Jurassic Park, reality?

[Acriku]

I agree highly with Nuker.

[Edric O]

If a Nazi lies in a hospital dieing because there are no organs available, then who is going to tell him that he COULD have been saved if moral people didn't prevent the harvesting of organs from what he considers "sub-humans"?

I'm not comparing atheism with national-socialism, I'm only saying A LINE NEEDS TO BE DRAWN! The end of saving a life DOES NOT justify the means by which it is accomplished!

[Acriku]

Edric, you would see it different if your mother needed a highly expensive organ (say heart) but couldn't afford to, and they could have gave it to her for a more reasonable price that which she could afford from a cloned organ, which was not available because ethnics ruled over necessity.

[DjCiD]

well my mom needs new lungs but you dont see me crying becasue we cant clone her some...

cloning is bad, mmkay ;D

[Acriku]

Well we can't clone them now and efficiently use them, so it's easy to not be emotionally affected because they can't clone.

[nemafakei]

Ends and means...

The simple way is... if more damage is caused by the means than the end acheives, then the action is wrong; another solution should be found.

[Edric O]

TMA, if Christians cannot unite then we will die out. That is the truth.

I never said we should all make a compromise and believe the exact same thing! In fact, each denomination should keep its particular interpretation of the Bible, just like it is today. Diversity is strength. But we must work together towards a common goal.

Acriku, just because we're playing God already (setting out to destroy God's creations for land, money, etc.) doesn't mean we can go ahead and make the situation even WORSE! Btw, saving lives is not playing God, IMO, as long as it is done in a moral manner that pleases God. (not things like cloning animals or humans for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs)

Nuclear weapons can only provide peace if we apply the policy of MAD (mutually assured destruction). It's like two people living in peace because each has a gun pointed at the other. Not a pleasant situation.

Gryphon, I agree with one thing: you really didn't understand my question... :) Your reply has nothing to do with what I asked. The fact is, in its current state the Bible CAN be understood and IS understood by anyone, living in every century. You're right, God can always find a solution - and He did.

What I was saying is that *IF* the Bible contained scientific material, it could not be understood by people in every century. This is because science constantly changes.

Nema, your two statements are correct, but they rest on the assumption that science and religion are competing in the same field. That is not true. Religion is not scientific, nor was it ever meant to be. Science and religion are not in the same plane. Each has a completely different purpose.

[gryphon]

Then I take it we have the same interpretation and answer to that question ?

[ note, if science should be based upon something real, that there can be a sort of science in the Bible reflecting to that "real thing". But not per definition to our science. ]

[Acriku]

Edric, do you know what exactly pleases God? Maybe cloning is actually pleasing God because we have theorized a way to sufficiently continue human life. We have evolved to a higher technology, etc. You save a person's life from a fire, you're good in the eyes of everyone. You save a life by cloning an organ, you're the anti-christ. No one suffers through this process, the embryo that is cloned is life that wasn't meant to be, so wouldn't it anger God more to keep it alive if it defies what He is, that he is no longer the giver of life? I'm rambling now, so I'll leave it at that.

[nemafakei]

"(not things like cloning animals or humans for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs)"

Where do you draw the line? And why there, not in other places?

"they rest on the assumption that science and religion are competing in the same field."

I make no such assumption. However, they do clash in areas, notably, that of the truth and how to deal with it. Also, they clash in areas like that of cloning. Here, these details show us that religion will not help us, whereas science will.

"The fact is, in its current state the Bible CAN be understood and IS understood by anyone, living in every century"

But it is understood differently by people in different times. How does anyone know the understanding of today is the right one? Relate this especially to the 2 statements of difference: science accepts it can get things wrong, but religion cannot. And so religion, when it happens to be on the wrong side (more often - since religion doesn't learn from mistakes, since it doesn't usually believe it made any, it doesn't improve in its performance in such areas) will merely stubbornly obstruct progression of science, whereas science does not actively attack religion - it merely uncovers flaws.

[Edric O]

The exploitation and destruction of life does NOT please God. At least not the God Christians pray to. Using LIVING BEINGS as raw material or spare parts is hideous. It makes no difference that they're embryos. The same thing applies to animals, not just humans, and I don't think anyone can be twisted enough to say that embryos are less than animals!

I know where to draw the line. I would rather die in agony than have my life saved by the destruction of another. I could never live with myself afterwards.

[Twin-Head]

If we clone animals just for organs, we are destroying something we just gave life to. we shouldn't clone just for organs. Th clone would be just like a normal person, so if we killed it for organs, wouln't that be murderer?? I think cloning can be good, but not to destroy it for organs.

[nemafakei]

"I know where to draw the line"

I've drawn my line. But where, exactly, is yours?

Breeding within a species?

GM crops?

Stem-cell research?

Harvesting of gametes for research?

Killing of animals for a human? For meat or for organs?

[Edric O]

Where do I draw the line? Simple: It is WRONG to sacrifice a life to save another. Why here and not in another place? Because I don't like giving someone the power to decide on who deserves to live and who doesn't.

Define "help" before you say what will help us and what won't. On the subject of cloning, for example, religion tries to preserve our humanity, whereas science (or at least some scientists) will use any means to achieve their ends.

IMO, the current understanding of the Bible is the right one for this time period. In other time periods, other understandings were/will be more suitable. The most important thing is that the message always remains the same.

[gryphon]

It is WRONG to sacrifice a life to save another.

You don't have to answer it here but it could be an indication of my position I IM'ed you about.

One life was sacrificed some 2000 years ago inorder to safe all Christians worldwide.

- to explain things ar not just right or wrong. It alway depends on the situation.

[Edric O]

Yes, but besides the special circumstances, that was a WILLING sacrifice. It is a noble thing to sacrifice your OWN life of your own accord in order to save another.

My statement wasn't clear enough. It should have said:

"It is WRONG to take a life (other than your own) to save another."

[DjCiD]

One life was sacrificed some 2000 years ago inorder to safe all Christians worldwide.

almost.... not to save all christians. To save the entire world.

[Acriku]

That could be argued Dj ;)

Anyways, Edric you are digging yourself a yard of holes. First off embryos are not consciously aware, or are able to do anything. At what point do you believe that a soul enters the body? At the first state of awareness (i.e. coming out of the mother) or at the first second of the embryonic stage? Who can tell, because the Bible doesn't say...For all we know God recognizes the embryo as not yet ready to conceive a soul.

[DjCiD]

dont make me quote it...

John 3:16 says For God so loved the world not For God only loved the christians ;D

[Twin-Head]

One life was sacrificed some 2000 years ago inorder to safe all Christians worldwide.

almost.... not to save all christians. To save the entire world.

Actually, Jesus had a choice. he chose to die so all people would have a way to heaven. He gave us that gift and it is ours to accept or decline. and the funny thing is alot of people decline.

[DjCiD]

yes he had a choice and was tempted many times.

and i dont think its funny they decline it, i think its sad...

[Twin-Head]

By funny i mean weird. And those weird people even believe in the Big Bang Theory. Allwrite. So out in the middle of nowhere, Where there is nothing, NOTHING. Something explodes. Have you heard of an explosion that creates something? Well somehow this explosion creates Earth and some little bacteria thing that evolves into people and everything. If we evolved fron monkeys, Howcome Their aren't half-man Half-monkeys walking around? And if you say that they fully evolved, howcome there are still monkeys?Huh? Huh, answer that evolutionists!

[ethan]

this started about jurassic park, now its sacraficeing lives....

[exatreide]

By funny i mean weird. And those weird people even believe in the Big Bang Theory. Allwrite. So out in the middle of nowhere, Where there is nothing, NOTHING. Something explodes. Have you heard of an explosion that creates something? Well somehow this explosion creates Earth and some little bacteria thing that evolves into people and everything. If we evolved fron monkeys, Howcome Their aren't half-man Half-monkeys walking around? And if you say that they fully evolved, howcome there are still monkeys?Huh? Huh, answer that evolutionists!

WARNING

flame reply sorta......kinda........not realy....maybe......

oh and whare did god come from? boom bang there he was? no? did he create himself? was he cloned perhaps? Satins alter ego?

ever here of a little thing called carbon dating? we can date things back to a few billion years before the carbon fades away complety. now acording to the the book of gore and sex. er bibil. it was only created recently.

we have proof that the earth is older than 50,000 years. do we have proof that the god created the earth when he did? that the earth the stars and the heaven is only a few thousand of years old? talk about weird......

becouse not all monekys evolved into apes which evolved into apes. which evolved into man.

there for there are still monekys and apes that wouldnt have evolved into men.

and there were. they just died out.

sorry but that half minded post pissed me off.

[ordos45]

Lol, funny thing about science books, they tend to contradict each other. Radiocarbon dating isn't able to be accurate for more than 30k years or so. they use other methods for the "millions" estimates.

My fav thing in a museum is when you are on a tour and they say, we know the bones are "this old" because they were found in "that rock layer". ANd then to date the rock layer they go "that rock layer" is that old, because of "these bones" we found there. Ever have a tour guide do that after you tell them what your science book says about radiocarbon dating? I have, can you imagine they said I was "Disturbing the peace" and to "respectfully leave"? It was fun, get an ignorant tour guide and you can tell them anything to confuse them.

Oh well, back on topic...err...what was the topic again?