President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. And while this move was lauded by many in the scientific community as a means to helping cure a wide array of diseases, the religious right had a very different vision of the future. Here it is:
Pastor Matt...I respect you for devoting your life to something you believe in i.e. christianity. But the fact of the matter is that this can help in so many ways. You say humans are not to be discarded. Maybe cows aren't to be slaughtered and eaten by American fat-asses. Maybe trees aren't supposed to be cut down for us to wipe with. Just because Christians do not believe in stem cell research, doesn't mean everone else has to agree. The pledge does say "One nation under God", but the words "under God" weren't added till the 50's. And that was only to scare the Russians. Stem Cell Research isn't inhumane at all. It can really do the suffering world alot of good. Maybe your God intended us to use stem cells. And I didn't mean "your God" in a sarcastic way.
I too respect Pastor Matt for devoting his life to something he believes in, even though I don't happen to agree with it. Devoting your life to something blindly to something without questioning it is one of mankind's most admirable traits.
So even though I'm an atheist, I admire Pastor Matt... and the Pope, Mother Theresa, Ted Haggard.
And even more respect to those who not only devote their lives but literally GIVE their lives to their cause. The brave 9/11 hijackers. The various suicide bombers. Sure, I totally disagree with their beliefs, but the stunning single-minded devotion to them - THAT is such a beautiful thing to see.
After all, like I always say - the true measure of the value of a set of beliefs is NOT how well they are supported by evidence and objective reality, but rather the degree of strength to which you can cling to those beliefs DESPITE the plethora of evidence that refutes them.
I thank you for your respectful tone as well Jafafa, but I disagree 100% with your position that "Devoting your life to something blindly to something without questioning it is one of mankind's most admirable traits."
I hold that the only reason to devote oneself to something is if that thing corresponds to reality. Believing Spider-Man will save me if I fall from a skyrise, does me no good. Thankfully, man does not have to make a "blind leap of faith," but can make a judgment on the issue with confidence "beyond REASONABLE doubt." (For more on this thesis, see Geisler and Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." The text has some limitations and is not without issues, but it is a great popular level start into the lines of evidence first in concluding Theism (1 God), and only second, determining the truth of the Christian faith. It isn't honorable to ignore a "plethora of evidence in refutation," but given the time and devotion to studying the issues, I find the plethora of evidence stands as an obstacle to atheism.
Just one piece of evidence for a god, please.
No, not mythology written in a book by bronze age people, that's not evidence of anything other than someone(s) having written a book.
No, not "you feel God in your heart," that's not evidence.
No, not some "God is perfect, existence is a characteristic of perfection therefore he must exist," that's not evidence, that's mental masturbation.
No, not "I see his works in the world," not evidence. Nothing you see in the world cannot be explained more simply by things there IS evidence for.
No, not "irreducible complexity," that's been disproven countless times though your type ignore the flaws pointed out to you... and even if it WERE true it would not necessarily require a God as you imagine it, so it wold not be evidence of one, it would just be evidence of something as yet unexplained.
No, not the freaking banana. Try again.
ONE THING. ONE SHRED of evidence. The entire scientific world waits eagerly - if you can show one bit of ACTUAL evidence you'll likely win a Nobel Prize.
Agnostic Z, thank you for your respectful tone. Of course no one "has to" agree, but, we're all disagreeing over which side best comprehends reality. One of us (or potentially neither one of us) is right, and the others wrong, and I think that you would concede, that to be right about this issue is incredibly important, because the stakes are so high. I do not deny that scientific advancement may come from this, just as it may also have come from the Nazi experiments on unwilling Jewish test subjects. Yet, if there is something wrong with the latter, I think that should tip you off something is wrong with the former as well.
Here's where God comes into play: Certain rights we have as humans, come from God and are natural rights, distinct from civil rights- rights granted by the state.
If there's a God, then this is wrong.
If there's not a God, then nothing is and man can just kill all the sick and not have to worry about curing them. (Yet...that seems repulsive to you, as it should...Why does it?)
If there's not a God, then nothing is and man can just kill all the sick and not have to worry about curing them. (Yet...that seems repulsive to you, as it should...Why does it?)
To answer your question, killing the sick seems repulsive to me out of enlightened self interest. I don't want the sick to be killed because the possibility exists that I might become sick, and then I would be killed. I support the quest for cures because I might one day need that cure, for myself or someone I care about. I don't need a god to make me care about these things.
Don't invent religious explanations for norms in society like "don't kill people." Society figured that out ages ago without "natural rights" that come from a God. Of course we wouldn't kill all the sick. That's as repulsive to unbelievers as to you. But the repulsion doesn't come from a natural law. It comes from tens of thousands of years of figuring out what works best for society.
Embryos are not humans - They're a small collection of cells that you can't even see with the naked eye. Every time I blow my nose there are more human cells discarded on the ground than an embryo. Declaring human life is sacred at conception is absurd - maybe when the kid is viable at about six months, but protection for embryos? NOT. That's for Luddites.
I've never known an embryo created by 2 humans to produce anything other than a human baby at birth have you? It sounds like SIZE is a part of your arbitrary definition of human. What is your required size to "count?" Then, is 1 cell less not a human? What is he at that point? Potentially a dog? cat? No. He's always a human, just at the very beginning of the human journey.
Look: science can't answer the question "when does life start?" Because "life" as we're using it, is metaphysical. So, I hope that at least, one would take a cautious agnostic approach. If determining when life begins is "above your paygrade," then err on the side of caution for that embryo. Because YOU DON'T KNOW that he's not alive. Sex, eye color, shoe size, all of these things are determined at conception, at that point, the zygote had all of the genetic material he needs. With proper protection, nourishment, and other resources, he'll grow. Therefore, for those of you who can not rely upon Scripture (in none of my posts have I referenced it, rather have made appeals to general revelation and natural law) concede that the most reasonable course of action is to err in favor of the potential life. And what should happen to them? Well, so long as people are allowed to make the life, they should be given a chance to grow. Either in their parents or through embryonic adoption (Snow Flake Children is one such organization).
As a former embryo, why not protect embryos? Why should you have not been protected in your first week after implantation?
My personal definition of life is very similar to the person you are responding to. Their point that more human tissue is discarded by blowing a nose than exists in an embryo is relevant. I consider it to be a human life at the point where there is a viable chance of survival outside the womb in a good preme center. That point would be 5-6 months into pregnancy. Conception does not equate with human life, just the possibility of future life.
Uhhh? ... Life doesn't begin. Well actually it did maybe a couple time a couple billion years ago, but conception is just two live cells interacting in a normal biological process. They're already alive and each is a human cell. There's nothing special about conception so why do anti-stem cell people make such a big deal about it. Human life isn't sacred. It's just like all other life. We decide when the best trade-offs for society, not religious dogma. Stem cell research justifies destroying embryos.
Oh ... now I can hear the whining. But then you have no absolutes about life! What's to prevent you from just deciding to kill everyone? Look at Hitler!
Grow up! Society has pretty well figured that out over the centuries and knows what's best and works. Look at the Scandanavians. Studies show their society is happier and healthier than ours: stem cell research and abortion are fine in their society. Now go look at Hitler. He didn't survive did he? He was scourge on the world and the world wiped him out. Didn't need the dogma of absolutes for that, huh? These things are pretty clear.
And if someone had aborted me in the first week after conception would I have cared? I don't think so. There weren't any brain cells or consciousness to care.
Pastor Mike - you put the emphasis on the wrong words in your first sentence. We know the definition of human. That's easy. Where we disagree is that human life is not sacred. These decisions on embryos are arbitrary. As the person above states we make the decisions based on the benefit to society, not on "sacredness."
every time a Christian gets a fertility treatment to conceive, they produce approximately 26 eggs that are then fertilized, selected, and 5 or so are implanted...at most, 15 eggs are used because they typically only try up to 3 times...
the left over eggs are frozen in tubes that are monitored and used for up to 10 years, after which they can no longer be implanted due to possibilities of birth defects. then they are thrown away.
do some research. ignorance has put us far behind.
or, start advocating that "Christians" no longer get fertility treatments...
I do advocate that NO ONE participate in fertility treatments for this reason Anonymous. But this isn't a thread ABOUT that, so for the sake of brevity, did not fill you in on my entire system of belief, but just a part.
Hey Steve's mom. The word you were looking for is "cite". Religion is seperate than State. So should religious views be looked at. I think we should use stem cell research. There are millions of murders in this world already, but many more people dieing from diseases. I think that it would be a good thing.
The Bible is the most accurate historical tome in history? Why didn't the Egyptians write about losing their Jews? And where's the Tower of Babel? And we're all in-bred? Fuck that shit. Basing your argument on a book that is almost unrecognizable compared to when it came together (do better research; most of the Jesus stories aren't in the earliest editions) is foolish and you cheapen yourself as a human being by it.
- I do not wish to argue for the validity of the bible as a historical record or anything else. In fact I agree with you, but you are missing a few things.
1 - There is a lot of true history in the bible, much of it is open to interpretation and is frequently mis-interpreted, but it doesnt change the fact that there is a lot of true history contained within it.
2 - The Egyptians did write about losing their "Jews". Only they weren't known to the Egyptians as Jews. They were known as the hiacsus line of Pharaohs, a second line of Pharaohs which was exiled from Egypt, Jesus, being the the heir to that throne.
3 - You obviously have no idea what the Torah is. The Torah, which is the first ...ummm 5 books of the bible I think, in Hebrew, is the exact same word for word as is has been for the last 3000+ years which can be shown in part by the dead sea scrolls. I know they are the old testament, but they are still included in the new testament; Genesis, revelations etc. My point being the book is FAR from being "unrecognizable" from its original version.
BTW if I were to be classified religiously id be considered Agnostic or Athiest, and am actually FAR from religious
Bible never said respect for human life. God told Isrealites to kill many sinners. Gays and adulters were given capital punishment. Harming of the unborn was a minor offense in the bible. Bible does teach to love one another. That the Christian always failed to do. Just look at Katrina. BTW, we never respect human life when we fight the war in Iraq. Arabs are worth less to us than whites. Blacks are also worth less.
Christians are extrapolating life down the moment of conception. That was never Jesus's intent.
What? If you want to blame the government, go ahead, but I've *personally* helped prepare food to send to such disaster zones. Christians are working to help the unfortunate every day. Just because they don't parade their good deeds around doesn't mean they aren't doing them.
"Christians are working to help the unfortunate every day."
You may not have meant it this way, and I apologize in advance if you didn't, but whether YOU did or not, it's certainly a popular and widely-held (and SORELY mistaken) belief that morality, kindness, and a desire to help others are somehow the exclusive province of the religious, in particular Christians. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that this is not the case. Those of us who neither have nor want a religion are not without morality or compassion. Many of us give our time, energy, or money to help where we can. We don't need a book or a god to tell us that's what's right. All we need is humanity.
People are working to help the unfortunate every day.
This concern for embryos is a bit odd, given the general disregard for human life at any other stage of its existence. Doubly odd that the concern comes from Americans. Odder still is how much of the outrage comes from a collection of parables and fairy tales that are often at least as bloody and brutal as the most disturbed fiction ever written. How silly of Obama to be concerned with actual rather than potential people, for an embryo is nothing but a blob of cells that might become a person if a million things went right and which might be expelled from the body unnoticed if any of a million things went wrong.
Eventually, infertility treatment will get precise enough to not require the creation of so many superfluous embryos. Until then some enlightened humanism might actually help the people already walking around; who knows, it might even lead to a universal treatment for infertility. I have to think that any such outcome is better than those cells being incinerated as medical waste.
Absolutely. This christian concern is truly odd. So many places in the bible tell us to kill, and yet somehow christians fasten on to embryos as the one thing to spare. It's primarily Americans who worry about these things. The rest of the developed world is more modern. We'll get there too, just a little later.
I hope you're right. Unfortunately the religious wing-nut segment of the population still has vast areas of stupidity to explore and they're not constrained by anything resembling common sense. Religion, or the will to appear religious, is too deeply ingrained in too many people for it to go away any time soon.
I was catholic, but been an atheist for years. Mostly I've thought live-and-let-live. So long as the christian crazies stayed away from me, I didn't pay them much attention. I've changed my mind and I see many others changing theirs also.
When the evangelists start mucking around with things that degrade society in the name of their superstition, then it's time to fight them publicly. Opposing stem cell research, anti-family planning, gay-bashing and screwing up science education by ramming creationism and intelligent design through school boards is too much.
Time for all you silent atheists/agnostics to come out of the closet and do battle with these nuts. Polls yesterday show less religion in the US. Let catch up to our European brethren. Studies show their quality of life is better without old time religion.
Hey, how about we look at the facts before making assumptions that we know nothing about, ok? Embryonic Stem Cell research is not about religion vs. science. It's about results. Guess how many lives have been affected by embryonic stem cell research. ten thousand? one hundred? five? no. 0. Every single time scientists have used embryonic stem cells, the result was always a tumor. Adult Stem Cells, on the other hand, have had innumerable breakthroughs. Bush wasn't against stem cells in general. He wasn't even against embryonic stem cell research. The only thing that he was against was federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that used new embryos, whereas experiments that used existing lines of embryos received funding. If the private sector wanted to fund embryonic stem cell experiments, it was completely legal. The "Bush Ban" phrase that the liberal media has been using does not apply to stem cells which we actually benefit from. Do you know who the first President was to prohibit stem cell funding? No, not Bush. Clinton. That's right, Clinton. It's called the Dickey Amendment. Look it up. So before you go and make this argument something that its not about, how about you research it a bit more.
You are wrong about the uselessness of embryonic stem cells in research. They are a major component of stem cell research in other developed nations around the world. One of the major concerns of scientists working with the 21 approved stem cell lines is that a more ethnically and genetically diverse sample is needed for research. What is needed is more embryonic stem cells containing genetic diseases for research. As most of the funding for such projects is typically government funding or government related we have had the problem of the government limiting our progress in an exciting field of research in the US.
(164 Comments)
Twitter
Holy Taco Goes to the Bahamas
March 10th, 2009 at 06:51 pm
Yes? Go on...
March 10th, 2009 at 06:57 pm
Pastor Matt...I respect you for devoting your life to something you believe in i.e. christianity. But the fact of the matter is that this can help in so many ways. You say humans are not to be discarded. Maybe cows aren't to be slaughtered and eaten by American fat-asses. Maybe trees aren't supposed to be cut down for us to wipe with. Just because Christians do not believe in stem cell research, doesn't mean everone else has to agree. The pledge does say "One nation under God", but the words "under God" weren't added till the 50's. And that was only to scare the Russians. Stem Cell Research isn't inhumane at all. It can really do the suffering world alot of good. Maybe your God intended us to use stem cells. And I didn't mean "your God" in a sarcastic way.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:29 pm
I too respect Pastor Matt for devoting his life to something he believes in, even though I don't happen to agree with it. Devoting your life to something blindly to something without questioning it is one of mankind's most admirable traits.
So even though I'm an atheist, I admire Pastor Matt... and the Pope, Mother Theresa, Ted Haggard.
And even more respect to those who not only devote their lives but literally GIVE their lives to their cause. The brave 9/11 hijackers. The various suicide bombers. Sure, I totally disagree with their beliefs, but the stunning single-minded devotion to them - THAT is such a beautiful thing to see.
After all, like I always say - the true measure of the value of a set of beliefs is NOT how well they are supported by evidence and objective reality, but rather the degree of strength to which you can cling to those beliefs DESPITE the plethora of evidence that refutes them.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:42 pm
hahaha. f**kin' pwned!
March 10th, 2009 at 09:07 pm
My parents hated me.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I thank you for your respectful tone as well Jafafa, but I disagree 100% with your position that "Devoting your life to something blindly to something without questioning it is one of mankind's most admirable traits."
I hold that the only reason to devote oneself to something is if that thing corresponds to reality. Believing Spider-Man will save me if I fall from a skyrise, does me no good. Thankfully, man does not have to make a "blind leap of faith," but can make a judgment on the issue with confidence "beyond REASONABLE doubt." (For more on this thesis, see Geisler and Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." The text has some limitations and is not without issues, but it is a great popular level start into the lines of evidence first in concluding Theism (1 God), and only second, determining the truth of the Christian faith. It isn't honorable to ignore a "plethora of evidence in refutation," but given the time and devotion to studying the issues, I find the plethora of evidence stands as an obstacle to atheism.
March 11th, 2009 at 04:49 am
One piece of evidence.
Just one piece of evidence for a god, please.
No, not mythology written in a book by bronze age people, that's not evidence of anything other than someone(s) having written a book.
No, not "you feel God in your heart," that's not evidence.
No, not some "God is perfect, existence is a characteristic of perfection therefore he must exist," that's not evidence, that's mental masturbation.
No, not "I see his works in the world," not evidence. Nothing you see in the world cannot be explained more simply by things there IS evidence for.
No, not "irreducible complexity," that's been disproven countless times though your type ignore the flaws pointed out to you... and even if it WERE true it would not necessarily require a God as you imagine it, so it wold not be evidence of one, it would just be evidence of something as yet unexplained.
No, not the freaking banana. Try again.
ONE THING. ONE SHRED of evidence. The entire scientific world waits eagerly - if you can show one bit of ACTUAL evidence you'll likely win a Nobel Prize.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Agnostic Z, thank you for your respectful tone. Of course no one "has to" agree, but, we're all disagreeing over which side best comprehends reality. One of us (or potentially neither one of us) is right, and the others wrong, and I think that you would concede, that to be right about this issue is incredibly important, because the stakes are so high. I do not deny that scientific advancement may come from this, just as it may also have come from the Nazi experiments on unwilling Jewish test subjects. Yet, if there is something wrong with the latter, I think that should tip you off something is wrong with the former as well.
Here's where God comes into play: Certain rights we have as humans, come from God and are natural rights, distinct from civil rights- rights granted by the state.
If there's a God, then this is wrong.
If there's not a God, then nothing is and man can just kill all the sick and not have to worry about curing them. (Yet...that seems repulsive to you, as it should...Why does it?)
March 12th, 2009 at 04:25 am
If there's not a God, then nothing is and man can just kill all the sick and not have to worry about curing them. (Yet...that seems repulsive to you, as it should...Why does it?)
To answer your question, killing the sick seems repulsive to me out of enlightened self interest. I don't want the sick to be killed because the possibility exists that I might become sick, and then I would be killed. I support the quest for cures because I might one day need that cure, for myself or someone I care about. I don't need a god to make me care about these things.
March 12th, 2009 at 08:12 pm
Don't invent religious explanations for norms in society like "don't kill people." Society figured that out ages ago without "natural rights" that come from a God. Of course we wouldn't kill all the sick. That's as repulsive to unbelievers as to you. But the repulsion doesn't come from a natural law. It comes from tens of thousands of years of figuring out what works best for society.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:24 pm
Embryos are not humans - They're a small collection of cells that you can't even see with the naked eye. Every time I blow my nose there are more human cells discarded on the ground than an embryo. Declaring human life is sacred at conception is absurd - maybe when the kid is viable at about six months, but protection for embryos? NOT. That's for Luddites.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I've never known an embryo created by 2 humans to produce anything other than a human baby at birth have you? It sounds like SIZE is a part of your arbitrary definition of human. What is your required size to "count?" Then, is 1 cell less not a human? What is he at that point? Potentially a dog? cat? No. He's always a human, just at the very beginning of the human journey.
Look: science can't answer the question "when does life start?" Because "life" as we're using it, is metaphysical. So, I hope that at least, one would take a cautious agnostic approach. If determining when life begins is "above your paygrade," then err on the side of caution for that embryo. Because YOU DON'T KNOW that he's not alive. Sex, eye color, shoe size, all of these things are determined at conception, at that point, the zygote had all of the genetic material he needs. With proper protection, nourishment, and other resources, he'll grow. Therefore, for those of you who can not rely upon Scripture (in none of my posts have I referenced it, rather have made appeals to general revelation and natural law) concede that the most reasonable course of action is to err in favor of the potential life. And what should happen to them? Well, so long as people are allowed to make the life, they should be given a chance to grow. Either in their parents or through embryonic adoption (Snow Flake Children is one such organization).
As a former embryo, why not protect embryos? Why should you have not been protected in your first week after implantation?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:01 am
My personal definition of life is very similar to the person you are responding to. Their point that more human tissue is discarded by blowing a nose than exists in an embryo is relevant. I consider it to be a human life at the point where there is a viable chance of survival outside the womb in a good preme center. That point would be 5-6 months into pregnancy. Conception does not equate with human life, just the possibility of future life.
March 12th, 2009 at 07:42 pm
Uhhh? ... Life doesn't begin. Well actually it did maybe a couple time a couple billion years ago, but conception is just two live cells interacting in a normal biological process. They're already alive and each is a human cell. There's nothing special about conception so why do anti-stem cell people make such a big deal about it. Human life isn't sacred. It's just like all other life. We decide when the best trade-offs for society, not religious dogma. Stem cell research justifies destroying embryos.
Oh ... now I can hear the whining. But then you have no absolutes about life! What's to prevent you from just deciding to kill everyone? Look at Hitler!
Grow up! Society has pretty well figured that out over the centuries and knows what's best and works. Look at the Scandanavians. Studies show their society is happier and healthier than ours: stem cell research and abortion are fine in their society. Now go look at Hitler. He didn't survive did he? He was scourge on the world and the world wiped him out. Didn't need the dogma of absolutes for that, huh? These things are pretty clear.
And if someone had aborted me in the first week after conception would I have cared? I don't think so. There weren't any brain cells or consciousness to care.
March 12th, 2009 at 08:02 pm
Pastor Mike - you put the emphasis on the wrong words in your first sentence. We know the definition of human. That's easy. Where we disagree is that human life is not sacred. These decisions on embryos are arbitrary. As the person above states we make the decisions based on the benefit to society, not on "sacredness."
March 10th, 2009 at 09:49 pm
every time a Christian gets a fertility treatment to conceive, they produce approximately 26 eggs that are then fertilized, selected, and 5 or so are implanted...at most, 15 eggs are used because they typically only try up to 3 times...
the left over eggs are frozen in tubes that are monitored and used for up to 10 years, after which they can no longer be implanted due to possibilities of birth defects. then they are thrown away.
do some research. ignorance has put us far behind.
or, start advocating that "Christians" no longer get fertility treatments...
March 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I do advocate that NO ONE participate in fertility treatments for this reason Anonymous. But this isn't a thread ABOUT that, so for the sake of brevity, did not fill you in on my entire system of belief, but just a part.
March 10th, 2009 at 06:16 pm
Hmm... Not a big fan of eating babies but if he can solve the health care crisis...
March 10th, 2009 at 07:44 pm
There's nothing wrong with killing defenseless humans as long as we benefit from it. Only the strongest survive.
Heil Hitler
March 10th, 2009 at 07:53 pm
are you retarded?
March 10th, 2009 at 07:55 pm
yes
March 10th, 2009 at 07:56 pm
Are you sure?
March 10th, 2009 at 07:56 pm
I'm positive.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:56 pm
OK , as long as you are sure.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:57 pm
Why do you ask?
March 10th, 2009 at 07:57 pm
Well I am also retarded.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:58 pm
Well hello fellow retarded person.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:58 pm
Hello to you too.
March 10th, 2009 at 07:59 pm
Running
March 10th, 2009 at 07:59 pm
out
March 10th, 2009 at 07:59 pm
of
March 10th, 2009 at 07:59 pm
thoughts
March 10th, 2009 at 08:00 pm
bye
March 10th, 2009 at 08:00 pm
?
March 11th, 2009 at 05:02 am
Fuck
March 10th, 2009 at 08:05 pm
Hey Steve's mom. The word you were looking for is "cite". Religion is seperate than State. So should religious views be looked at. I think we should use stem cell research. There are millions of murders in this world already, but many more people dieing from diseases. I think that it would be a good thing.
March 10th, 2009 at 08:25 pm
Anonymous Says:
March 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The Bible is the most accurate historical tome in history? Why didn't the Egyptians write about losing their Jews? And where's the Tower of Babel? And we're all in-bred? Fuck that shit. Basing your argument on a book that is almost unrecognizable compared to when it came together (do better research; most of the Jesus stories aren't in the earliest editions) is foolish and you cheapen yourself as a human being by it.
- I do not wish to argue for the validity of the bible as a historical record or anything else. In fact I agree with you, but you are missing a few things.
1 - There is a lot of true history in the bible, much of it is open to interpretation and is frequently mis-interpreted, but it doesnt change the fact that there is a lot of true history contained within it.
2 - The Egyptians did write about losing their "Jews". Only they weren't known to the Egyptians as Jews. They were known as the hiacsus line of Pharaohs, a second line of Pharaohs which was exiled from Egypt, Jesus, being the the heir to that throne.
3 - You obviously have no idea what the Torah is. The Torah, which is the first ...ummm 5 books of the bible I think, in Hebrew, is the exact same word for word as is has been for the last 3000+ years which can be shown in part by the dead sea scrolls. I know they are the old testament, but they are still included in the new testament; Genesis, revelations etc. My point being the book is FAR from being "unrecognizable" from its original version.
BTW if I were to be classified religiously id be considered Agnostic or Athiest, and am actually FAR from religious
March 10th, 2009 at 09:06 pm
Bible never said respect for human life. God told Isrealites to kill many sinners. Gays and adulters were given capital punishment. Harming of the unborn was a minor offense in the bible. Bible does teach to love one another. That the Christian always failed to do. Just look at Katrina. BTW, we never respect human life when we fight the war in Iraq. Arabs are worth less to us than whites. Blacks are also worth less.
Christians are extrapolating life down the moment of conception. That was never Jesus's intent.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:31 pm
"Just look at Katrina."
What? If you want to blame the government, go ahead, but I've *personally* helped prepare food to send to such disaster zones. Christians are working to help the unfortunate every day. Just because they don't parade their good deeds around doesn't mean they aren't doing them.
March 11th, 2009 at 07:47 am
"Christians are working to help the unfortunate every day."
You may not have meant it this way, and I apologize in advance if you didn't, but whether YOU did or not, it's certainly a popular and widely-held (and SORELY mistaken) belief that morality, kindness, and a desire to help others are somehow the exclusive province of the religious, in particular Christians. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that this is not the case. Those of us who neither have nor want a religion are not without morality or compassion. Many of us give our time, energy, or money to help where we can. We don't need a book or a god to tell us that's what's right. All we need is humanity.
People are working to help the unfortunate every day.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:09 pm
I'm Ron Burgundy?
March 10th, 2009 at 09:16 pm
This concern for embryos is a bit odd, given the general disregard for human life at any other stage of its existence. Doubly odd that the concern comes from Americans. Odder still is how much of the outrage comes from a collection of parables and fairy tales that are often at least as bloody and brutal as the most disturbed fiction ever written. How silly of Obama to be concerned with actual rather than potential people, for an embryo is nothing but a blob of cells that might become a person if a million things went right and which might be expelled from the body unnoticed if any of a million things went wrong.
Eventually, infertility treatment will get precise enough to not require the creation of so many superfluous embryos. Until then some enlightened humanism might actually help the people already walking around; who knows, it might even lead to a universal treatment for infertility. I have to think that any such outcome is better than those cells being incinerated as medical waste.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:36 pm
Absolutely. This christian concern is truly odd. So many places in the bible tell us to kill, and yet somehow christians fasten on to embryos as the one thing to spare. It's primarily Americans who worry about these things. The rest of the developed world is more modern. We'll get there too, just a little later.
March 10th, 2009 at 09:55 pm
I hope you're right. Unfortunately the religious wing-nut segment of the population still has vast areas of stupidity to explore and they're not constrained by anything resembling common sense. Religion, or the will to appear religious, is too deeply ingrained in too many people for it to go away any time soon.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I was catholic, but been an atheist for years. Mostly I've thought live-and-let-live. So long as the christian crazies stayed away from me, I didn't pay them much attention. I've changed my mind and I see many others changing theirs also.
When the evangelists start mucking around with things that degrade society in the name of their superstition, then it's time to fight them publicly. Opposing stem cell research, anti-family planning, gay-bashing and screwing up science education by ramming creationism and intelligent design through school boards is too much.
Time for all you silent atheists/agnostics to come out of the closet and do battle with these nuts. Polls yesterday show less religion in the US. Let catch up to our European brethren. Studies show their quality of life is better without old time religion.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Hey, how about we look at the facts before making assumptions that we know nothing about, ok? Embryonic Stem Cell research is not about religion vs. science. It's about results. Guess how many lives have been affected by embryonic stem cell research. ten thousand? one hundred? five? no. 0. Every single time scientists have used embryonic stem cells, the result was always a tumor. Adult Stem Cells, on the other hand, have had innumerable breakthroughs. Bush wasn't against stem cells in general. He wasn't even against embryonic stem cell research. The only thing that he was against was federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that used new embryos, whereas experiments that used existing lines of embryos received funding. If the private sector wanted to fund embryonic stem cell experiments, it was completely legal. The "Bush Ban" phrase that the liberal media has been using does not apply to stem cells which we actually benefit from. Do you know who the first President was to prohibit stem cell funding? No, not Bush. Clinton. That's right, Clinton. It's called the Dickey Amendment. Look it up. So before you go and make this argument something that its not about, how about you research it a bit more.
March 11th, 2009 at 04:22 am
Read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/a_major_change_in_stem_cell_po.php
March 11th, 2009 at 07:06 am
Not that right-wing liars like you will ever change,
but for those who want to know the facts, please read
this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/050413.html
March 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
You are wrong about the uselessness of embryonic stem cells in research. They are a major component of stem cell research in other developed nations around the world. One of the major concerns of scientists working with the 21 approved stem cell lines is that a more ethnically and genetically diverse sample is needed for research. What is needed is more embryonic stem cells containing genetic diseases for research. As most of the funding for such projects is typically government funding or government related we have had the problem of the government limiting our progress in an exciting field of research in the US.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Wendys in future: Welcome to Wendy's, I love you!
Valued Customer: My colon is all janky, can you recommend a valuable meal?
WIF: Drink Baby Apple Cup
VC: I am no ape.
WIF: Stem cellssssss *makes circular motion on stomach*
*Baby Centrofuge noises*
VC: Give me the chocolate fetus shake, I drink flurries. I'd like a codon spoon, too.
WIF: Here's your stemshake. I love you.
VC: Wendy's keeps me healthy and young.
STEM CELLS: WE WILL DRINK THEM IN THE FUTURE. WE WILL BE HEALTHY. WE WILL NEVER DIE.
Post new comment