which necessarily contradicts a meaningful view of life.

Just because I don’t believe in morality doesn’t mean I don’t want to live in a moral society and be a moral person.

In short, I do not care if you don’t accept my beliefs on the meaninglessness of life; but I very much want people to accept my ideas (or any equivalent ideas) of a system of rational morality.

[Realist]

Drakonfire,

first, i try to follow the laws as best i can, as i explained already, i know i dont follow them all, heck, i'm still learning that half of them exist! but i'm TRYING, do not judge me by the label 'christian' judge me by who i am

If you actually attempt to follow the OT laws, then you aren’t being hypocritical to believe in the wrongness of homosexual acts. However, if it comes to spreading your views, it logically makes sense that you should criticize people who wear clothes of mixed materials equally as much as those who have homosexual relations; neither of these laws is given more weight than the other in the OT.

as to your statement about evidence (or lack thereof) this is complete and utter crap and you know it, if i made a "historical claim" without one shred of evidence to back it up, you would dismiss it out of hand, and yet you expect everyone else yo accept your word for it?

I gave some evidence. The thing is, though, most of the historical evidence I’m saying should be known by anyone who has been through high school history classes. I’m not using incredibly obscure information here. It is a well known fact that both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches cracked down on science in the 16th and 17th century and beyond. As I said, both Martin Luther and The RCC condemned Copernicus and his followers. I’m not going to give a reference for every single historical fact I know; I assume either a base of knowledge or the ability to fact check information you think I might not have. The truth is, I’ve never once been caught in a historical inaccuracy in this forum, I tend to remember historical information correctly or look it up before posting it.

Let me try to explain again what I was trying to say:

Before Christianity even existed, a bunch of Greeks came up with a bunch of ideas about the world. One of the ideas was that the sun revolved around the Earth (and a lot of stuff going along with that), another was the idea that the human body consisted of four humors; These ideas were not scientific in that they were not reliant on the scientific method, but they still made pretty good sense. The medieval Church eventually took a lot of these early Greek ideas and added a bunch of fun Jesus stuff to them (sun revolved around the earth, then the stars, then heaven).

At the time of the scientific revolution, when at least some of these ideas were being disproved scientifically (Earth actually revolves around sun, not the other way around) , the Christian establishment fought very hard to keep the early, Aristotelian/Christian view against the new science and scientific method (banned scientific books, arrested Galileo, etc.). Now, while I know basically how the Christian establishments in both Protestant and Catholic countries reacted to the changing view of the universe, I do not know how they reacted to the changing medical ideas or even the extent to which there were changing medical ideas. However, it is not that wild of an assertion to state that the opposition to science in general harmed science in every specific area by decreasing the spread of sound scientific theory. In this way, if in no other, the Christian powers did undoubtedly weaken the progress of medicine.

as i've been taught there have been many christians who have helped science along,
There have been many Christians who have advanced science, however, they have done so by using scientific principles based on reason, not by using their Christian faith.

[Realist]

OMK II,

Realist another question that you've posed to me was weither I thought the founding Fathers were better to run this country as opposed to our current Government.

I actually asked a completely different question: Whether it was better to follow our founding fathers or attempt to solve the problems of the world to the best of our ability regardless of what our founding fathers said. Since the rest of your post is based on your mistake, I’ll stop here.

[Realist]

Drakonfire,

my post was meant to apply in the context of embryos, not full grown ready to be born babies who are experiencing complications getting out, and the reason i used the term natural was that blazed kept throwing out the fact that 3/4ths of pregnancies end in miscarriage like it should have justified the destruction of the embryos for research, which it should NOT, of al lthe arguements i have heard for it that is the least sound in my mind

Well, if embryos die naturally so often, and embryos are valuable life, shouldn’t we try to protect the embryos dying in 75% of pregnancies (if this is indeed the number, I do not know)? Wouldn’t that save a lot more life than forbidding stem cell research? And until we find ways to save those embryos, shouldn’t we just never attempt to produce children, since most likely embryos will die, and embryos are just as valuable life as any of us?

[Bottle]

*passes out in pool of vomit*

[Realist]

Bottle,

If you don't like the thread, just stay out ok? I don't go posting moral theory in TWS, so don't post your spam up in this thread, ok?

[theburning]

In short, I do not care if you don’t accept my beliefs on the meaninglessness of life; but I very much want people to accept my ideas (or any equivalent ideas) of a system of rational morality.

Why do you want others to accept your ideas?

Why do you insist on trying to make everyone else as depressing and empty as you?

[Foundation]

>.<

[Realist]

Why do you want others to accept your ideas?

Why do you insist on trying to make everyone else as depressing and empty as you?

In the statement you quoted, I said that I didn't care if people accepted my view on the meaninglessness of life, just that they accepted my ideas of rational morality. If my rational morality is accepted, the world will become a much better place, so it makes sense that I would want to spread that view.

[theburning]

In the statement you quoted, I said that I didn't care if people accepted my view on the meaninglessness of life, just that they accepted my ideas of rational morality. If my rational morality is accepted, the world will become a much better place, so it makes sense that I would want to spread that view.

But didn't you say that there is no purpose to being moral since life is inherently meaningless?

[Foundation]

error error error

errraerhihihihipoooshhhhwishbooom

[Realist]

But didn't you say that there is no purpose to being moral since life is inherently meaningless?

Yes, but as my post said, I still want people to assume morality and I give good reason for doing so, if not rational reasons.

[S_K_O_F]

You just have to accept that morality is the correct path of action without any firm reason to—on impulse. Most people do.


???
doesn't sound very rational to me

so basically, you are saying that people have to put blind faith into morality?

that sounds a lot like another idea that you have been very much against...

...religion

[Realist]

Basically what I'm saying is that:

1) Morality should be the basis of action.
2) Reason is the best way of solving problems, it is the best tool we have.
3) Therefore, it makes sense to apply rationalism to morality.

But I do require you to accept 1 as seperate from 2 before accepting 3.

It is true that we have to accept some things without reason; extreme skepticisim is the only rationally consistent philosophy, and even it denies the reason that is its basis by definition.

[S_K_O_F]

Basically what I'm saying is that:

1) Morality should be the basis of action.
2) Reason is the best way of solving problems, it is the best toold we have.
3) Therefore, it makes sense to apply rationalism to morality.

But I do require you to accept 1 as seperate from 2 before accepting 3.

most will concede that they are seperate

but you are asking an irrational world to live rationally

what do women do at that point once a month when their emotions take over their life? do we just arrest them all for a week at a time until they are capable of rational thougt again?

the human race exists because of a balance of emotion and rationality...take one or the other away and the world will not be better off

[Realist]

A culture of rational morality and a government of rational morality will maximize rationality to the greatest extent we can, which will in turn maximize happiness.

[old_man_killer]

???
doesn't sound very rational to me

so basically, you are saying that people have to put blind faith into morality?

that sounds a lot like another idea that you have been very much against...

...religion

I tend to agree with S_K_O_F, not because of our debates, but just based on you most recent comments about people following your ideas, it sure sounds like the basis for a religion. A new age religion, one void of spiritual entanglements, but a religion nevertheless. You would expect people to follow your ideas of thier own free will right?