Vigile Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 By the way the problem is not that we must kill to eat so much as we refuse to participate in the food chain. Some days it is our turn to eat. Other days it is our turn to be eaten. We suppose ourselves to be too holy to participate in life. I'll remember that argument the next time my wife freaks out about me swimming in the ocean. She's deathly afraid I'm going to get eaten by a shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I would almost think that from an xtian standpoint, there wouldn't be any problem w/this. Were we not given "dominion" over the earth and it's creatures? Is there a passage that says "don't make anything in the image of man"? Just curious really. I mean I can see it as being a repugnant practice because we are trying to create a sentient being that wouldn't necessarily have the same rights as us (a new form of slavery ala Planet of the Apes). But then again, I feel the same about creating sentient robots... IMOHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I happen to think that trees are the highest life form because they need not kill to eat, but survive on what has died around them and from the sun and water. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, but even trees compete for food and space by giving off shade and therefore denying other plants the sunlight needed to crowd them out. That's a tree killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 All life is based on egoism. Gimme or I'll die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted July 16, 2005 Author Share Posted July 16, 2005 Dennis, to address your question in the title of this thread...I'd have to say that these experiments could be considered immoral from a secular standpoint because we're conducting experiments on sentient beings that would be considered immoral to conduct on humans. I doubt that anyone would consider it moral to place monkey brain cells into a human fetus in an attempt to give birth to a more monkey-like human. These experiments are "bad" not because of anything to do with a god, but because of the extension of moral behavior to include our interaction with other beings in addition to humans. Do you consider these experiments to be immoral Dennis? If so, what leads you to that conclusion based on revealed morals? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (I added the Bold emphasis to highlight the sentence I don't think I really understand.) Tim, ... "that would be considered immoral to conduct on humans" ... Maybe I need to attend a secular college course about ethics (to see how a secularist defines "morality") because, to tell you the truth - I don't really understand that. Yes, I do consider the experiments to be immoral, because I think morality involves a recognition that God is the giver of life and includes our attempting to see life proceed as God decides (which involves trying to continue in the plan of God as we are able to understand it). When people try to bring into existence some new species - it seems to me as if we are trying to become too much involved in the creation process of a new life form (which should be left to God alone). I am not thinking of any specific Bible verses to support the way I am thinking (about recognizing that God alone has the right to bring new species into existence) - perhaps I am just relying on something the Holy Spirit communicates? Concerning your sentence that I placed in bold emphasis : I don't think that "morals" are limited to our relations only with other humans - for instance, I think it is immoral to kill an animal just for the thrill of the kill for instance. Like I mentioned earlier, to me, the experiments are associated with humans trying to be instrumental in producing a new kind of life - through combining two existing ones. I think the process of bringing into existence a new hybrid life form, is something we should leave to God - ( for one reason - among many reasons - we have not been given the insight to know what effect on this interrelated world a new species might produce). The concept of "dominion" (in my opinion) doesn't involve producing a new type of life form which we would continue to have stewardship over - rather it means working as a part of the plan of God to bring to fruition his will in this world where he placed us. (I prefer to use the word 'stewardship' rather than 'dominion' - since that is more in line with the way I understand what God told us to do.) To understand God's plan and/or his ideal will - is one of the reasons I look to the Bible - though I admit it does not always appear to be as specific as I desire. So, I need the Holy Spirit's help as well as "the book" and the remembering of what Jesus has said and done. My hope (and prayer) is that I am given "ears to hear", and I try to exercise courage to act in accordance with what I hear. -Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Gods plan has often been to murder children and pregnant mom's Dennis. Do you really need to look any deeper than that? Isn't that enough to disgust you? If someone came and killed your kids and cut open your wife's belly with a sword, would you still love that person, try to have a realtionship with them, and try to divine some inner wisdom or look on the bright side of what this person has done to your pregnant wife and kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I don't understand this "going against God's plan" concept. How can anything go against the plan of an omniscient, omnipotent being who both made and controls the world? It seems to me that if God were unable to get his will across, or took up shooting blanks all of a sudden on the creations he himself made, then that would diminish god into a kind of non-god. Maybe a demi-god at most. A god whose plans are continually screwed up by humans cannot be much of a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 I don't understand this "going against God's plan" concept. How can anything go against the plan of an omniscient, omnipotent being who both made and controls the world? It seems to me that if God were unable to get his will across, or took up shooting blanks all of a sudden on the creations he himself made, then that would diminish god into a kind of non-god. Maybe a demi-god at most. A god whose plans are continually screwed up by humans cannot be much of a god. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Simonpeter seems to think god doesn't know everything...what do you say to that Dennis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 An eminent committee of American scientists will call for restrictions into the research, saying the outcome of such studies cannot be predicted and may in fact produce subjects with a 'super-animal' intelligence. Hasn't anyone seen Planet of the Apes? Have we learned nothing? Seriously, this is a bad idea. Next thing you know, the monkeys will be building subdivisions in the suburbs and driving their SUV's through Starbucks. Stop the madness!! The planet can only take one super-smart yet collectively super-stupid species that has the intelligence to overconsume resources and screw up the natural balance of the planet they live on. Then they start their own corporations called Monkey Business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 (I added the Bold emphasis to highlight the sentence I don't think I really understand.) Tim, ... "that would be considered immoral to conduct on humans" ... Maybe I need to attend a secular college course about ethics (to see how a secularist defines "morality") because, to tell you the truth - I don't really understand that. Dennis, I'm not clear on what you're not understanding. Will you please elaborate? Yes, I do consider the experiments to be immoral, because I think morality involves a recognition that God is the giver of life and includes our attempting to see life proceed as God decides (which involves trying to continue in the plan of God as we are able to understand it). When people try to bring into existence some new species - it seems to me as if we are trying to become too much involved in the creation process of a new life form (which should be left to God alone). I am not thinking of any specific Bible verses to support the way I am thinking (about recognizing that God alone has the right to bring new species into existence) - perhaps I am just relying on something the Holy Spirit communicates? It seems like your morals are based on your judgement, rather than being a clear instruction from your god. We all know that sincere christians, when faced with the same moral questions, often come up with differing or even opposite responses to the moral question. That's clearly a subjective or relative moral system. Like I mentioned earlier, to me, the experiments are associated with humans trying to be instrumental in producing a new kind of life - through combining two existing ones. I think the process of bringing into existence a new hybrid life form, is something we should leave to God - ( for one reason - among many reasons - we have not been given the insight to know what effect on this interrelated world a new species might produce). The concept of "dominion" (in my opinion) doesn't involve producing a new type of life form which we would continue to have stewardship over I believe that humans have for a long time been involved in activitities where they combined various life "forms" to come up with new ones. Grafting of different types of plants together to benefit humans has long been practiced. Animals have also been combined (horses and donkeys to produce mules, for example). Do you think these practices are immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 An eminent committee of American scientists will call for restrictions into the research, saying the outcome of such studies cannot be predicted and may in fact produce subjects with a 'super-animal' intelligence. Hasn't anyone seen Planet of the Apes? Have we learned nothing? Who knows? They might even develope their own theology and learn to hate and kill all of the humans who don't believe in it. Instead of living according to The Bible, We'll be living according to The Bonzo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Then we will have people complaining, "The damned monkeys are taking all our jobs!" We'll see them compete in sport and people will claim unfair sportsmanship. We'll see them cleaning the streets, washing our cars, picking fruit at the farms, basically take all the jobs that no one wants... (have you ever heard that argument before?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Who knows? They might even develope their own theology and learn to hate and kill all of the humans who don't believe in it. Instead of living according to The Bible, We'll be living according to The Bonzo! Monkyism? The for sure will have Monks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roamin' Lion Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 "The concept of "dominion" (in my opinion) doesn't involve producing a new type of life form which we would continue to have stewardship over - rather it means working as a part of the plan of God to bring to fruition his will in this world where he placed us. (I prefer to use the word 'stewardship' rather than 'dominion' - since that is more in line with the way I understand what God told us to do.)" I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but the current group of fanatics ARE very much into dominion as opposed to stewardship. This is the problem as I see it today. (I am sorry about not quoting this properly, I am not sure how to get just a portion of a post. I need a tutor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 I think the process of bringing into existence a new hybrid life form, is something we should leave to God - ( for one reason - among many reasons - we have not been given the insight to know what effect on this interrelated world a new species might produce). Dennis, Doesn't god work through mankind? Do you think we could bring something into existence that god didn't want? Did god ever give any insight into any species? Maybe this is how god is creating now-a-days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Monkyism? The[y] for sure will have Monks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 (The concept of "dominion" (in my opinion) doesn't involve producing a new type of life form which we would continue to have stewardship over - rather it means working as a part of the plan of God to bring to fruition his will in this world where he placed us. (I prefer to use the word 'stewardship' rather than 'dominion' - since that is more in line with the way I understand what God told us to do.) Dennis, Firstly, acting as stewards doesn't mean that we don't have any impact on the course of nature at all. What about animal husbandry? What about agriculture? For millennia, we have been influencing nature by manipulating the inherent mechanisms of evolution to produce better crops, dogs that are better at specific tasks than others, etc. We have an impact on nature just by the fact alone that we exist in a particular area. A monkey with higher intelligence - is still a monkey, not a different species. What's different with these sorts of issues is the degree of power we now have directly manipulating DNA. The question is about limits on that type of power, not whether or not we should alter anything in nature. It's impossible for us to be that invisible. Secondly, Interpreting and arriving at any sort of reasonable consensus as to what God's will in this world should be, has never been done yet, and is highly, highly improbable that it ever will be. So we're still left only our own thoughts to bring to the debate of science and ethics. Bringing "God's will" into this is pointless. It's an endless debate in itself, which as a result will have nothing to bring to the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts